Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Spam Traced to Reactor Botnet
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? writes "Ars is reporting that the Ron Paul spam has been traced back to the Reactor botnet. According to the SecureWorks report, which originally identified the spammer, someone calling themselves nenastnyj was behind it and their botnet control server has been shut down. The Ron Paul campaign has previously denied any connection with this spam campaign."
I mean, if I were operating a botnet and sending out spam, and I wanted to protect my business interests I'd vote Ron Paul.
Not that Ron Paul is 'pro botnets' or anything absurd like that, but his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model than nanny-states and government-monitoring of all communications.
If I had a botnet, why wouldn't I use it to promote my candidate of choice during its free time?
I've said it before, but to me, as a former Republican, Ron Paul represents the party which most people believe they are voting for when they vote Republican. Trouble is that if he actually won, he would try to implement their public platform rather than continue Bush's private one. Also and more importantly, I believe that the leaders of that party need to have a candidate who will allow the many crimes of the last 7 years to go unpunished, so they need a person they already own. (that's also why McCain and Huckabee don't have many 'big' endorsements or money, btw).
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Legally, unsolicited political messages are not considered spam. Unless they try to sell a product.
IN the US as I understand the pertinent federal laws.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, I've read it. He's the only politician I can remember in my lifetime whose votes match his words 100%.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I don't know how anyone could be a geek on /. and not know that Ron Paul promotion is one of those viral web things that show up a lot on YouTube, random gaming sites, blogs, basically all over the place. If college kids all over the place are putting together grassroots advertising for Ron Paul, it's pretty obvious that this was some Ron Paul fan that also ran a botnet that got a really, really, bad idea on his own and ran with it. And the media is happy to portray it as coming from Ron Paul himself.
I mean, if some random Ron Paul supporter put together this site, where completely grassroots fundraising raised $4.3 million in individual contributions, it's pretty obvious Ron Paul supporters are willing to do a lot on their own, without direction from the campaign. They're doing it again, shooting for $10 million more on December 16th.
Not saying I endorse him or his policies, but Huckabee has raised only 2 million and is actually ahead in some poles. I don't know about you, but I want a president that can do the most with the least. If Huckabee could run the government with the same financial prudence he has shown in his campaign, that would be awesome. I expect with the rise in polls that will most likely change. He probably won't turn down the money from anyone. But, it sort of shows what could be done.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
> He has more individual donors than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.
I don't seem to recall Mr. Dean's incredible support among the nutroots propelling him into the White House. Likewise I tend to doubt the Ronulans will do more than queer the race in some open primaty states in the same way McCain did in 2000. None (McCain and Paul for the Repubs, Dean for the Dems) are candidates normal party voters would vote for but attract plenty of crossover votes, nutballs, and diehards who will donate and spam online polls. Dennis Kucinich's supporters were spamming online polls almost as badly until most simply dropped him to stop it. Many had also dropped Paul until he rose enough in real polling some have added him back, whereupon the Ronulans instantly spammed em.
If anybody actually cared to research it, I'd expect you would find large numbers of registered Democrats donating to Paul just because they raealize how much mischief he will cause with a few million dollars to spend on TV ads.
Democrat delenda est
-jcr If you actually look at his voting record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
Just take the first item on the list, abortion. He's stated time and time again that abortion policy should be left up to the states to get a wider appeal, but as you can see, he continuously voted to have the federal government intervene in abortion policy.
He's a liar and flip-flopper just like the rest of them.
Have you ever heard of the Great Depression?
Do your homework: find out when the Federal Reserve was created. The Great Depression was the first of its many failures.
I'd rather have controlled inflation than another recession like that.
So, you're all for a problem that pretends to be its own solution, eh?
took a US History class in school.
If all you know of history is what you learn in a government school, then your ignorance is no surprise.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
As we did our best to document, the National Republican Congressional Committee was responsible for repetitive, often harrassing robo calls in more than two dozen districts across the country in the runup to the election.
Unless practitioners are criminally charged and exposed for this kind of behavior, any fines that are imposed will merely be written off as campaign expense.
Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.
Ron Paul is all for privacy in the sense that he would never authorize government to monitor citizens at large. But in the same breath he would never authorize government to regulate the communications other businesses, eterprises, or citizens would send to you either. Including advertisments, sales offers, unsolicited email, or spam.
Think I'm wrong? Remember the "Do not call list"? Well, when the FTC imposed it the telemarketing industry responded arguing that the FTC had no such authority to impose such a system, and a judge *agreed* with the telemarketing industry. So what do you think happened next?
Well, a bill was introduced in Congress to specifically authorize the FTC to create the do-not-call-list. It passed Congress 412-8, and it passed the senate 95-0. The 'people' had spoken, and our right to have dinner without being tele-offered a long distance plan was established!
Would it surprise you to know that Ron Paul, your champion of privacy, was one of those 8 that voted AGAINST authorizing the FTC to create the do-not-call-list? Don't beleive me? Look it up.
Here's some links to get you started - some background:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/congress.no.call/index.html
and
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929
Section: "Technology and Communication", Date: 09/25/2003, Bill: "Do-Not-Call-Registry Bill"
Or you can take my word for it: He voted "No".
I'm quite confident he'd vote *against* any bill that proposed the government some how step in and regulate email of ANY kind, including spam.
Why? The value is purely speculative. It is faith based on both counts.
What?
Nader's campaign in 2004 made $4,567,299, and Democrats accused Nader of having his bid funded by Republicans who wanted a repeat of his effect on the 2000 election. According to FEC records, the majority of donors who gave the maximum allowed donation to his campaign ($2,300) also gave the maximum to the Bush campaign! So now do we have the opposite going on? I'd like to see someone research it, but I am really doubtful that it will turn out to be a lot of Democrats donating to him. I could be wrong, and there is no way to prove it to you, but my activity in viewing the Ron Paul community seems to tell me otherwise.
You don't seem to understand the difference between racism and racial discrimination. They are also not the same thing. Discrimination is where there is preferential treatment for one race over another, while racism is the belief that your race is superior to that of others.
Affirmative action is racial discrimination, for sure. Whether or not it is racism depends on whether you believe that the underlying reason for it is that minorities can't obtain employment, advancement or schooling is due the minorities' inabilities or due to external forces beyond the minorities' control. It's a fine line, and there is at least some degree of underlying assumption by many who support affirmative action that minorities cannot succeed in the current environment due to problems within their own ranks. That belief, IMHO, is racism.
My blog
Also, "promoting the general welfare" does not equate to "ensuring the general welfare". You "promote" it, in America, by giving everyone the opportunity to make something of themself. If Social Security is such a great idea and necessary function of our government, then why did it take 150 years to put it into place? Well, here's some choice quotes by our founding fathers: