Political Fraud & Spam

The Conservative Party is one of the largest political parties in the UK. They’re center-right politically (by European standards), nationalist and pro-business. You’ll often see them called the Tory party or Tories – a pejorative nickname they acquired 350 years ago.
While they’re part of the ruling coalition today, there’s a general election coming up in the next couple of weeks and they’re, well, campaigning aggressively. A group of 500 small business owners co-signed a letter to the Telegraph (a mainstream UK newspaper that supports the Conservatives consistently enough that it’s widely known as the Torygraph) expressing strong support for Conservative economic policies and drumming up votes for the election.
So far, nothing unusual. So why am I talking about it? And why am I talking about it here, on an email blog?
As people began to look at the letter, the story began to unravel. First, the letter was published on the Telegraph website as  a PDF – and the PDF metadata showed it had been written by the Conservative’s press office, not a group of small businesses.
 
https://twitter.com/GabrielScally/status/592476275362529280
 
Then it turned out that many of the signatories seemed to have signed it multiple times, each representing slightly different company names. Somebody didn’t dedupe their purchased list, it seems.
When contacted, many of the signatories denied signing anything. Several of them did mention receiving email (spam?) and clicking on a link.

I am beginning to have very serious doubts as to how many of even the legitimate businesses on the list actually signed anything. Aurum Solutions have issued a statement. Their sales director received an email from Brady “and recalls clicking on the link to find out more”. That’s it. He does not recall signing anything and denies strongly providing any information about the company. Could it be that this was merely an aggressive piece of spamming, where database entries referring to people and their workplace were signed up to this shambles at the mere click of the link?
— Alex Andreou (SturdyBlog)

So it seems to have been a poorly targeted email campaign – apparently some part of which was spam to purchased addresses given the recipients – that used the personal information of people who clicked through as signatories on a piece of political theatre.
There’s a lot more data and discussion at SturdyBlog and also a storify of some of the relevant tweets. The “Grant Shapps” you see mentioned throughout is the SEO Spammer / Conservative Party Chairman.
What’s the email-related message to take away from all this?

  • Political email campaigns stretch – and break – the boundaries of acceptable behaviour worldwide, not just in the US
  • Just because someone has an email address @example.com does not mean they can speak on behalf of Example Corporation
  • If you behave deceptively and annoy enough people someone will uncover and publicise your deception
  • Uninformed clickthrough is not consent

Related Posts

The perils of politics

I’ve talked a little bit about political and activist mail in the past. In general, I believe political mailers tend to be aggressive in their address collection techniques and sloppy in acquiring permission.
For the most part, politicians can get away with aggressive email marketing in a way that commercial emailers can’t always. The laws for commercial email don’t really apply to political emails. Politicians and activists don’t have to comply with CAN SPAM. They don’t even have to stop mailing if you opt-out. They don’t have to identify themselves the way commercial emailers do. They trade, sell, barter and borrow voter data, including email addresses.
This doesn’t mean the politicians don’t get blocked. They most certainly do suffer delivery consequences to their behaviour.
Well, today I saw another article talking about the pitfalls of political mailings. According to US News, a number of people who are unlikely to be Republican supporters were reporting that they were spammed by the Romney campaign.
The Romney campaign says it wasn’t them, and that they are only sending mail to people who signed up to receive it. This is possible, the article at US News says that the signups came from an IP address that is part of the Tor network. What is Tor? Tor is a way to hide your location on the internet. Ever watch a crime show and see the master geek track a bad guy all over the world by IP address? That’s basically what Tor does.
It’s very possible someone did find a list of email addresses of people guaranteed to be angry about getting mail from the Romney campaign. It’s very possible they used Tor nodes to submit those addresses the campaign lists. It’s been known to happen, and it’s not like this election is getting any less contentious as we get closer to November.
Forged subscriptions are a problem for every activist and political mailing list. But most of them don’t take any steps to protect themselves from maliciousness. Welcome emails, confirmation emails, audit trails, monitoring can help minimize the chance of subscribing a lot of people who don’t want that mail. Most political and activist groups won’t take that step, though. They’d rather increase lists by any means necessary without adding any controls on making sure those addresses are valid.
The irony is that the first thing activists blame when they do have email delivery problems is their political opponents forging addresses into their list. But they still push back against actually implementing controls and protections against the practice.
As with many things, politicians want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the extra volume that comes from indiscriminate signups, but don’t think that should cause them any problems. It doesn’t work that way in the real world, though.

Read More

Update on Herman Cain advertising male enhancement drugs

Shawn Studer from newsmax.com contacted me today with a statement about the Herman Cain mailing list.

Read More

A series of tubes

ASeriesofTubes_thumb
The Internet and pundits had a field day with Senator Stevens, when he explained the Internet was a series of tubes.
I always interpreted his statement as coming from someone who demanded an engineer tell him why his mail was delayed. The engineer used the “tube” metaphor to explain network congestion and packets and TCP, and when the Senator tried to forward on the information he got it a little wrong. I do credit the Senator with trying to understand how the Internet works, even if he got it somewhat wrong. This knowledge, or lack there of, drove his policy positions on the issue of Net Neutrality.
In the coming years, I believe we’re going to be seeing more regulations around the net, both for individuals and for corporations. These regulations can make things better, or they can make things worse. I believe it’s extremely important that our elected officials have a working understanding of the Internet in order to make sensible policy. This understanding doesn’t have to be in their own head, they can hire smart people to answer their questions and explain the implications of policy.
Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks it is important for our elected officials to have a working knowledge of technology. Paul Schreiber put up a blog post comparing the website technology used by the current Presidential candidates. Do I really expect the candidate to be involved in decisions like what domain registrar or SSL certificate provider to use? No. But I do expect them to hire people who can create and build technology that is within current best practices.

Read More