- Unbeliebable: White House turns Bieber petition response into immigration screed
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador’s visa, but says law is ‘advisory’
- Mich. judge to laughing convicted killer: ‘I hope you die in prison’
- Man charged in Kansas City-area highway shootings
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
- Fla. man charged with killing 16-month-old son to play Xbox undisturbed
- Drones from the deep: Pentagon develops ocean-floor attack robots
- Michigan mayor slaps back atheists’ try to erect ‘reason station’ at city hall
- PHILLIPS: Where is the conservative establishment?
- 7.5-magnitude earthquake shakes southern Mexico
Companies protest any do-not-spam list
Companies that use e-mail as a marketing tool are urging the Federal Trade Commission to decide against compiling a national “Do Not E-mail” registry as a way to cut down on spam.
Nearly all the comments collected by the Federal Trade Commission regarding the registry have come from groups who say the list would burden legitimate marketers while doing little to stop the most pervasive kinds of unwanted e-mail.
Fifteen of the 17 public comments made available to reporters by the FTC argue against the registry. They include submissions from the Direct Marketing Association, Visa Inc., several e-mail publishers and a host of local real estate associations.
The proposed national “Do Not E-mail” registry is modeled after the new national “Do Not Call” list designed to protect consumers from marketer phone calls. It was proposed as part of the federal Can-Spam Act, which went into effect Jan. 1.
The FTC has until June to tell Congress whether the registry is feasible. The public has until April 20 to submit comments.
FTC Chairman Timothy Muris has said several times that he does not believe an effective list can be created. His major objection, echoed by most other registry opponents, is that it would restrict the activities of honest companies but would be ignored by the worst spammers, who hide their identities and are responsible for as much as 90 percent of unwanted e-mail.
Spam makes up more than half of e-mail sent worldwide, and is most often fraudulent, pornographic or both. Analysts estimate that businesses lose more than $10 billion each year in productivity and services related to the problem.
“Put simply, a [Do Not E-mail] Registry would do nothing to reduce the amount of spam in consumers’ inboxes,” wrote Trevor Hughes, executive director of the E-mail Service Providers Coalition, a group of 48 companies involved in e-mail marketing. The group said the registry “would impede the growth of e-commerce, confuse consumers, and provide a rich source of valid e-mail addresses for spammers and hackers to target.”
Comments favoring the registry came from Aristotle.Net Inc., a small Internet provider in Little Rock, Ark., and Vincent S. Comperatore, a certified public accountant in Clifton, N.J., who commented simply: “Best idea since the ‘Do Not Call List.’ I strongly support this.”
Many registry supporters said they did not submit comments to the FTC because they already had issued opinions regarding the Can-Spam Act in general.
The Direct Marketing Association, which represents 4,000 companies worldwide, said a registry would cost the U.S. economy $12.5 billion per year and that DMA members would see a dramatic decline in the $33 billion spent by consumers as a result of e-mail advertising.
“The real fear of this is that our members will follow it, but it won’t stop spam,” Jerry Cerasale, the DMA’s senior vice president for government affairs, said in an interview. “It would make a worse impression for marketers using the e-mail system.”
About 10 companies responded to the FTC’s request for information on how to create the registry. The FTC has labeled those submissions confidential, with the exception of Unspam, a Chicago company that did not request confidentiality.
Unspam’s chief executive officer, Matthew Prince, said a registry would do little to stop e-mail from dishonest marketers.
But he said a registry would help build cases against spammers once they are caught, because prosecutors simply would have to prove that they sent messages to an e-mail addresses listed on the registry. Current laws usually require prosecutors to prove the e-mail messages were fraudulent or that the recipient explicitly asked not to receive them.
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
- Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- EDITORIAL: More Lerner smoking-gun emails at IRS
- Nancy Pelosi washes immigrants' feet in humble Holy Week act then promotes on Twitter
- Former Blue Angels commander relieved of duty for alleged misconduct
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.