Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government Politics

Australian Prime-Minister Sends Spam 350

Posted by CowboyNeal from the getting-the-word-out dept.
Boricle writes "The Australian Prime Minister has been personally funding the sending of political spam to the members of his electorate. The spam has been sent under contract by his son's company of whom he is 'very proud.' Political Spam is permitted under Australian Spam Legislation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Prime-Minister Sends Spam More

Australian Prime-Minister Sends Spam

Comments Filter:

  • Of course it's permitted (Score:5, Funny)

    by RollingThunder ( 88952 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:34AM (#10086015)
    After all, you have a pre-existing business relationship with them, right? You do pay your taxes, don't you citizen? ;)
    • The relationship is with the government, not the prime-minister or the party. The prime minister is yet another citizen, who (is supposed to) pay taxes as well.

      -

    • www.johnhowardlies.com (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Want to find out more about this idiot?

      Try: http://www.johnhowardlies.com/

    • Re:Of course it's permitted (Score:5, Informative)

      by Capsaicin ( 412918 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:49AM (#10086276)

      After all, you have a pre-existing business relationship with them, right?

      Jokes aside, the reason it is permitted is that the High Court has found an implied right to political communication in the Constitution. A federal law banning political spam would be invalid.

      Inveterate Howard hater though I am, and as much as I dislike spam, I have to concede that it is his perfect right to do this, as it ought to be his right.

      • the reason it is permitted is that the High Court has found an implied right to political communication in the Constitution. A federal law banning political spam would be invalid

        Like many things legal, it's not that simple. A ban including political spam would probably have survived a constitutional challenge - the Government just didn't want to go there.

        The most effective way to punish spamming politicians of course is to vote for somebody else.

        • The most effective way to punish spamming politicians of course is to vote for somebody else.
          And in addition write the spammer a letter saying "I would have voted for you but I hate spam."

      • Re:Of course it's permitted (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @05:25AM (#10086519)
        Jokes aside, the reason it is permitted is that the High Court has found an implied right to political communication in the Constitution. A federal law banning political spam would be invalid.
        That doesn't necessarily follow. Sending you an e-mail costs you money. If politicians want to communicate with you they can send you a letter, which only costs you the time to pick it up.

        Besides, not all forms of communication are allowed regardless of how political they are. A horse's head in your bed with a note saying "Vote for me or I'll kill you" should get the sender a gaol sentence.

        • uuhhh.. sending physical mail costs you much more then email. You are paying with tax dollars and environmental impact or you are paying with effort of hitting the delete button.
      • Your .sig is so amazingly appropos that I thought I would point it out for the people who read with .sig's disabled:

        the reason it is permitted is that the High Court has found an implied right to political communication in the Constitution. A federal law banning political spam would be invalid.
        ...

        None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -- Goethe
      • What? Do I have a right to invade your home and make a political speech in your living room?

        I'm not at all familiar with the Australian Constitution, but the American ideal of free speech is the freedom to speak, not a guarantee of being heard.

        Keep your speech out of my fucking inbox.

        -Peter

  • Isn't it about time... (Score:4, Informative)

    by fireman sam ( 662213 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:34AM (#10086016) Homepage Journal
    We, as Australian's vote him out!!!

  • Johnny Howard Strikes Back (Score:3, Funny)

    by BladeMelbourne ( 518866 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:36AM (#10086024)
    But is it legal for the labor party to send spam?

  • Can Spam Act (Score:3, Insightful)

    by usefool ( 798755 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:36AM (#10086025) Homepage
    Nothing surprising here, it's just as bad as the Can-Spam Act, which is just another way of allowing spams to continue.
    • No, the Australian Act doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited commercial email, the US act does given certain provisos (physical address, "working" opt-out link, etc.).

  • The question is how? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GaussianInteger ( 772028 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:36AM (#10086029)
    I'm interesting in HOW he's able to do this. I mean, is it a clause that SOLELY allows political spam, or is he exploiting a loophole, as a previous poster pointed out, about pre-existing business relationships. If the former is true, then its very amusing how these politicans make "backdoors" for themselves in law.

    • Re:The question is how? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Atrax ( 249401 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:41AM (#10086046) Homepage Journal
      I mean, is it a clause that SOLELY allows political spam, or is he exploiting a loophole

      Charities and political parties are exempt.

      Why political parties? Same reason as hard-core porn, prostitution and pot smoking are permitted in Canberra. Politicians aren't like everyone else.

    • Re:The question is how? (Score:5, Informative)

      by naden ( 206984 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:44AM (#10086059)
      I'm interesting in HOW he's able to do this. I mean, is it a clause that SOLELY allows political spam, or is he exploiting a loophole, as a previous poster pointed out, about pre-existing business relationships. If the former is true, then its very amusing how these politicans make "backdoors" for themselves in law.

      He is able to do this because of a "so called" loophole in the anti spam law that allows political parties, not for profit and charity organisations to send unsolicited emails.

    • Re:The question is how? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Poltical spam and spam from charities have been exempted from the recently enacted anti spamming laws, just as the pollies have exempted themselves from the truth in electronic media advertising laws and political leaflets can be deposited in letterboxes marked 'No advertising' without penalty.

      Slander is perfectly acceptable under parliamentary privilege, but not once the pollies step out in public, though parliamentary sessions are often aired on public television! It seems like the politicians have thei
    • its very amusing how these politicans make "backdoors" for themselves in law.

      After you've been watching it for another 20 years, it'll probably stop amusing you.

      I'm more familiar with the US. Where Congress "gave" us Social Security, for example ... but exempted themselves from it. They don't pay Social Security taxes like the rest of us, and they have a real pension system, that gives them all great pensions that are more than 90% of the voters earn while working.

      The pols in many countries rip off the p

    • He's not (Score:5, Interesting)

      by violet16 ( 700870 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:27AM (#10086192)

      Oh, there's a backdoor all right. The government passed a law that made it illegal for companies to spam, but not political parties or charities.

      So the Prime Minister is allowed to spam. However, in this case, he hired a company to spam for him -- so it might be illegal. That's why the Opposition is calling for an inquiry [smh.com.au].

      Here [smh.com.au] is the original report, by the way -- the one linked to by the Slashdot story just reports what this one said.

      And you might be interested to know that this [netharbour.com.au] is the company that did the spamming.

    • From a related article:

      Mr Howard employed a loophole in his government's own anti-spam laws which does not penalise political parties, the government, charities and religious organisations for sending mass emails ..... the exemption in the law was not intended to sanction en masse spamming.

      "They were saying that it was just there as a safety margin in case one of these groups inadvertently got caught by it," he said.

      "It wasn't meant to be a green light."

  • What's more (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:37AM (#10086032)
    One of the candidates in John Howard's electorate (the Australian version of a Congressional district) is former chairman [rollo.name] of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email, Troy Rollo, who is not happy, John [smh.com.au]

  • I can just imagine (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:38AM (#10086037)
    Subject: Fr33 V!/\Gr4 V0te for $president 4|\|D r3c!3\/e l!f3t!m3 s[_]pp!y

  • He's got a habit of nepotism... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Atrax ( 249401 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:38AM (#10086039) Homepage Journal
    ... such as a prior low-level scandal where he initiated a government bail out of his brother's failing company (in preference to a number of other high profile corporate crashes). Now he's contracted his son to send spam.

    not surprising at all.

  • Double Standards (Score:4, Informative)

    by joeldixon66 ( 808412 ) * <joel@jd53.cBLUEom minus berry> on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:41AM (#10086043) Homepage
    It's interesting to note that it was John Howard's Government that brought in these Anti-SPAM laws - as well as the exemption for Political Parties. link [news.com.au]

    I'm sure Troy Rollo (a candidate for John Howard's seat of Bennelong) will milk this for all it's worth - as he's also on the anti-spam group "Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk E-mail in Australia (CAUBE.AU)".

    • Re:Double Standards (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:54AM (#10086294)

      The exemption from Anti-spam laws is for political parties. John Howard has repeatedly said that he paid for the spam out of his own pocket, and he's not a political party. I hope somebody who received the spam reports him based on this technicality, because it sure would be funny for him and his son (and his son is also not a political party) to receive fines of ONE! MILLION! DOLLARS!.

      This is not a partisan political comment, I just don't like spam. Can I get my email with a little bit less spam in it please? A high-profile spamming conviction (and how much higher profile can we get than the Prime Minister) might help to reduce the spam burden.

      Also, let's not forget that spam is unsolicited bulk email, and SPAM is Hormel's trademark for their delicious spiced-meat product.

      • Re:Double Standards (Score:3, Informative)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )
        A high-profile spamming conviction
        This isn't going to happen - the last member of this government who did something obviously illegal (letting his son and freinds run up a million dollar phone bill at government expense) got promoted to defence minister.

  • stupid stupid stupid (Score:5, Informative)

    by i88i ( 720935 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:41AM (#10086045)
    they even managed to spam the anti-spammer [news.com.au].
    Probably not the smartest thing to do.

  • Software patents and spam can byte me. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vivian ( 156520 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:42AM (#10086051)
    I would have thought that with a son in the IT industry, Jonnie Howard would have been at least mildly concerned about the software patent/IP issues in the unpopular "free trade" agreement we recently got shoved down out throats.

    Too much to expect, I suppose.

    We don't even have an alternative come the next election because the Labor party has accepted them too. So much for democracy & having a choice.

    So what can the average joe citizen do to fight crap like this, when all the parties seem to have identical policies on issues like this?

    • So start your own party, I think just about all democracies allow this :)

      • "So start your own party, I think just about all democracies allow this :)"

        Exactly. That's just what I've done (see sig). People, the way to defeat bad laws is not to bitch and moan that it's impossible to change because you have to vote for one of the big two, it's to vote for one of the OTHER alternatives or form your own. If enough people did this then maybe you'd see more than two "major" parties and have some REAL choice in policy formation.

  • In defence of the prime-minister... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:45AM (#10086060) Journal
    He was using Windows on his machine, so he can't be blamed for the inadvertent transmission of personal files!

    (This is not a troll. I believe a spammer got acquitted citing this ground).

    -

  • Small business... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by _Hellfire_ ( 170113 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:48AM (#10086070)
    "I'm very proud of the fact that my son has started a small business in his 20s and I get a real buzz out of the fact that he's prepared to have a go in small business," Mr Howard said.

    "That is what the future of this country is all about."

    This from a man who has made it harder than ever in the history of this country to start and run small business through legislation, taxes, and new paperwork requirements.

    In addition he has announced tax cuts for the middle to higher income earners and no help at all for lower income earners. Small business in Australia is treated like nothing, even though close to half of Australia's economy runs on the back of it.

    The average small business owner is crushed by the weight of ever increasing government reporting requirements and he thinks that small business is the future of the country.

    Yeah, right...

    • Re:Small business... (Score:5, Informative)

      by tezza ( 539307 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:45AM (#10086259)
      Before I moved to the UK, at 21 I started a clothing company selling clubbing fashion. It existed under the Wholesale Sales tax and then the GST.

      Can I just say how much, much, much easier it was under the GST and the simplifications than under the previous system.

      I still get the GST forms sent to me in London. All I have to do is write NIL in four boxes and post it back. Please tell me where I'm struggling under the weight of that?? If I resumed trading, there would still only be 4 boxes to fill out, which Quicken does automatically.

      crushed by the weight ??

      Come on. That's just plain wrong.

      Also all the Australian tax [ato.gov.au] sites are clear, and you can lodge returns all electronically. I don't see any British equivalent. All these were brought in under Howard too.

  • The Future of Australia? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by femto ( 459605 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:50AM (#10086080) Homepage
    Here's the juciest quote [abc.net.au]:
    "I'm very proud of the fact that my son has started a small business. He's in his 20s and I get a real buzz out of the fact that he's prepared to have a go in a small business, that's what the future of this country is all about."

    So the future of Australia lies in f**ing up everyone else's life so one person can get ahead?

    We can all pack up and go home now. Australian mateship is dead.

    • Re:The Future of Australia? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Atrax ( 249401 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:59AM (#10086111) Homepage Journal
      I prefer to listen to satirical Howard quotes [abc.net.au] rather than the real ones. They make more sense.
    • While I was on unemployment benefit, one of the official (read: do it, or have your benefits reduced) ways to try and get work was to cold call every business in your field. I refused, however I got a job before it became an issue.
    • Australian mateship is dead

      Australian mateship will never die. Don't ask me to define what it is - "friends" or even "best friends" just doesn't even really come close - but I can tell you it's still well and truly alive and as long as there is an ANZAC spirit or equivalent it always will be. Sorry, small attack of extreme patriotism there, it won't happen again your honour, honest :)
    • Come on. All I hear is people screaming blue murder.

      How exactly is this f**ing up everyone elses life here? The occasional email around election time. Please on election day you spend more time fending off the pamphlet-handing-out people. Put it in perspective and take a few deep breaths

      We can all pack up and go home now. Australian mateship is dead.

      Well I haven't read such a ridiculous piece of melodrama since Kylie and Jason had a tiff in Neighbours in the 80's. Where exactly are you going to pack up

  • Let the booting begin! (Score:5, Funny)

    by permaculture ( 567540 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @02:59AM (#10086108) Homepage Journal
    Homer: "Stand back, or I'll boot your Prime Minister! I'll do it, so help me God I'll boot him!"

  • I think abuse of this sort of thing should be regulated.

    But I don't want the government stopping political messages from getting to me. Democracy is more important than stopping a few messages.

    • Re:Democracy First (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mjtg ( 173905 )
      But in this case its not the government sending messages, its a politician sending crap trying to get re-elected. There is a difference.

  • What a classy company.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by EvilBastard ( 77954 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:04AM (#10086126) Homepage
    A quick browse through his sons' company shows that they also offer Bad HTML [netharbour.com.au] and Service Level Agreements as low as 80% [netharbour.com.au].

    And their mission plan is "Net Harbour delivers unparalleled, innovative and trusted IT solutions to Australian businesses. We understand that your investment in technology needs to deliver a measurable return. Our mission is to help you identify the technology solutions that will deliver this return."

    I might wander past their door on Monday (Suite 516, Level 5 15 Lime Street Sydney 2000) and see what sort of hole-in-the-wall refugee from 1999 this company is.

  • loophole (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pbjones ( 315127 )
    because a political organization has contrated a 3rd party to send spam, the 3rd party may not be exempt from the anti-spam laws as the contractor is not a political org. I hope they wipe the floor with these people.
  • here [abc.net.au].

    I also submitted this story to /., with a comment that the PM's own email address is not nearly as available as many other sitting politicians.

    • Re:'Nother link... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Our national youth radio station ran a program this afternoon getting people to email the prime minister (john.howard.mp@ahp.gov.au) telling him they supported his policy of spam.

      Australian sarcastic humour, at its best!

  • Hmmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:11AM (#10086147) Homepage Journal
    Political Spam is permitted under Australian Spam Legislation.

    Sounds like the perfect setup for a legal Joe Job...

    I should email everyone on the planet about this upcoming presidential election. If I can piss enough of the opposition off, my guy will have it in the bag!

    LK

  • Responsibility (Score:3, Informative)

    by techsoldaten ( 309296 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:12AM (#10086150) Journal
    Nepotism aside, the problem with what this person is doing comes down to the responsibility of governments. The idea that what is otherwise considered an illegal nuisance is allowed under law for government figures is incredible.

    Participating in one's government in a free society should be a choice - but here people are having the system forced on them through automated means.

    There is no compelling state interest to allow this sort of behavior, so why are political mailings legal where commercial mailings are not? What's next, concentration camps with mandantory viewing of political TV ads?

    Er... oops, thinking I should have kept that last thought to myself...

    M

  • proud indeed! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <tuxette&gmail,com> on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:12AM (#10086151) Homepage Journal
    "I'm very proud of the fact that my son has started a small business in his 20s and I get a real buzz out of the fact that he's prepared to have a go in small business," Mr Howard said.

    "That is what the future of this country is all about."

    Oh, yes. It's all about the success of businesses due to nepotism.

  • The least we could do.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nickinho ( 793868 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:23AM (#10086184)

    ...is go and check out the site of the small business owned by the son of the very proud father

    http://netharbour.com.au/ [netharbour.com.au] (Net Harbour)

    They seem to be using the trademarks of their competitors in their metadata too!

    Have our betters no morals???

    nick

  • Lucky in Belgium (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spectrokid ( 660550 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:26AM (#10086190) Homepage
    Just when email started to come up, a minister sent out SPAM. He did it in such a amateuristic way (he included a picture of himself,... in BMP format) that he made a complete fool of himself. Since then , nobody tried again.

  • PM's Website and Contact Details (Score:5, Informative)

    by Boricle ( 652297 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:31AM (#10086209) Homepage
    The website [pm.gov.au] of the Prime Minister.

    which also features a form for sending him (his office staff) a message [pm.gov.au].

    Although perhaps I should have thought about this before posting to /. - given the close relationship between John Howard and George W Bush, I may well find myself on a do not fly list next time I'm in the USA!.

    Irrespective of your political beliefs (which have left out deliberately) spam is spam is spam is annoying.

    Cheers,

    Boricle.

  • like it or not, that's what free speech means... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Malor ( 3658 ) * on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:39AM (#10086239) Journal
    I think it's important that there's an exception for political speech. Saying 'you can't send unsolicited email' is much like saying 'you cannot speak in public'. I have little problem with restrictions on COMMERCIAL email, since that's rarely (never?) important to guarding anyone's rights. (And no, you don't have any inherent right to make money by annoying people.)

    You DO, however, have the right to tell people your opinion, and if you happen to tell many millions of people at once, well... that's technology now. Social pressure will be enough to contain this problem: Howard has probably gotten a lot more negative backlash from his spam campaign than positive. There really aren't any other alternatives... unless, of course, you want the government to get in the business of determining what kinds of political email are acceptable.

    Surely, Comrade, you'd have no argument with the Party ensuring your email is safe? Think of the children.
    • I should have modded this up....

      You do have a point - having the right to tell others your opinion could be interpreted as a valid reason to allow this sort of spam to be permitted.

    • maybe australia... (Score:5, Informative)

      by bani ( 467531 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @04:17AM (#10086349)
      has a really fucked up idea of "free speech".

      but at least in the USA, free speech does not mean "a guaranteed audience".

      nor does it mean you are free to force your speech upon unwilling recipients.

      yet this is exactly what political spammers try to achieve. they purchase "opt-in" lists then carefully and deliberately tailor their emails to evade filtering.

      "free speech" also does not mean you can steal other peoples resources in order to "speak in public".

      relay rape and using compromised PCs to send spam has been a favorite of political spammers (as well as "regular" spammers).

      recall that the recent california political spams were sent through compromised school network PCs in korea.

      there is also quite a difference between public speech and spam. with public speech you are not trespassing on individual private property in order to "exercise" your "free speech". with spam you always are.

      your right to free speech does not override my private property rights.

      "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the
      home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound
      does not mean we must be captives everywhere. (cite omitted) The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain. " - Justice Burger, for the majority, in ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970)

      thank you US Supreme Court for one of your saner rulings.

      and just to make it clear:

      my domain = my pc, my hard drive, my mailbox. my property. not yours to abuse.

      • Re:maybe australia... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Malor ( 3658 ) *
        Your argument is quite persuasive, but I think it's at a bit of a tangent. You are arguing that, in essence, unsolicited email is trespass, much like standing on your front lawn with a sign would be.

        In the cases you cite where people are compromising servers -- obviously that's not acceptable, and can be attacked via the standard hacking laws. But I don't think you argument entirely applies in the case where I am paying for my bandwidth and using my own PC... not doing anything illegal, no forgery -- ju
    • That's like saying stopping me from carving messages in peoples' bodies with a bowie knife is inhibiting my right to free speech. Free speech merely means no-one is going to tell you to stop saying what you want. It doesn't guarantee your right to use any medium you want to send your message. Illegal is illegal, regardless of whether a voiced opinion was involved or not.

      It's not like that's his only way to reach the electorate, is it?

    • Saying 'you can't send unsolicited email' is much like saying 'you cannot speak in public'.

      I, for one, do not consider my email box a public forum. You see, once I download the mil from the server, the email is on my PERSOANL, PRIVATE computer.

  • This continues a long line of bad stuff (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goonie ( 8651 ) * <robert,merkel&benambra,org> on Friday August 27, 2004 @03:39AM (#10086242) Homepage
    This is the same government whose IT Minister was named the "World's greatest Luddite" by The Register. . Aside from the well-known stupid internet ensorship laws, this government has just signed an FTA with the USA which requires us to enforce software patents, among other things.

    For this and a million other reasons (not the least of which is this government's terrible morals) I suspect most Australian Slashdotters will be voting for someone else.

  • One of my congressmen spams, also (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Congressman Jeb Hensarling [house.gov] spams my vanity domain regularly, even after being told I don't want any "updates."

    I've also regularly been targeted by various Texas Republican [texasgop.org] mailing lists, despite past assurances I've been removed from their lists.

    I'm an independent that often votes for Democrats, and this just bolsters my opinion that many Republicans, at least in Texas, don't care about individuals' wishes, just want votes. I don't care if they want to litter my postal mailbox, except for the environmenta

  • Well (Score:2)

    by ewe2 ( 47163 )

    Considering that most people [theage.com.au] believe that Howard is a habitual liar [johnhowardlies.com], we probably won't know the truth of this until the next election.

  • Political spam, done right, can be a good idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by btempleton ( 149110 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @04:09AM (#10086326) Homepage
    If political spam is, well not allowed, but actually done as a service by the elections officials as a means to allow registered candidates to, for free, reach registered voters who have not opted out of their communications, I think it can be a good thing.

    The great flaw in the political system is how candidates must raise money to buy advertising to push their messages at voters indiscriminately. Mostly TV. We've built a vastly more efficient medium on the internet for doing that. If we can reform campaign finance for real with the internet it could be the biggest thing we do with it.

    More details in this blog entry on political spam [4brad.com]

    • I disagree (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Quizo69 ( 659678 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @05:16AM (#10086490) Homepage
      I have started my own political party. I have 16 members. I do not have the money to buy traditional media exposure, so very few people are likely to hear about my party.

      With all that, I still REFUSE to spam Australians to let them know the party exists, and if I catch one of our members doing it I'll do my best to revoke their membership (a democratic process - I cannot arbitrarily revoke a membership myself).

      Spam is the scourge of the internet and there is no good reason for ANYONE to send unsolicited email in the hopes of getting something in return (be it donations for a charity, political stuff or anything else currently covered by loopholes).

      Feel free to discuss this in our forum if you like - we're open to all and welcome all input, for or against any subject. See sig for more.

  • Maybe it's permitted, but is it a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Asic Eng ( 193332 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @04:09AM (#10086327)
    Spam works for spammers, because the costs are low, and even if the percentage of people who react favourably to the spam is very low, they still get business.

    It's different for politics though - if the number of people who react negatively to your spam is much larger then the number of people who react positively - in all likelyhood you'll lose votes.

    Just because doing something is legal doesn't mean you'll benefit from doing it.

  • Vote the arsehole out. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Fanta Menace ( 607612 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @04:12AM (#10086334) Homepage

    Every day I wake up to find that the idiot Australian Prime Minister has embarrassed me again.

    Now he's spamming? And he's arrogant enough to believe that he's doing nothing immoral?

    Get rid of the bastard.

  • Right... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 27, 2004 @04:33AM (#10086383)
    So all I do is create the "Increase Your P3n1s Size Party", send out "political messages", and only have the cost of a few election deposits every four or five years?

    A similar thing has been done before in the UK - an anti-abortion group had some people stand as candidates in an election. They had no intention of winning, or even gaining any votes. What they wanted was to get their adverts on TV for relatively minimum outlay, thinly disguised as "party political broadcast"
  • Forward the spam.. send the spam, send it again, and again and again, untill election time...

    "/Dread"

  • REQUEST FOR AN URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP (Score:5, Funny)

    by NMEismyNME ( 725242 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @06:30AM (#10086722)
    Good day,

    I am contacting you because of a business concerning a huge sum of money stashed away in the treasury of the government where I work here in Australia. Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried, but I am assuring you that all will be well at the end of the day. I actually decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.

    PROPOSITION;

    I discovered a large sum moneys owned by the Australian taxpayers, but I could not bring myself to return it to those who did not have families or incomes above $50,000 per annum. The funds have been accumulated by excessive taxation and aggressive economic rationalist policy including the sale of essential public infrastructure and amounts to over AU$2,000,000,000.00 (two billiun Australian dollars). Data collected and stored in secret Liberal party files inaccessible through FOI channels shows that the public would prefer it to be returned to the ailing health care and public education systems but we feel that only the privileged classes should be able to enjoy the full benefits of these systems.

    As such, I am willing to share the spoils of this enormous sums of money with my fellow Australians. I will send you $600 per dependant child under the age of 18, and a further $3000 if you are due to have a child in the next month. All that I ask in return is that you provide your FULL NAME, FULL ADDRESS, DIRECT TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS, OCCUPATION AND POSITION, NATIONALITY, DATE OF BIRTH and VOTING INTENTION to your nearest electoral official at a date yet to be named but we assure you could happen at any stage, even this very weekend!

    These requirements will enable me to be continue my endeavours to subvert the democratic process in Australia and to heighten the classes distinction between privileged and working classes, and in addition to the sum of moneys already mentioned, I shall be compensating you further with very generous political and financial advantages should you meet my criteria of what an Australian should be.

    If this proposal is acceptable by you, do not take undue advantage of the trust I have bestowed in you, I await your urgent mail. Please reply to my private and confidential email: john.howard.mp@aph.gov.au [mailto]

    Best Regards,

    Mr. John Howard,

    Prime Minister of Australia

  • Notice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Friday August 27, 2004 @08:42AM (#10087642) Journal
    How the politicians seem to exempt themselves from any laws that might effect their ability to beg for campain funds or votes? In the US they are exempt from the Do Not Call List.

    Maybe it's time to elect amatures to all political offices. Look where the professionals have got us.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close