Slashdot Mirror


Australian Prime-Minister Sends Spam

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."

79 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Of course it's permitted by RollingThunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    After all, you have a pre-existing business relationship with them, right? You do pay your taxes, don't you citizen? ;)

    1. Re:Of course it's permitted by jkrise · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      -

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:Of course it's permitted by Aussie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He also claims it was "Howard money" that paid for it, So he did it as a citizen not the PM. Great, our PM is a dipshit spammer :(

    3. Re:Of course it's permitted by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Of course it's permitted by mike_sucks · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think Howard can be called a dipshit for pretty much everything he has done.

      --
      -- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
    5. Re:Of course it's permitted by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    6. Re:Of course it's permitted by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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."
    7. Re:Of course it's permitted by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Of course it's permitted by imroy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    9. Re:Of course it's permitted by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    10. Re:Of course it's permitted by jrexilius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Of course it's permitted by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, it really doesnt cost money.

      Each spam message is like the additional crystal of sugar in the coffee cup. Sure, each one makes only a shred of difference in how it tastes, or even NO difference in how it tastes.

      Put a few hundred of them together and it makes an impact. (Seriously, I help run a mail server hosting 23k email accounts, five times in the last two years the hardware had to be upgraded because of SPAM. Fully 85% or more of the connection attempts is spam. Sure each one makes little difference, but them together costs YOU money.)

      I really don't understand how someone could be so short-sighted to not understand that.

      The big difference between spam and snail mail, is the pain the sender has to go through (money/time) raises linearly with the number of messages, causing an automatic filter on how much I eventually get. Spam has no such restrictions, the impact on me and my equipment goes up linearly, but the spammer effort only goes up a tiny bit.

      Comparing spam to snail-mail is foolish. They are only in name both "mail", otherwise it's a totally different transmission system with different economies of scale and costs.

  2. Isn't it about time... by fireman+sam · · Score: 3, Informative

    We, as Australian's vote him out!!!

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    1. Re:Isn't it about time... by JohnnyKlunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Possibly. Compared to bombing another country and torturing it's inhabitants under false pretences I'd think spamming is a pretty minor offence.

    2. Re:Isn't it about time... by 808140 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Australian's means "belonging to Australian", which makes no sense without an article (an Australian's, for example) because a possessive requires a noun to modify. If 'Australian' were a proper noun like Gertrude or Octavia, it might work. But it isn't.

      I presume that you meant "Australians", the plural. This form is common in most dialects of English and admittedly shares the same pronunciation as the possessive in many cases, though not generally the same spelling. Note that it does not have an apostrophe.

      As you know, apostrophes in English most commonly mark the omission of a letter. In this case that letter is most likely 'e', and is left over from the Germanic declension system present in Old English but which has since mostly disappeared. Interestingly, the genetive case of Old English evolved into a clitic, meaning that the possessive in Modern English is not a declension.

      This announcement has been brought to you by GNAA, the Grammar Nazi Association of American (Australia?).

    3. Re:Isn't it about time... by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder how many votes this gained him vs. votes lost...

      the people who sell stuff by spam (generally) don't suffer much of a negative effect - some people buy from them, everyone else ignores it. the same can't be said of a politician because it seems likely that whilest he will gain some votes through this campaign, he will also lose a lot more from the people he pissed off.

    4. Re:Isn't it about time... by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Funny

      This announcement has been brought to you by GNAA, the Grammar Nazi Association of American

      Of American what? 'American' means ... nah forgit it

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    5. Re:Isn't it about time... by 808140 · · Score: 3, Informative

      haha, I suck.

    6. Re:Isn't it about time... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 3, Funny


      Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Apostrophe!

      Sieg Hyphen!

      Punctuation uber alles!

  3. Johnny Howard Strikes Back by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 2, Funny

    But is it legal for the labor party to send spam?

    1. Re:Johnny Howard Strikes Back by Airconditioning · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. The Australian anti-spam act made exlusions for charity organisations and political parties. The labour party supported this legislation when it went through parliarment so they have no platform to complain about this either.

  4. Can Spam Act by usefool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing surprising here, it's just as bad as the Can-Spam Act, which is just another way of allowing spams to continue.

    --
    Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
  5. The question is how? by GaussianInteger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The question is how? by Atrax · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    2. Re:The question is how? by naden · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Funtage Factor: Purple
    3. Re:The question is how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 their arses well covered.

  6. What's more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the candidates in John Howard's electorate (the Australian version of a Congressional district) is former chairman of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Bulk Email, Troy Rollo, who is not happy, John

  7. I can just imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Subject: Fr33 V!/\Gr4 V0te for $president 4|\|D r3c!3\/e l!f3t!m3 s[_]pp!y

  8. Re:So what.... by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's 20 million people AC...
    And more than 50 of us have email addresses.

  9. He's got a habit of nepotism... by Atrax · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... 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.

    --
    Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
  10. Double Standards by joeldixon66 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    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)".

    1. Re:Double Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Double Standards by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
  11. stupid stupid stupid by i88i · · Score: 5, Informative

    they even managed to spam the anti-spammer.
    Probably not the smartest thing to do.

  12. Software patents and spam can byte me. by vivian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Software patents and spam can byte me. by Wonda · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    2. Re:Software patents and spam can byte me. by Quizo69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

  13. In defence of the prime-minister... by jkrise · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

    -

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  14. Small business... by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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...

    --
    "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
    1. Re:Small business... by tezza · · Score: 5, Informative
      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 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.

      --
      [% slash_sig_val.text %]
  15. The Future of Australia? by femto · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Here's the juciest quote:
    "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.

    1. Re:The Future of Australia? by Atrax · · Score: 4, Funny

      I prefer to listen to satirical Howard quotes rather than the real ones. They make more sense.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    2. Re:The Future of Australia? by simong_oz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 :)

      --
      "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
    3. Re:The Future of Australia? by tezza · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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 and go home to?

      --
      [% slash_sig_val.text %]
  16. www.johnhowardlies.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Want to find out more about this idiot?

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

  17. Let the booting begin! by permaculture · · Score: 5, Funny

    Homer: "Stand back, or I'll boot your Prime Minister! I'll do it, so help me God I'll boot him!"

    --
    Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
  18. What a classy company.. by EvilBastard · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quick browse through his sons' company shows that they also offer Bad HTML and Service Level Agreements as low as 80%.

    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.

    1. Re:What a classy company.. by MavEtJu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Make sure you get one of these "Not Happy John" stickers :-)

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    2. Re:What a classy company.. by Atrax · · Score: 3, Funny

      for those Sydneysiders who feel like 'dropping in' but don't know where that is, Lime Street is down by King Street Wharf.

      recommended action? annoying, non-destructive stuff, no superglue in the locks or permanent scarring of the building. flyers would be good

      Here's a good idea : if anyone works nearby, indulge in the good old Sydney tradition of street chalking and write a neat 'Netharbour = Spammer', with an arrow pointing to their door each morning for a week or two.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
  19. loophole by pbjones · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  20. Re:get rid of howard - but look at the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Give him a chance. Howard is a failure, and Latham is an unknown quantity, but Howard is a know failure with no hope of redemption, and Latham may surprise us.

    So known bads are worse than unknow potential bads.

    Fuck, still clear as mud.

  21. Hmmmmm by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  22. Responsibility by techsoldaten · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  23. proud indeed! by tuxette · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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.

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  24. Re:'Nother link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!

  25. Grammar Nazi by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    You Sir, get the grammar-nazi award of 2004! Congrats

    *applause*

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  26. The least we could do.... by nickinho · · Score: 3, Interesting


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

    http://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

  27. Lucky in Belgium by spectrokid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  28. He's not by violet16 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    Here 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 is the company that did the spamming.

  29. Re:Labour's Unreliability by nickinho · · Score: 4, Interesting

    John Howard has shown through example he is very capable of leading this country.

    Yeah, right up gee dubya's ass.

    nick

  30. PM's Website and Contact Details by Boricle · · Score: 5, Informative
    The website of the Prime Minister.

    which also features a form for sending him (his office staff) a message.

    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.

  31. like it or not, that's what free speech means... by Malor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  32. This continues a long line of bad stuff by Goonie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  33. Re:Labour's Unreliability by GumphMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's the Australian Labor Party you insensitive clod!

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  34. One of my congressmen spams, also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Congressman Jeb Hensarling 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 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 environmental impact of all that trash, but email costs me a lot more to read than for them to send, even when I'm filtering. They're the majority party down here - can't they just leave me alone?

  35. Re:Labour's Unreliability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are incorrect on every point you've made, and here's why.

    1. He is not allowed to spam all he wants, because there's a law in place that says he can't. If he's exploiting a loophole, it demonstrates the inefficiency of his government to make effective law.

    2. The Labour Party has a party line that is decided as a group, and all members must adhere to that party line once it's decided. The fact that they were divided does not show dissent, it shows that there was a decent debate over the matter and that they're all capable of independent thought. That is something to strive for in order to create healthy debate about a policy which is going to affect at least 20 odd million people, not something to ridicule.

    3. Pancreatitis (if you bothered to google it, or at least read the papers with an unbiased eye) is caused in approx. 80% of cases by gall stones and alcoholism. Approx. 15% of all acute cases are not able to be diagnosed with a cause (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/10597-2.a sp). Your assumption that he is an alcoholic has been rebutted by Latham himself, and I assume you wouldn't be so arrogant as to declare you know more about Latham than he does.

    4. There are more than 2 choices, and the increasing swing to the Greens is indicative of this.

    5. John Howard's level of bullshit is incredible. He has consistently shown his ability to circumvent the truth, to not own up to his mistakes, and to lie to us. Go read Margo Kingston's book "Not Happy John" to get a rough idea what I'm talking about, or google to find a number of websites that can list just how many times he's lied about policy. His "examples" of leading this country are a disgrace, from his use of political power to further his own family's ends, his inability to be a man and own up to his mistakes and take the blame, to his power-hungry attempts to abolish the Senate and remove the only political limitations he has.

    Finally, I have left out any comments on what is obviously your own personal opinion and not something you're trying to put across as fact (e.g. Latham is bullshit). But, you're the reason we're under increasing pressure internationally when we go travelling to explain Australia's actions, and you're the reason people like me want to leave the country permanently (and some have) because it makes us sick to see what's happening here.

    Good luck voting in the next election, because I can assure you we'll be on opposite sides of the fence and your "Liberals" will need it.

  36. Re:Democracy First by mjtg · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  37. Re:So what.... by 808140 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your point would have more weight if it were possible for people's opinions of John Howard to be affected negatively.

    By this I mean that he's already as low as he can go, not that he enjoys such popular support that people will never think ill of him.

  38. Political spam, done right, can be a good idea by btempleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  39. Maybe it's permitted, but is it a good idea? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  40. Vote the arsehole out. by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  41. maybe australia... by bani · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:maybe australia... by Malor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 -- just sending standard email.

      When you put up a mail server, you are providing a public access. It is, in essence, a mailbox. Now, like your mailbox, you have the right to tell someone to not use it anymore, but the nature of a public service is that anyone can use it once. Further use can be handled like other variations of trespass.

      There is a real danger, however, in having the government putting prior restraints on the kinds of communication that can be attempted, *particularly* political speech. In our zealous hatred of spam (and I hate it too!), I fear we are rushing into bad solutions. Laws are very hard to deal with, and are easily misused by those in power. Laws designed explicitly to silence people are scary. Spam is a problem, but it's one with technical solutions.... legalized prior restraint on speech (censorship) strikes me as a much greater problem. To get rid of an annoyance, we're accepting a DANGER instead... that's not very good thinking.

      Returning to my original argument, I think the exception for political speech is important and necessary. If someone persists in sending you mail you don't want, you have every right to tell them to bug off, and to go after them for trespass if they do not. But, since there isn't yet any way for you to specify what kinds of mail you will accept, I believe that freedom is best served by making the first message non-punishable.

      Yes, I realize that telling, individually, all five billion people on the planet not to bother you is not workable. We DO need a technical solution to this, some method of specifying the kinds of mail you want. But we don't yet have the electronic equivalent of a No Solicitation sign. Rushing into bad laws, to make up for that lack, somewhat reduces an annoyance, but sets a dangerous precedent.

      Doesn't seem like a good trade to me.

  42. Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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"

  43. Re:Labour's Unreliability by zaxios · · Score: 2, Informative

    "During the early years of the ALP, the Party was referred to by various titles differing from colony to colony. It was at the 1908 Interstate (federal) Conference that the name "Australian Labour Party" was adopted. In its shortened form the Party was frequently referred to as both 'Labor' and 'Labour', however the former spelling was adopted from 1912 onwards, due to the influence of the American labor movement." More here.

  44. I disagree by Quizo69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  45. REQUEST FOR AN URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP by NMEismyNME · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    Best Regards,

    Mr. John Howard,

    Prime Minister of Australia

  46. Notice by BCW2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  47. Great Strategy by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you spam a bunch of voters and 0.01% have a positive reaction to your message while 99.99% hate your guts for spamming them. How does that get you elected?

    Non-political spam works because the 99.99% of recipients who hate your spam have no recourse. In politics, those 99.99% can vote against you.