The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced that they are seeking comments on several aspects of CAN-SPAM which they will be clarifying or modifying.
According to the FTC, the proposed clarifications or modifications to CAN-SPAM include modifying the definition of “sender” to make it clearer just who is responsible for honouring a user’s opt-out request (now if only they would do the same for the term “spam”!), clarifying that a post office or private mailbox satisfies the requirement of including a sender’s physical address in bulk email, changing the length of time within which a sender must honour an opt-out requirement from 10 days down to 3 days (yay!), and, perhaps Aunty’s favourite, making clear that a sender cannot require a user to jump through hoops in order to be removed from a mailing list, including that they cannot be required to pay a fee, provide information beyond their email address and opt-out preferences, or to do anything more than either reply to a message or visit a web link.
So, if you feel strongly about any of these things, run, don’t walk, over to the FTC website and tell them how you feel. And remember, perhaps unlike any similar law before it, CAN-SPAM has been crafted largely by, and continues to be reshaped by, input from the spammed public (that’s you, dear readers). If you don’t let the FTC know your thoughts, then don’t complain about how CAN-SPAM works, or doesn’t.
The link to provide feedback to the FTC about these CAN-SPAM issues is [Page no longer available – we have linked to the archive.org version instead]
|No Paywall Here!
The Internet Patrol is and always has been free. We don't hide our articles behind a paywall, or restrict the number of articles you can read in a month if you don't give us money. That said, it does cost us money to run the site, so if something you read here was helpful or useful, won't you consider donating something to help keep the Internet Patrol free?