White House sending spam?

There has been some press about political spam recently. People are receiving email from the White House that they have not opted into. At a recent press conference a reporter challenged the press secretary to defend the practice.
Chris Wheeler over at Bronto blog points out that CAN SPAM doesn’t apply as this is political mail, and CAN SPAM only covers commercial email. He also notes that most of the mail came from “forward to a friend” links which the sender has little to no control over.
Gawker has a post up “Everything you need to know about Obama’s Spam-Gate.”
There are a lot of issues here. Chris asks a number of questions on his blog, that I encourage people to think about.

  1. Do you think it’s fair that political emails are exempt from CAN-SPAM?
  2. Should “Tell a Friend” be an option on a heated topic such as this that will inevitably land in some folks’ inboxes and peeve them?
  3. Is it enough for the White House to say it only sent to recipients who opted in at the site or should they provide further evidence of this position?
  4. Do you believe politicians, including but not limited to those in the White House, engage in using rented lists?

I have some other thoughts on the subject. Mostly centered around how difficult the complainers are making it for the White House to investigate this.
Refusing to turn over email addresses to abuse desks or senders is one of the things that can be a good idea or may not be a good idea. But if you don’t turn over the email address where you received spam, then you have to accept the fact that the sender may not be able to answer the question “Why did I get this mail?” (aka, why are you spamming me!?!?!).
It may be that the White House is buying lists and spamming. It’s just as likely that there are other explanations. People politically involved online do sometimes put email addresses of people they disagree with in signup forms, and then all of it sudden it looks like The Other Side is spamming. It could be a forward to a friend process where individuals are forwarding mails to friends (and enemies!). It could be any number of things.
The only way the truth is going to be known is if people who received the mail provide full copies of the mail, including headers, and if the White House ESP folks have the ability to audit the source of the addresses. Without both of those things, it can be impossible to determine why a particular recipient received spam.

Related Posts

12% of email recipients respond to spam

Twitter and some of the other delivery blogs are all abuzz today talking about the consumer survey released by MAAWG (pdf link, large file) looking at end user knowledge and awareness of email security practices.
The survey has a lot of good data and I strongly encourage people to look at the full report. There are a couple of results that are generating most of the buzz, including the fact that nearly half of the respondents have clicked on a link or replied to a spam email. Additionally, 17% of respondents said they made a mistake when they clicked on the link.
The magic statistic, though, is that 12% of the respondents said that they responded to spam because they were interested in the products or services offered in the spam. This, right there, is one of the major reasons why spam continues and is a growing problem. Out of 800 people surveyed, almost 100 of them were interested enough in the products sold by spam to respond positively. There are roughly 1.6 billion people on the Internet, which gives spammers a market of 200 million people for their spam.
Other studies have seen similar responses, that is consumers do respond to spam. Most surveys don’t define spam, however, and given a lot of consumers call “mail I don’t like” or “all commercial email” as spam it’s hard to know what the respondents are responding too. In some studies, some respondents even defined mail from companies that they had given their email address to, but had not explicitly asked for email from as spam.  In this study MAAWG did request how the respondent defined spam. Of the respondents, 60% say spam is mail they did not solicit, and 41% say spam is mail that ends up in the spam folder. Given that 60% of respondents define spam as “unsolicited email” it is possible that some people are responding to mail they never requested.
Sad news for those of us who were hoping that lack of consumer response would make spamming unprofitable enough that spammers would stop.
The crosstab between “how do you define spam” and “how do you react to spam” may be an interesting data set to see.

Read More

Spam judgment not covered by insurance

Earlier this month a judge ruled that two insurance policies held by Scott Richter’s Media Breakaway were not liable to pay $6M in damages awarded in a previous case.
Myspace initially sued Media Breakaway in 2007 for allegedly using phished Myspace accounts to send emails advertising Media Breakaway websites. In summer 2008 and arbiter ruled in favor of Myspace and against Media Breakaway. After the ruling, Media Breakaway attempted to have insurance cover the fine. The insurance company denied the claims so Media Breakaway took them to court. Media Breakaway lost.
Scott has been around in the email marketing arena for a very long time. He’s had multiple run ins with the law, including a 2003 felony theft charge for stealing a number of things, including a Bobcat loader and a 2004 suit brought against him by the NY Attorney General’s office and Microsoft for spamming and deceptive advertising. That court case bankrupted his previous company, OptInRealBig. Scott has also appeared on the Daily Show, in a side-splittingly funny story about spam and email marketing…. er… high volume email deploying.

Read More

Three ways spammers get your address

Paul explains 3 ways spammers get your email address.

Read More