Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Spam Government Security Politics

Ron Paul Spam Traced to Reactor Botnet 506

Posted by Zonk
from the trying-to-stuff-the-ballot-and-inboxes dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ron Paul Spam Traced to Reactor Botnet

Comments Filter:
  • I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming. He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run). Any of you jerks who thought that this stuff was official hate the constitution and what to see the the declaration of independence used as toilet paper. I hate anyone who thinks any ill of Ron "OUR MESSIAH" PAUL!! GET IT!

    • by rednip (186217) <rednip@NOSpam.gmail.com> on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:33PM (#21606935) Journal
      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).
      • by vsync64 (155958) <vsync@quadium.net> on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:40PM (#21607011) Homepage

        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).
        McCain? If anything he is likely to let them go unpunished. He pretended that having to wear a flak jacket and be escorted by tanks and helicopters to grocery shopping is A-OK. Didn't he cave on torture ("allowing a 'just following orders' defense"), on habeas corpus, and on illegal detentions? Sad to see a good man fall.
        • good man fall, or just showing his true colors?
          • by Elemenope (905108) on Friday December 07, 2007 @08:27AM (#21611189)

            No, fall. The 2000 primaries were terrible to him, and he changed in agonizing increments since then from principled maverick to administration lapdog. I mean, this is a man who was literally beaten by a rumor that the kids he had adopted were really illegitimates. After having bled and fought for this country (and served it in many capacities) that has got to be devastating. After that, he started to listen to all the wrong advice, and lost his instinct for being different (since it punished him so much in the election and even afterward).

            Every person has a breaking point beyond which disillusionment and cynicism are inevitable. Public service (no matter how much, or how deservedly we pile on to politicians) is a fairly dehumanizing and unforgiving profession. That the guy finally lost his way is no reflection of his "true colors" in any legitimate sense I can think of.

        • by kestasjk (933987)

          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).

          McCain? If anything he is likely to let them go unpunished. He pretended that having to wear a flak jacket and be escorted by tanks and helicopters to grocery shopping is A-OK. Didn't he cave on torture ("allowing a 'just following orders' defense"), on habeas corpus, and on illegal detentions? Sad to see a good man fall.

          You should watch BBC's Why Democracy Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary on allegations of torture in US terrorist interrogation prisons. It repeatedly showed McCain arguing against the use of torture, and holding the military to account during hearings (it's not a pro-McCain documentary though, McCain was only mentioned a few times). They used it to make the point that if McCain, who was a Vietnam POW, doesn't think torture works he probably knows best.

      • by michaelmalak (91262) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Friday December 07, 2007 @12:03AM (#21608577) Homepage
        In response to an editorial Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous [canadafreepress.com] that created a lot of controversy on the Ron Paul fora, I had a lengthy e-mail exchange with the author (once I figured out that I had to obfuscate the phrase "Ron Paul" to get past his Comcast spam filter). A "small" portion of that e-mail exchange was about what you alluded to -- what people think in response to the brand name "Republican". The brand name "Republican" is supposed to have something substantial behind it, namely the party platform. Indeed, we find that Bush is not only opposed to traditional Republicanism -- his operatives rewrote the platform behind closed doors (without input from the delegates) at the 2000 RNC!

        The e-mail excerpts are below:

        Ron Paul isn't hijacking the party because he is closer to the 1996 Republican Party platform (and previous years) than any other Republican candidate. It was Bush and friends who hijacked the Republican Party in 2000. Here are some excerpts from the 1996 platform [cnn.com] that are either missing in the 2000 platform, watered down, contradicted by other portions of the platform, or just ignored by Bush and ultimately removed in the 2004 platform:

        We are the party of small, responsible and efficient government, joining our neighbors in cities and counties, rather than distant bureaucrats, to build a just society and caring communities. We therefore assert the power of the American people over government, rather than the other way around. Our agenda for change, profound and permanent change in the way government behaves, is based on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        [...]

        As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or to privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.

        In addition, we support Republican-sponsored legislation that would require the original sponsor of proposed federal legislation to cite specific constitutional authority for the measure.

        [...]

        The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.

        This is the Republican Party that I grew up with and knew and loved. I stopped calling myself a Republican in 1999 because, among other reasons, Bush refused to commit to a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.

        Ron Paul worked to nominate Reagan over Ford in 1976. Ron Paul is the torchbearer of what Reagan stood for (although Reagan did not live up to his words).

        After the Democratic Party became the Communist Party at the turn of the century and went on to dominate the first half of the century, the Republican Party responded by becoming the anti-Federalist Party after WWII. Ron Paul is trying to steer the Republican Party back toward those days of 1952-1996. That's getting back on track, not hijacking.

        The main difference between Ron Paul and Reagan is foreign policy -- the Reagan Administration, in its fight against communism, armed the most radical elements of Afghanistan and created the Taliban, which of course ended up harboring Osama bin Laden. Ron Paul wishes for the U.S. to not repeat that mistake.

        Ron Paul is the

    • With your official host: CaptainPatent!
      Hello folks and welcome to today's second round of The Slashdot Moderation game where we take the long way of saying Mod Parent Down.
      We've seen a lot of trolls, flamebaiters and thread hijackers today, but we work hard to only bring you the top-tier. Tonight's guest is explosivejared,
      Explosive Jared writes:

      I told you all Ron Paul was a saint. Ron Paul would never stoop to spamming.

      A great start, will this turn into an Ironic statement, a joke, an insightful look into Ron Paul... mystery is afoot and my attention is gathered!

      He is right on par with a god, in fact he may be a god (the tests are still being run).

      oh, we may ha

  • by crossmr (957846) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:23PM (#21606823) Journal
    but even if you trace it to a spammer does it really prove the campaign had anything to do with it? Do you think viagra is behind the v1 4ga spam you see in your inbox? Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss (770223)

      Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..
      That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me. Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, but not really a serious contender that any other candidate would consider risking this sort of thing to blacken with this type of "dirty campaigning" label.
      • by crossmr (957846) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:41PM (#21607019) Journal
        Done through enough channels you wouldn't know if it was you, me or George Bush who paid them to do it. Just saying that things don't always seem as they appear especially in the spam world.
      • by jc42 (318812)

        Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

        That's a little "tinfoil hatish" if you ask me.

        So who asked you? ;-)

        Haven't you heard of "push polls"? I've been "polled" by at least three of them in the past year. They never will tell you who's paying them, either. But this story is just an "on the Internet" version of the same sort of dirty tricks. It's an old, old story.

        Then there was my favorite trick: Soon after I moved to Bo

      • While I'm way too biased in favor of libertarians to be objective about this, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest another Republican was behind this. It's no secret that a lot of Republicans are livid about his candidacy and don't like being associated with him, and therefore would be glad to tarnish him, even if he has no chance of winning.
    • by s20451 (410424) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:39PM (#21606997) Journal
      Heaven forbid someone in American politics play dirty and hire a company to "promote" another candidate... just saying..

      Gee, I hope they clear up this nasty business! I would hate to see it affect Ron Paul's chances of being elected President.
    • by jcr (53032)
      Not much more to say...

      -jcr
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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
    • Vote Smart in 2008 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by reporter (666905) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @09:26PM (#21607403) Homepage
      About 61% of American voters [electionstudies.org] votes along party lines. Their attitude is, "I do not care whether the position is correct. If my party supports it, then I support it." Worse, within party primaries (like the ones that will begin soon in early 2008), voters tend to choose candidates based on gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. A candidate who can crack a witty joke during the debate can easily reel in millions of mindless voters.

      Clearly, this incident with the spammer supporting Ron Paul will be spun, by his competitors, into a gotcha.

      Please do your yourself -- and your nation -- a favor. Avoid the above method of selecting political candidates. Ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. Do not vote along party lines.

      Instead, research the voting history, the policy proposals, and the honesty of the candidates in the 2008 race for president. You can easily find this information at the quality news sites like "The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]". Hopefully, Rupert Murdoch will open the web site of the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) to the public before the election in 2008. The WSJ has some of the best in-depth reporting in the industry, but the WSJ web site is currently open only to subscribers.

      • VERY true, but the unfortunate reality is - you're preaching to the choir here. There's a reason Ron Paul has been most successful in the "Internet community". The more intelligent, intellectual types can follow the reasons behind some of his "more radical" beliefs, like abolishing the federal reserve, and phasing out the IRS. But those concepts require a fair bit of reading and long-term thinking to see how they're plausible.

        By the same token, avid net users who read blog sites and news sites (like Slas
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by squiggleslash (241428)

      If it were anyone but Ron Paul then I'd say yes. But Ron Paul isn't someone anyone in the political establishment really believes has any chance of winning. So why risk the chance of being caught setting such a smear campaign up to discredit a candidate who poses no real threat to begin with?

      The likely culprits are people with no connection to either Ron Paul's campaign or any of his opponents. Either an over-enthusiastic supporter, or else someone with a chip on his shoulder about Ron Paul who wants to

    • I heard that was once done with telemarketing candidates, maybe it was done more recently too. Where you get numerous annoying phone calls saying they are from candidate "A" when "B" paid for it in a ruse to get people pissed off at "A" to vote for "B" instead. The law moves so slowly that by the time it gets prosecuted, the election is done.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by apparently (756613)
        A search at dailykos for robocalls yields an example [tpmmuckraker.com], or two.

        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.

  • Unfortunately... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Goalie_Ca (584234)
    There are still tons of kiddies unable to vote and barely able to read and write flooding the web2.0 sites with ron paul crap.

    On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006.

    Canada has a minority government. It could go into an election at any time really. Most people are concerned about the
    • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:39PM (#21606999) Journal
      To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide.

      Why shouldn't it last 4 years - or longer - and cost a large fraction of the GNP. Civil wars do.

      Republics are designed to model civil wars accurately enough that they can be "fought" to their conclusion without all that nasty dying, burning of crops and towns, and so on.

      They do a good enough job of it (except for assasinations B-( ) that the US hasn't had to hold a full-scale civil war in well over a century (though there hace been a few small ones when the the elections were corrupted or a significant power group was disenfranchised and oppressed).

      See the "Battle of Athens" for one example.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by jcr (53032)
        That wasn't really a civil war. A civil war is two factions fighting for control of a country, not one part of a country splitting off and being re-conquered by the other.

        -jcr
        • What you say would only be true if the Confederacy didn't start raiding Union states. It ended up being a war where each side was trying to take over the other which is your definition of a civil war.
    • by coldmist (154493)
      You know, speaking as an American here, it's only the big TV news channels and the big newspapers which are agonizing over the "election" already. Unless I hear about a debate and want to watch it, or see a headline on Drudge, I don't see much of it.

      It's just the press feeding the press at this point. We (the average people) know this. It's just people outside the US might have a harder time filtering it out.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GradiusCVK (1017360)
      I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with pretty much everything you said. First: Yes, I am a 22 year old pursuing a Master's degree (partially fitting your description of a "kiddie ... flooding the web 2.0 sites with Ron Paul crap"... however, I have not yet met another person fitting that description in any of the numerous groups I am a part of who support Ron Paul. Everyone I know is a middle-to-late age person with a steady job and a LOT to lose by electing the wrong person. They do NOT participate a lot
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Kenshin (43036)
        Ron Paul is the ANSWER to our problems

        Ron Paul is the answer to America's problems in the same way that narcotics are the answer to life's problems. You have a wild and crazy trip, but then you crash hard when you wake up to reality biting you in the ass.
    • by m2943 (1140797) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @09:12PM (#21607307)
      It makes no sense to spend more time agonizing over some potential policies of guys who will never be elected while ignoring the government and representatives currently making the decisions.

      After you've elected your representatives, what they do is out of your hands; the only way you can change their behavior is to elect someone different next time. Therefore, agonizing over who to elect next time is, in fact, the only thing that makes sense if you live in a representative democracy. Worrying about day-to-day policies is pointless once you've made up your mind that you already don't like the current guys.

      On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide.

      If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kvezach (1199717)
        If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada. No. Unless you count these as unimportant, the United Kingdom used about $1.34 per capita for campaign finance in 2004. Canada used $1.50 per capita. The United St
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by legojenn (462946)

        If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada.

        ---

        While you are correct that the interest in Canadian federal general elections are limited to the northern part of North America, the money tied to US elections is

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by OctaviusIII (969957)
      First, I should say that I'm an American that has lived in Canada for the past 6 years as a political science student, so I've been following Canadian politics for a while now. Basically, the current situation in the States is a bit like how it was in Canada after Chretien left office: nobody cared that much about Martin and they just wanted to get on to the next thing, but even that's a weak comparison when examined next to the perfect storm of the '08 presidential campaign.

      This year, things started so s
  • by vsync64 (155958)
    They've tracked down the spammer and the software and configuration used. It's all about email and nothing about Web polls, let alone text message polls. So can the lies about "spamming the polls" please stop now? Thanks FOX.
    • Check this out: the San Francisco Republicans cancelled their straw poll because there were too many people ready to vote for Ron Paul: http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=12183556 [kcrg.com] Of note is the fact that Mitt Romney had some supporters waiting in line to vote multiple times.
      • by HardCase (14757)
        Of note is the fact that Mitt Romney had some supporters waiting in line to vote multiple times.

        In Florida. Read your own article:

        The Florida Republican straw poll, held last Saturday, became increasingly chaotic as Paul supporters sparred with those of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney over the amount of votes individuals cast.

        Though individuals were allowed to purchase up to ten voting tickets for $20 apiece, Paul supporters actively displayed their single tickets while Romney supporters reportedly c
  • Real world people (Score:5, Informative)

    by NEOtaku17 (679902) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:30PM (#21606897) Homepage
    I know many people think that Ron Paul doesn't have many real supporters and that it is mostly internet bots, but when Barack Obama visited Arizona State University to give a speech there were literally almost as many people with Ron Paul signs and t-shirts than Barack Obama even though Ron Paul wasn't even visiting that day. Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...
    • by megaditto (982598) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:41PM (#21607025)
      A tiny vocal minority does not matter, in this case.

      Your vote does not carry a passion multiplier.
      • by jcr (53032)
        A tiny vocal minority

        He has more individual donors than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat.

        -jcr
        • by CRCulver (715279)
          Which only makes them more vocal, not any less of a minority.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jmorris42 (1458) *
          > 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 w
      • by dave562 (969951)
        A tiny vocal minority does not matter, in this case.

        It does matter in a country where the large majority of the elegible voters fail to vote. It especially matters when that "tiny minority" is comprised of a large majority of people who haven't voted in the past, or haven't voted in a long time. The number of people who are tired of politics as usual but are supporting Ron Paul is pretty astounding. The fact that the media needs to vilify his supporters in an attempt to stiffle the message goes to show

    • You HAVE read his voting record, right?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jcr (53032)
        Yes, I've read it. He's the only politician I can remember in my lifetime whose votes match his words 100%.

        -jcr
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sethawoolley (1005201)

          Yes, I've read it. He's the only politician I can remember in my lifetime whose votes match his words 100%.

          -jcr

          If you actually look at his voting record:

          http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296 [vote-smart.org]

          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.

          • by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Thursday December 06, 2007 @11:36PM (#21608373) Journal
            He's a liar and flip-flopper just like the rest of them.

            Actually, you're the liar. Ron Paul's votes on this issue are consistent with his stated position: he votes against federal funding for abortion (since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution), and he votes to allow the states to set their own policy on the matter.

            As for changing his position, the only issue I can name where Ron Paul has changed his stance is on the death penalty: he used to be in favor of it, but given the number of death row convicts who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, he no longer supports it. I don't have a problem with that.

            -jcr

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by sethawoolley (1005201)

              He's a liar and flip-flopper just like the rest of them.

              Actually, you're the liar. Ron Paul's votes on this issue are consistent with his stated position: he votes against federal funding for abortion (since he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution), and he votes to allow the states to set their own policy on the matter.

              Here's the summary:

              12/06/2006 Abortion Pain Bill NV
              05/25/2005 Overseas Military Facilities Abortion Amendment N
              04/27/2005 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act N
              10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              06/04/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              07/20/2000 Abortion Funding Amendment N
              07/13/2000 Family Planning Assistance Funding amendment N
              06/22/2000 Prison Abortion Funding Amendment N
              05/18/2000 Oversea Military Abortions Amendment N
              04/05/2000 Partial Birth Abortion Act Y
              07/29/1999 Abortion Funding Amendment N
              06/30/1999 Child Custody Protection Act N
              06/09/1999 Overseas Military Abortion Amendment N
              06/08/1999 Prohibition of Chemically Induced Abortion Amendment Y
              10/08/1998 Contraceptive Amendment Y
              08/06/1998 Abortion Funding Amendment N
              07/23/1998 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              07/15/1998 Child Custody Protection Act N
              06/24/1998 Chemical Inducement of Abortion Amendment Y
              05/20/1998 Abortion Private Funding Restoration Amendment N
              10/08/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              09/04/1997 International Family Planning amendment Y
              03/20/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              02/13/1997 Population Planning bill N

              Here's the summary:

              Yes, some are bans against funding, which is consistent with his position, but I'm going to cull to show the ones that specifically go to my point:

              10/02/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              06/04/2003 Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              04/05/2000 Partial Birth Abortion Act Y
              07/23/1998 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              10/08/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y
              03/20/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y

              Note that during these votes, the Roe v. Wade decision was in effect as the supreme law of the land due to the Supreme Court, rendering all of these yes votes a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Yes, they later upheld the most recent vote, but he knew he wouldn't get the votes until Bush's stacking of the Supreme Court

    • Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...
      The problem is, very few of those "free thinkers" will take the time to actually vote, and the few that do will vote the "lesser of two evils". Unfortunately, he majority of campus voters will be "young Republicans".
    • Just hook the botnet up to Diebold machines and you can do away with pesky human voters.
  • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:31PM (#21606913)
    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?
    • ...his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model...
      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.
      • by vux984 (928602) on Friday December 07, 2007 @12:39AM (#21608823)
        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 [cnn.com]
        and

        http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929 [vote-smart.org]
        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.

        • by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Friday December 07, 2007 @04:04AM (#21609927) Homepage Journal
          I'll believe you, without any trouble at all. As best I recall, he had problems with the particular choice of executive departments ( FTC vs FCC ). He didn't so much vote against a do-not-call list, as he voted against an FTC-operated do-not-call list. He would have voted for the list if it were run by the FCC.

          The issue is that when run by the FTC, as the vote authorized, the government is judging speech by its content. The FTC - the Federal Trade Commission - would be judging whether or not the speech is commercial, ie: trade oriented. And judging speech by its content is a first amendment violation.

          The FCC, by contrast, would only be judging what type of communication it is. The FCC has a long history of banning certain types of communication: broadcasting on certain frequencies, or using too much power, etc. These don't violate the first amendment.

          A formal legal opinion was expressed by Judge Edward Nottingham ( after the vote ):

          "There is no doubt that unwanted calls seeking charitable contributions are as invasive to the privacy of someone sitting down to dinner at home as unwanted calls from commercial telemarketers...The FTC has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home, thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech the consumer should hear."
          In summary, Ron Paul made his decision based on first amendment issues. It is not clear that the issues of privacy or property rights even made it onto his screen.

          BTW, all of the above is from memory. I can't find anything on the net explaining why he voted against it.

          PS: sorry about the 'crack' comment.
  • by Sensi (64510) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:31PM (#21606921) Homepage
    What was the content of the spam? Was it spamming Diggs for Ron Paul articles, comment spam, or did everyone get emails promising if you vote Ron Paul your dick gets bigger?
  • minor point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday December 06, 2007 @08:40PM (#21607009) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Psychotria (953670)
      Political spam *IS* trying to sell a product. They are trying to buy your vote. I know this is a little pedantic, but they are selling themselves and, therefore, qualify as spam.
  • russian origin (Score:3, Informative)

    by Newton IV (666922) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @09:14PM (#21607319)
    That's interesting because Nenastnyj means something like "cloudy weather man" in Russian.
  • by TekGnos (624334) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @09:27PM (#21607419)
    So what about all of the donations coming into Ron Pauls website? Spam as well? If so, I want some of that spam in my inbox!!
  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yurka (468420) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @09:49PM (#21607633) Homepage
    I guess that the only thing left for Russians is to try and influence elections in the US, since they had absolutely no chance to do that at home.

No one gets sick on Wednesdays.

Working...