Politicians as spammers

Three News has video of John Key's toy-throwing exit from his own press conference here.

And on a related note, this is also a perfect display of one of the core problems with modern politics: the use of media management techniques by politicians. You'll notice that it doesn't matter what question Key is asked; he just repeats the same script on wanting to talk about the economy. This is something they all do, drilled into them by their minders in an effort to control the message, but it means that their communications are fundamentally inauthentic. You're not talking to a human being; you're talking to a pre-programmed spambot wearing a meat-puppet.

The result isn't just that "interviews" are a farce, either as transparently fake as a late-night infomercial, or an exercise in frustration over who gives in first; it also helps turn people off politics (because people know a spammer when they see one, and no-one wants to listen to them). This probably suits the politicians very well. But its not good for our democracy.

Another result is that politicians are only ever interesting when they go off-script and reveal an authentic reaction. What we saw today was Key giving in to frustration, cutting his losses, and going somewhere where he could spam more effectively. Time is money and all that - but its not what we expect from our Prime Minister. And hopefully he'll pay a price for it.

Greenpeace's dubious fundraising

Greenpeace do a lot of good work, but a lot of people (including me) are cynical about their high-pressure fundraising tactics (I find their chuggers, who are a constant presence in central Palmerston North, particularly obnoxious; they're as bad as the Hare Krishnas). That cynicism has just received a boost from a letter a friend received from them:

IMPORTANT: WE WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE YOUR MONTHLY DONATION TO $23 FROM APRIL.

Thank you so much for your ongoing commitment to Greenpeace ....

From next month we would like you to consider a $3 increase in your monthly gifts to $23 per month. If you are able to increase your support, you do not need to respond to this letter - we will increase your monthly donations beginning on April 7th.

We are extremely grateful for your support and are asking for an increase to your monthly donations in this way to reduce our fundraising costs and maximise the funds we direct to our campaigns.

If you would prefer not to change your monthly support amount or do not wish to receive future letters like this, we will need to hear from you, so please contact our Supporter Relationships team by emailing support@greenpeace.org.nz, OR by phoning 0800 22 33 44, OR by simply returning this letter to us in our reusable envelope.

That's right: if you give money to Greenpeace through a direct debit, they've unilaterally decided that you will be giving them more. It's perfectly legal (Fair Go covered this sort of practice last year), but morally dodgy as hell. "Opt out" isn't acceptable from spammers, and its certainly not acceptable from people who want to take money off you. I'd expect an ethical environmental organisation to behave better than this.

My friend has been left feeling "like someone who narrowly avoided an unwanted goodnight grope after a perfectly pleasant dinner with a friend". Way to go to poison a relationship, guys.

Spam and "inferred" consent

The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 came into force on Thursday, and businesses are scrambling to comply with its provisions. The Act was intended to establish an "opt-in" system, in which people had to expressly solicit electronic messages. Unfortunately, I'm seeing a number of messages in my mailbox where businesses say things like this:

Under the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007, due to come into effect on 6 September 2007, you must consent to receiving commercial emails. Consent can be either explicit, inferred or deemed.

From our previous association, we infer that we have your consent to continue sending emails from time to time.

Or even this:

In order to ensure we are fully compliant with the act, we must ensure that you are happy to continue to receive these messages and updates.

What do you have to do?

Absolutely nothing. If you are happy to continue to receive updates from us you need do nothing at all. However, if you do not wish to receive any future updates from us, simply send an email to my personal email address [Address removed] with unsubscribe in the subject line.

The latter of course is simply "opt-out".

While in both cases I was happy to receive the messages, this simply isn't good enough. While the Act allows consent to be reasonably inferred from "the conduct and the business and other relationships of the persons concerned", the examples given by Internal Affairs make it clear that there has to be a strong expectation of follow-up communication. Their FAQ makes it even clearer - you can not establish consent by emailing people and asking them to unsubscribe, and goes on to say

Many recipients may treat [such a message] as spam and not respond or even open it. There is no real relationship when the communication is one-sided and the recipient's silence should not be taken as acquiescence.

(Emphasis added)

I'd say that's pretty definitive, neh?

So, what should you do if you receive such an email? Complain. Businesses are clearly trying to evade the law, and they won't learn unless they get whacked for it. Such compaints will likely only result in a warning rather than a $2,000 fine per email, but if it changes the behaviour of our businesses, it is worth it.

No shame

Trawling through my spam folder, I disovered that the latest variation of the Spanish Prisoner / lottery scam is to claim that you've randomly (by lottery, in fact) been awarded a large grant from Amnesty International.

These people really have no shame.