More spam from Labour
July 19th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarA reader writes from Dunedin about how he received an unsolicited e-mail from Labour’s Dunedin North candidate, David Clark. He asked Labour how he got to be on their mailing list and their response was:
The list I have has come to me from a wide variety of sources from people who have agreed to further contact. I’m afraid only you can answer that question.
The reader responds to Mr Clark:
I just can’t imagine where I would have – if I were intentionally signing up to a newsletter (which I’m particularly unlikely to do, and even more so for a Labour candidate) I would have used my “proper” email address. Your assistance to try and figure this out would be greatly appreciated.
Now, you announced your candidacy just under a year ago. Obviously if you’re following the anti-spam legislation (which I understand you’re arguably exempt from as this isn’t strictly for commercial gain, but surely you’d stick to anyway under the premise of not wanting to be a spammer) then I would have had to specifically opt in for this mailing list sometime since then.
We can discount November and December last year as I was out of the country for this time, taking us down to a 10 month window.
I definitely wouldn’t have signed up to this through your web page (I would’ve followed you on Twitter first – which I’ve just done now), so we can discount that avenue too. I haven’t signed any petitions or anything in that time period, so if that’s a possible avenue we can ignore that too. I haven’t been to any Labour events, and have never met you so that must remove some more possibilities.
So we’re down to a 10 month window during which time I’ve never met you or been to any events you’ve been at in an official capacity, never been to your web site, and never put my name on anything Labour, yet in this time I’ve specifically opted in to your mailing list using an email address I wouldn’t actually use for this kind of thing.
Now that I’ve clarified my position, do you have any ideas of where it may have come from?
The reader just can not work out hos that e-mail address could have opted in to their list. Then another response:
Given the the list of possibilities you’ve ruled out, my best guess is that you may have been on a local Labour supporters list (in error?) that has been around for a while.
Which is unusual as he has not received e-mails before.
I have some idea of the challenges in this area as I used to handle the e-mails for National. I was always concerned about how we answer the question “How did you get my e-mail address” as the methods of collection did vary from area to area. What we settled on was to add a field to the database where we could denote the source of the e-mail address, and the date they signed up. So it might say “website” or “xx MP newsletter” etc.
Just offering to unsubscribe someone isn’t enough. If you are not sure if you have consent from someone, then send them a one off e-mail asking them if they want to be added to your database, rather than assume.
With the NZEI petition e-mail addresses, and the Sevens petition in Wellington, and other incidents Labour have shown a very lax attitude around ensuring consent for those they e-mail. There is no legal remedy for this, but there is a political one.
Tags: Labour, spam
July 19th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Bloody Vikings! Baked Beans are off!
Vote:July 19th, 2011 at 9:18 am
I wasn’t that reader.
This is not a good omen for the Dunedin North electorate, David seems to have adopted Labour Party methods. He looks like being a committed party animal.
He must have been on Mallard’s email list, this was his contribution on cue on The Standard:
Good on the party parrot front.
What if Labour’s CGT had a major detrimental impact on student flat costs and availability in North Dunedin? If landlords opt out the students won’t buy them. Does David have a credible plan for Dunedin North?
Too bad, the party comes first? That’s the wrong side of the electorate argument.
Vote:July 19th, 2011 at 9:20 am
A “lax” atttitude… you mean like their attitude to all forms of dishonesty and fraud when trying to get themselves elected?
Almost like its a pattern or something.
Vote:July 19th, 2011 at 11:04 am
People are bored with this sort of thing.
We are constantly given examples of how Labour breaks the law or otherwise flauts important social rules to further their own self interest. And then when pressed they ignore they arrogantly complaint and smear the complainer.
We have seen it enough for it to have become cliche. Yes, Labour broke the rules. Yes, they dont care. Yes, the lack of outrage from the Left is hypocritical. Yes, there will be no ramifications for Labour.
Lets change it up a little. The next time something like this happens, initially say it was a National screw-up and only reveal the truth after the The Stantards fly off the handle.
Vote:July 19th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
How is ‘commercial’ defined for the spam laws? I would have thought that he is spamming people for the purpose of financial gain (getting a decent paying job).
Vote:July 19th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Labour acting true to form. Nothing new here.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:July 19th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
I’m sure the Liarbore scum still have sympathetic individuals in the public service. I can think of at least 3 government departments that hold our email address. How hard would it be to download a list of addresses , email addresses etc and supply to those more sympathetic to big government.. Of course something like this could never happen, yeah and I’m the queen mother.
Vote:July 19th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
ssb
I can’t think of too many public servants willing to risk getting fired to help out a political party.
Vote: