<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: White House sending spam?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/08/white-house-sending-spam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/08/white-house-sending-spam/</link>
	<description>Email, Delivery, Spam and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:06:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Email as a PR problem at Word to the Wise</title>
		<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/08/white-house-sending-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-2488</link>
		<dc:creator>Email as a PR problem at Word to the Wise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:50:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wordtothewise.com/?p=551#comment-2488</guid>
		<description>[...] well as they might in other media. This means that sometimes email campaigns go wrong in a way that drives a national news story about how you are a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] well as they might in other media. This means that sometimes email campaigns go wrong in a way that drives a national news story about how you are a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Wheeler</title>
		<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/08/white-house-sending-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-2489</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Wheeler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wordtothewise.com/?p=551#comment-2489</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the reference, Laura.

This issue received so much press that the White House provided an official response and Fox news did an interview with Major (the reporter who surfaced the issue) this morning.  I&#039;ve updated my original blog post to contain links to these.

http://blog.bronto.com/2009/08/14/white-house-email-acquisition-controversy/

Of significant interest, the WH says:

&quot;“The White House e-mail list is made up of e-mail addresses obtained solely through the White House website. The White House doesn&#039;t purchase, upload or merge from any other list. … [A]ll e-mails come from the White House website
as we have no interest in emailing anyone who does not want to receive an email.

“If an individual received the e-mail because someone else or a group signed them up or forwarded the email, we hope they were not too inconvenienced. Further, we suggest that they unsubscribe from the list by clicking the link at the bottom of the e-mail or tell whomever forwarded it to them not to forward such information anymore.”

The also say they&#039;ll crack down on opt-in policies.  Double opt-in perhaps?  I wonder if this is just rhetoric or if the WH will actually do anything to beef up the process.  If TAF is too risky, don&#039;t add the feature - let friends forward their copy.  And, with information being publicized about how they&#039;ve previously acquired email addresses from online petitions, that seems to be in conflict with them getting email addresses by recipients directly opting in at whitehouse.gov.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the reference, Laura.</p>
<p>This issue received so much press that the White House provided an official response and Fox news did an interview with Major (the reporter who surfaced the issue) this morning.  I&#8217;ve updated my original blog post to contain links to these.</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.bronto.com/2009/08/14/white-house-email-acquisition-controversy/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.bronto.com/2009/08/14/white-house-email-acquisition-controversy/</a></p>
<p>Of significant interest, the WH says:</p>
<p>&#8220;“The White House e-mail list is made up of e-mail addresses obtained solely through the White House website. The White House doesn&#8217;t purchase, upload or merge from any other list. … [A]ll e-mails come from the White House website<br />
as we have no interest in emailing anyone who does not want to receive an email.</p>
<p>“If an individual received the e-mail because someone else or a group signed them up or forwarded the email, we hope they were not too inconvenienced. Further, we suggest that they unsubscribe from the list by clicking the link at the bottom of the e-mail or tell whomever forwarded it to them not to forward such information anymore.”</p>
<p>The also say they&#8217;ll crack down on opt-in policies.  Double opt-in perhaps?  I wonder if this is just rhetoric or if the WH will actually do anything to beef up the process.  If TAF is too risky, don&#8217;t add the feature &#8211; let friends forward their copy.  And, with information being publicized about how they&#8217;ve previously acquired email addresses from online petitions, that seems to be in conflict with them getting email addresses by recipients directly opting in at whitehouse.gov.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay Levitt</title>
		<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/08/white-house-sending-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-2490</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay Levitt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wordtothewise.com/?p=551#comment-2490</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think it&#039;s &quot;fair&quot; that CAN-SPAM exempts political e-mails, but I do think it&#039;s necessary. I recall a lot of discussion on this in the &#039;90s, when most of the state anti-spam bills were written, and if you don&#039;t exempt political speech then the law itself gets struck down in court, since it places unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.

(IANAL, but I swayed one in DC.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s &#8220;fair&#8221; that CAN-SPAM exempts political e-mails, but I do think it&#8217;s necessary. I recall a lot of discussion on this in the &#8217;90s, when most of the state anti-spam bills were written, and if you don&#8217;t exempt political speech then the law itself gets struck down in court, since it places unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.</p>
<p>(IANAL, but I swayed one in DC.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Caldwell</title>
		<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2009/08/white-house-sending-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-2487</link>
		<dc:creator>John Caldwell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 06:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wordtothewise.com/?p=551#comment-2487</guid>
		<description>Nobody seems to be talking about the possiblitiy that email addresses collected under the White House&#039;s &quot;turn in your friends for sending &#039;fishy&#039; &#039;health care&#039; emails&quot; project could be being harvested and then mailed to.

If that&#039;s the case, I could understand why some people receiving the email might not want to share their email address with those same people....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nobody seems to be talking about the possiblitiy that email addresses collected under the White House&#8217;s &#8220;turn in your friends for sending &#8216;fishy&#8217; &#8216;health care&#8217; emails&#8221; project could be being harvested and then mailed to.</p>
<p>If that&#8217;s the case, I could understand why some people receiving the email might not want to share their email address with those same people&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

