The Federal Trade Commission yesterday issued a seemingly inexplicable statement warning Hawaii of the dangers of implementing a so-called child-protection do-not-e-mail list.

This is the third time the FTC has publicly come out against do-not-e-mail registries. It issued a report in June 2004 saying a national do-not-e-mail registry is a bad idea. Then in November it issued a warning statement to Illinois against the idea of a kids

The Federal Trade Commission this morning issued a seemingly inexplicable statement warning Hawaii of the dangers of implementing a so-called child-protection do-not-e-mail list.

This is the third time the FTC has publicly come out against do-not-e-mail registries. It issued a report in June 2004 saying a national do-not-e-mail registry is a bad idea. Then in November it issued a warning statement to Illinois.

And just as was the case when the FTC issued its statement to Illinois, the Hawaiian bill that was intended to establish a no-email list in the state is dead.

As a result, it would seem the FTC’s letter to Hawaii addresses a non-threat.

Hawaii’s kids no-e-mail bill, SB 2200, died when it failed to meet a March 9 deadline to cross over into the state’s Senate.

In its letter to Hawaii, the FTC once again spelled out the dangers of a kids’ no-e-mail registry. Among them: it cannot be secured from internal attacks, it may increase the likelihood that children’s e-mail addresses may fall into the wrong hands, and it would put an unfair and market-chilling burden on law-abiding businesses.

After the FTC published its warning to Illinois, it turned out that State Rep. Jack Franks was getting ready to reintroduce a child-no-e-mail bill. Franks later decided the idea of a kids-no-e-mail registry was fatally flawed and pulled his bill.

It is unclear whether a kids-no-e-mail bill will be reintroduced in Hawaii.

A spokesman for the FTC said the people who published the letter to Hawaii probably weren’t aware that the state’s bill had died.

Carol Fukunaga, the Hawaiian Senator to whom the FTC’s letter to that state was addressed, was not immediately reachable for comment.