This entry is promulgated by the receipt of a piece of SPAM I received in advance of the electoral primaries being held here in Chicago. The mail I received, informed me that it was being sent to me from an address listed as 'citizensforavila@sbcglobal.net [mailer772@1871mail.com]'. For the record, here's the GIF image that was embedded in the SPAM.
First, as many of you know, I am a Network/Security Engineer. It's my job to recognize a rat when I see one. Not that this address takes much in the way of intellect to recognize as SPAM. Second, the 'citizensforavila' e-mail doesn't exist (verified). Third, they tout "You have received this email because you subscribed at http://AvilaForCommissioner.com" (the website listed doesn't even exist... Although the domain is for sale). The e-mail address given to complain to (abuse@1871media.com) is from a known spam domain. And in an entry in that company's blog, they shamelessly quote:
Since Jan. 1, a federal law has regulated spam. But if you look at the law's fine print, you'll find a telling exemption: Our elected representatives made sure the restrictions don't apply to them. As a result, the Can-Spam Act covers only e-mail promoting "a commercial product or service," which lets political spammers off the hook.
So - Is this 'theoretical' loophole the key to political spam? Perhaps. But perhaps only if the candidate or their immediate organization themselves send the (spam) mail.
I suggest that a third party marketing type firm (like 1871media), that has blatantly and shamlessly spammed (and lied about it flagrantly) should and could be held accountable. Especially if the 'politician' can be view as their 'product'. And possibly even the politician who hired them to do the work.
What say you?
No comments:
Post a Comment