Want to zap CAN-SPAM for being nothing but a continuing spam facilitator without an opt-in clause? Want to tell Uncle Sam what really is and really might not be spam by primary purpose? Your chance has arrived: the Federal Trade Commission is posting a Web form at the government's centralized rulemaking Website to make it easy for people to say what they think about the war on spam.
CAN-SPAM requires the FTC to issue regulations "defining the relevant criteria to facilitate the determination of the primary purpose of an electronic mail message," the commission said in their March 11 announcement. "Since the CAN-SPAM Act applies almost exclusively to 'commercial electronic mail messages,' defining the criteria used to determine the 'primary purpose' of an e-mail will clarify how to determine whether the Act applies to certain electronic messages."
The FTC was given authority under CAN-SPAM to hand down rule provisions modifying definitions in five categories of messages designated by the new law as "transactional or relationship messages" - that's business or personal correspondence in government lingo, of course.
"For example, messages sent 'to facilitate, complete, or confirm a transaction the recipient has agreed to enter into with the sender' are deemed to be 'transactional or relationship messages,' and are therefore exempt from the Act?s requirements that apply only to commercial e-mail," the FTC said. The commission can allow for modifying those if it finds modification "necessary to accommodate technological changes in or to accomplish the purposes of the Act."
And that, the commission said, is a prime reason why they are seeking public comment on whether it should do it and how.
The FTC also wants comments on whether it should modify CAN-SPAM's 10-day period for "effectuating opt-out requests," including comments on the "reasonableness" of the 10-day timeframe and whether a different timeframe would be more sensible, balancing between consumers' interest in opting out and "the burdens imposed on senders of lawful commercial e-mail."
The commission further wants public comment on what else should be added to listings of "aggravated violations" like e-mail harvesting and dictionary attacks. And it wants to know whether more regulations would help fight spam; whether it would help companies and individuals if the FTC adopted provisions clarifying legal obligations of senders and recipients who forward messages to friends; whether the FTC should draw provisions clarifying what makes a "valid physical postal address"; and whether CAN-SPAM's treatment of "from" line information is clear enough or needs a more clear requirement that the line identify a sender by name.
As if that weren't enough for you to think or write about, the FTC also wants public comment on four reports CAN-SPAM requires it to send to Congress: a report on setting up a national do-not-e-mail registry by June 16; a report on setting up a reward system for those blowing the whistle on CAN-SPAM violations by September 16; a report on a plan to require commercial e-mail be identified from subject lines by June 16, 2005; and, a report on CAN-SPAM's actual effectiveness by December 16, 2005.
