Yes, same here when I went back later and tried to acknowledge the same email.
Noted the count on the petition is going up. 6,000 more petitioners than this morning. It looks ready to crack 100,000 by the end of the day.
I wonder how Google and Facebook might see this unfolding? If they chose to make their thoughts known. 
P.S. Any chance this one might get pinned to the top?
From @PhilT
“Perhaps they are not interested in a petition that focuses on governments most supportive puppet master, as some see it?”
I know it is fun to be cynical about our fearless leaders but do either of you seriously think that the web problems are due to corruption? Did you do anything to test this hypothesis such as try another petition or browser?
I failed repeatedly using Chrome but it went through first time using Edge.
As others have said the number of signatories is going up quite quickly despite the problems. Not a very effective conspiracy, more like a web form stuff up.
It might be easier for you to just accept what should obviously be satirical commentary rather than to expect those of us so prone to change our ways.
I tried other petitions that interested me and they went more smoothly and the site didn’t suspect I was a robot like the Media one caused the system to respond suggesting that.
Cynical as I am that was a a bit of a fetch to say I was, as I had successfully completed the Capctha which is supposedly the way to detect the robots.
Pinned it for 2 weeks
Finally managed to sign the petition.
There are now more than 302,000 signatures.
Murdoch will not be impressed.
It will be interesting to watch government’s dodge and weave since the petition seems to have struck a chord.
It would be interesting to see if each petition had a unique IP address, as I heard on the grape vine that a number of organisations were signing the petition in the names of their members. You can possibly guess who the organisations were.
I suspect there will not be an agile dance … more like a stone wall.
In case anybody should think that the public response to this petition is a sign of growing political engagement or concern over the future of democracy a petition to keep down the price of beer got way more signatures.
If you have not completed it you may not know there is a verification step that requires that the email address is verified ie the person who wants to sign must verify by completing a link in the email (copied the top part)
"Dear Petitioner,
You recently indicated that you wish to sign petition number EN1041 of the following terms on the House of Representatives e-petitions site.
[Click here to confirm your signature](Link removed)".
From the Federal site:
"Signing a petition
You must be a resident or citizen of Australia to submit a petition. Members of parliament cannot submit a petition.
When you sign a petition, we ask for your name and a verifiable email address. We will not publish your information online, but your name will be included in the final petition presented to the House of Representatives.
Your email address will be used to verify your intent to sign a petition. We also use your email address to make sure you haven’t signed the petition already, and that you’re a real person (and not a bot). We will not use your email address for any other purpose, and will not disclose it without your consent."
A business submitting on behalf of their employees might use the corporate email domain but responding as the person who is attached to that domain is illegal as the warning is that it must be completed by the signer. If they used the person’s private email address then accessing that is also illegal and means that the business has hacked the password or used it in a highly immoral and illegal way. The signer must also tick a box to say they are entitled to sign and that they are who they say they are, see my post at Media & Politics - Corporations or People - #17 by grahroll as I highlighted that part.
I say it is a conspiracy theory spread by those who are against the petition to try to dilute the impact of so many signers. Call into question the legitimacy as typical conspiracy spreaders do so that people who didn’t sign it think it might be true. Your post has by it’s
also muddied those waters unintentionally.
If you do know the names of those organisations, and I can’t guess who would do something so illegal in this way, please advise the House of Reps who they are, as if proven they did so (I’m extremely doubtful that it will) they will then be prosecuted under the Federal Crimes Act for making false declarations and impersonating others.
The person who told me said they got the verification email without signing the petition. On receipt he assumed that it was filled in by his ‘organisation’ and later found out from other members that they also got the same email. From what he said the ‘organisation’ has done it in the past for other causes, and members are expected to verify.
With most petitions etc it takes a little effort to decide if one signs…and then fills in the forms. Getting a email to click ensures signing increases…and may encourage those to verify who may otherwise not have made the effort (or inclination to sign).
This is where unique IP address is important.
It is also illegal for the organisation to tick the box on behalf of the signer, this occurs before the verification email is sent (it occurs at the beginning of the signing process), by getting to the verification point they have asserted that they are the signer and thus identity theft amongst a raft of other offences has occurred. They (your friend) should make a formal complaint, but regardless if they don’t verify then the signing does not occur and their’s is not counted. If they didn’t sign (verify) the business would have no idea if they had or hadn’t.
It hasn’t stopped these organisations doing illegal things in the past, if they think they are right. I beleive they have even made such comments.
If caught, they could argue they had authorisation to lodge on behalf of a member…and the government would need to find a member willing to give evidence their organisation.
I hope the team looking after tye e-petitions recorded IP addresses and filters out with multiple signings.
No they don’t have that right to submit on behalf of others, it is an illegal act unless they have an Power of Attorney or similar Legal authority to do so, being an employer is not that type of authority. The signer makes a formal declaration right at the beginning, the verification email is to cut others out from doing what you suggest has happened. Have your friend make the complaint because if the business has done it even just for 1 person who isn’t themselves and if they have no Legal authority to do so, they have broken the Law. It is that simple and they would be prosecuted for the offence. IP addresses would mean nothing, all it means is that behind that address there could have been thousands signing or only 1 or a few. I if I don’t have a fixed WAN IP I could be sharing the same address with multiple other users of my RSP nearly everyday. Even in my home as we have a single WAN IP address, there are many members of my household who use that address how would they then determine who did what just based on IP addresses.
Perhaps you should make the complaint or name the organisations publically. I’m sure that would grab the attention of the authorities.
They can. One doesn’t need a legal document to gain an authority. I can give authority for someone to something on behalf…and do all the time.
One also has to recognise that this particular e-petition is a political one (and why some organisations have been keen for it to get mileage). I thought about signing, but chose not to as it was instigated by Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd has been very clear in the past about his distaste for some sections of the media, including News Corp, and blames them for his election defeat to the Abbott LNP government. It is a revenge type political e-petition to serve a particular purpose, and not one to investigate media freedoms, including protecting varying and different views, within the public space. If it was the later, I would have signed.
I will just say that the T&Cs of signing these e-petitions require by Law that the signer is in fact who they say they are. To do otherwise is illegal, the verification email is to ensure someone else has not made a false and misleading attempt to impersonate another.
To your other point re Kevin Rudd and politics (and yes it is political)
The preamble certainly points out Murdoch press as it owns a very large portion of the news media and finishes with a non Murdoch statement “Only a Royal Commission would have the powers and independence to investigate threats to media diversity, and recommend policies to ensure optimal diversity across all platforms to help guarantee our nation’s democratic future”., but the most important part of the petition is the “Petition request” which simply states:
“We therefore ask the House to support the establishment of such a Royal Commission to ensure the strength and diversity of Australian news media.”
We agree to disagree about what it wants to achieve so I will leave it here for others to have their say.
Not by law…the T&Cs state:
Signing a petition
You must be a resident or citizen of Australia to submit a petition. Members of parliament cannot submit a petition.
When you sign a petition, we ask for your name and a verifiable email address. We will not publish your information online, but your name will be included in the final petition presented to the House of Representatives.
Your email address will be used to verify your intent to sign a petition. We also use your email address to make sure you haven’t signed the petition already, and that you’re a real person (and not a bot). We will not use your email address for any other purpose, and will not disclose it without your consent.
The email it to validate that the petition was not signed by a bot thus restricting the potential for a person/organisation to automate the signing of the petition to their advantage. It however doesn’t stop manual entry of information like that which I outlined above.
I agree, its is just a shame that say a non-partisan individual lodged the e-petition to try and achieve non-political outcomes. When Rudd makes statement like these, the true intention behind the e-petition is not what one may believe.
It is also worth noting that the e-petition T&Cs also don’t allow (current) members of parliament to instigate a e-petition, to try and politicise the e-petition process. But it doesn’t stop a former parliamentarian with a potential axe to grind to instigate an e-petition. Maybe the T&Cs need to be reviewed.
Federal Parliament receives many hundreds of petitions every year. There are currently approx 43 petitions open for signature. This demonstrates their popularity and need. There are limited ways in which members of the public can seek government to respond or act.
The petition requesting a Royal Commission into strength and diversity in Australian News Media will need to be responded to by the Government and responsible minister if it is accepted. Very few petitions are dismissed out of hand.
If there are concerns with the legitimacy of some of the petitioners, the advice to take any details directly to the Government department seems the right response.
As we often say in the community when dealing with complaints, following procedures and formally communicating with the responsible business, government department etc is the best way to go. Any thing else is simply idle chatter or gossip, that has no standing in law. It’s a waste of time.
There is also a point at which such commentary moves from being speculative to fabrication. There is enough of this already in the media in some parts of the globe, without adding to it here. I don’t know the whole truth of the media landscape in Australia and news reporting. I am dismayed at the attitude of certain commentators in the media who seem to take sides on unfounded allegations. I’d welcome any opportunity to see the news media model for Australia open to scrutiny and informed public input.
I did sign the petition, and it’s nothing to do with Murdoch’s business interests. It’s all to do with a lack of credible standards and diversity. Sometimes a business does what a business is permitted to do.
The Senate will hold an enquiry into medie diversity in Australia.
Murdoch will be leaving them off his Xmas card list.
