Skip to main content

Tony Blair Tests The Spamming Waters

I discussed the issue of "Political Spamming" with the office of a senior Conservative politician this month. Describing it as "Possibly unethical and potentially illegal", I reminded them of the case of Sean Connery and the Scottish National Party over two years ago, where the issue of Spamming for political purposes was negatively recieved. This however does not appear to be stopping Labour and neither, reportedly, are the rules on telephone canvassing.



What is it with politicians and spam? While they all proclaim to hate spam and pass useless laws that pretend to ban spam, they still have no problem sending out spam themselves. While it's normally been used by politicians campaigning for office, it appears that politicians in office are becoming fans of spamming their constituents as well. The latest is British Prime Minister Tony Blair who has spammed a bunch of folks in the UK. The Labour Party claims that the emails only went out to those who requested them, but many recipients claim that's not true at all. Next thing, we'll have politicians pushing spyware on us as well. [via Techdirt]

Curiously enough, in Leeds this week, while I was enjoying a Starbucks Coffee, I overheard a conversation between two youn Moslem women, talking politics. One said to the other that her friends and family had always supported Labour but after the war with Iraq and the way in which Moslems were being treated by this government, none will vote Labour again. They won't vote Conservative either and will be supporting the LibDems because of their stance on the war. Her friend agreed with her.

This may present a huge blow to Labour in some of the inner cities with a strong Moselm vote. Mind you, with the trial on rigged postal voting still in progress, it seems that in Birmingham at least, it didn't matter who you voted for as Labour allegedly won the local council elections regardless of any personal preference!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…