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

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

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

Email and politics

I occasionally consult for activists using email. Their needs and requirements are a little different from email marketers. Sure, the requirements for email delivery are the same: relevant and engaging mail to people who requested it. But there are complicating issues that most marketers don’t necessarily have to deal with.
Activist groups are attractive targets for forged signups. Think about it, when people get deeply involved in arguments on the internet, they often look for ways to harass the person on the other end of the disagreement. They will often signup the people they’re disagreeing with for mailing lists. When the disagreements are political, the logical target is a group on the other side of the political divide.
People also sign up spamtraps and bad addresses as a way to cause problems or harass the political group itself. Often this results in the activist group getting blocked. This never ends well, as instead of fixing the problem, the group goes yelling about how their voice is being silenced and their politics are being censored!!
No, they’re not being silenced, they’re running an open mailing list and a lot of people are on it who never asked to be on it. They’re complaining and the mail is getting blocked.
With that as background, I noticed one of the major political blogs announced their brand new mailing list today. Based on their announcement it seemed they that they may have talked to someone who knew about managing a mailing list.

Read More