If you receive unsolicted mail, SMS messages, and so on, and can track down their source contact numbers and names, please let this webmaster know, so their details can be publicised for the benefit of all. Make sure you have had your details placed on the South African Mailing Preference Service first. Download the form and fax it to 011-832-3512.

My former landlady violated my privacy. Click on the link to read about avoiding the "Landlady from Hell" syndrome.

The mailing list company called "Blackwood Mall" violated our privacy by selling my wife's details to Metropolitan Life. I shudder to think how they got the details in the first place, since they are wrong. Their address is, Unit 5, S Cape Industrial Park, Leo Road, Diep River, Cape Peninsula. Phone 021-705-4223. In April 2004 I spoke to Dick Stear at Blackwood Mall and he admitted that they supplied the data. Blackwood Mall is a member of the Marketing Federation of South Africa, but doesn't download the South African Mailing Preference Service list. Since I complained they haven't sent any more mail.

Fin-Dynamic 011-805-9509/11 have called on several occasions, telling us about the so-called prizes we have won. The less said about these marketing types the better. They have called several times, dispite us telling them we know who they are and what they do.

Here's another one: The Alternative Group (TAG), 15 Richards Drive, Midrand. Phone 072-248-2366. They like to phone residential numbers on a public holiday. I didn't even ask what they were selling; my name isn't Danie, and my home number is NOT listed. So whatever they are selling I don't want to know.

The company that is misusing Cybertel information is called Equitac, 11 Somerset Office Park, Constantiakloof, Roodepoort. Phone 011-279-1400, or phone Willem van Yaarsveld 012-304-5700 at their Pretoria office. When you phone the Roodepoort number it is answered as "Holiday Club". They assured me that they weren't selling timeshare, but of course they have resorts and they wanted to invite me to attend a presentation. Sure thing. I just look like an idiot.

The wonderful people at Ster Kinekor Moview Club suddenly decided to send me emails about the "Pooky" movie and VisitBritain. Nice of them to ASK first. What's more, the unsubscribe-movieclub@sterkinekor.co.za email address provided on their web site doesn't work. I have filled in a form on their web site demanding an explanation. I wonder if they'll even bother to respond. Neither email has provided any explanation of why they would suddenly start sending me junk after all this time, and there is no unsubscribe facility indicated in the email. After waiting a week with no response, I phone 011-386-3000 and lodged a complaint. They assured me that the details would be kept private (see their privacy statement below) but what they don't say is that the emails they send out have no unsubscribe facility, and when you click on the link provided in their "Visit Britain" promotion it gives your email details to the third party automatically. You then have to "unsubscribe" which only confirms that your email address exists in the first place.

The infinitely helpful people in the legal department of TransUnion ITC don't respect the privacy of my contact details. I wrote and asked them to please tell me who has accessed those details in the last 4 years. They refused. Why? Because they don't know, and they don't care. "TransUnion ITC does not sell Marketing lists." they don't need to: they simply "correct" the existing lists of anyone of their subscribers who request this information. "... We do provide updated information on consumers to our subscribers on receipt of their customer list that they forward to us for updating ..." They make no attempt to check whether the subscriber has obtained permission from the customer to do so. The pass the buck back to the subscriber: "... It is the responsibility of the credit grantor to obtain consent from the individual to access their information." The only way to prevent them from dishing out your confidential contact information is to get them to remove it from the list. I have sent an email to them requesting they do so. Contact their legal department on Tel (011) 214 6524 or fax (011) 214 6266. They also refused to say how many subscribers they have, or how many of them have been prosecuted or disciplined for incorrect use of their data. Why? Because they don't care, and they hide being the phrase "We are unable to provide confidential information" but only when it suits them, not the consumer. I have written to them to request that they change my details as follows:
Home phone number: UNLISTED
Work phone number: CONFIDENTIAL
Cell phone number: UNLISTED
Residential address: PRIVATE, [suburb], [post code]
Postal Address: CONFIDENTIAL
Since none of this interferes with their ability to do credit checks, I'm sure they'll be more than willing to oblige. They weren't. They refused to change a thing.

• eBucks.com: "Your privacy is important to us. We will therefore not sell, rent or provide your personal information to unauthorised entities or to third parties for their independent use without your consent."
• DigitalMall.com: "We do not sell, rent or barter your information."
• SANLAM: "Sanlam does not sell, rent, or trade your personal information with anyone. As a result of our relationship with the Sanlam intermediaries/advisors, we will be sharing with them information about you. We may also share information within the Sanlam businesses."
• Metropolitan: "... Metropolitan Life is committed to ensuring that the right to privacy of Administrators, Managers, Representatives, Brokers and Members alike are protected at all times."
• I-Digital Africa: It’s ironic that a credit agency would have a privacy policy, but part of it states: "I-Digital will not use or pass on any of the information submitted through the course of obtaining a WaterMark including, specifically, e-mail addresses for purposes unconnected with WaterMark issuance."
• Tracker: "... respects your privacy and seeks to protect your personal data. The following information describes how we gather and use data."
• Sterkinekor "... truly believes in keeping your confidential information just that...confidential! Any details you post to our site serves only to serve YOU better. The more we know about what you like, where you live and who you are the more we can enhance your movie experience. We have absolutely no interest in selling the information." No, they don't sell it, they GIVE it away by getting you to click on "competition" links when they send unsolicted emails!
• GrabamillionRand.com: This is an example of a web site with no privacy at all. They claim to be an opt-in list bet when you join you aren’t told that you are joining a mailing list. Actually if you read it carefully it’s an opt-out list: "GrabamillionRand.com is a web site dedicated to creating an opt in email database where the users receive 1 email per week. All emails will contain an unsubscribe link so anyone may opt out at any time."

Many people consider the Voter’s Roll and the phone book to be information in the “public domain”. But the entire contents of the phone book are copyright, and there is a usage notice on the Yellow Pages web site. So why do people consider that information to be in the “public domain”? Basically, because the publishers have little or no way of enforcing that copyright. The best way is to make sure your details aren’t in the book in the first place.

From the EasyInfo web site:

What happened to the personal pages?

A message for visitors to easyinfo.co.za from managing director, Alan Lipschitz

You may have noticed that on Tuesday 19 February, we removed the personal pages directory that we launched on 26 January. We were immensely proud of this product, and went to great lengths to develop a database that complemented our existing products.

As you will have read in the press over the last 2 weeks, the database raised questions regarding privacy of information and law.

EasyInfo had sourced this database through a legitimate but confidential source, Telkom had concerns that numbers not listed in the phone book were listed on our site. Following discussions with Telkom, I am pleased to announce that EasyInfo, Telkom SA and Personal Pages (the publishers of the directory) have reached an out of court settlement. As part of this settlement, we agreed to remove the directory from our site.

If the publication of this database offended anyone, we apologise. The truth is that EasyInfo is in the business of information, and we do not apologise for developing databases that are both accurate and extensive. We are committed to offering you the most comprehensive online databases possible, and the development of the personal pages was a further step in the right direction. The additional 400 000 visitors to the site and the additional 7 million site impressions over the 3 weeks that we published the directory, proves that we had developed a product that the market requires.

While I respect the right to privacy, and removed names of those who requested this from the database, I am committed to the development of this and similar extensive database products. ...

Good riddance to bad rubbish! If this is someone’s idea of a publicity stunt, they should be ashamed of themselves! And all that "spin" about how people "wanted" the product is despicable. If you read it carefully you will see that actually they couldn’t care less about privacy and if they can find another way of publishing the same kind of information they will.

It is great news that Telkom™ tried to protect their copyright, but when are they going to protect their customers when they are doing exactly the same thing?

---

Electronic Phone Books that you can search and download cheaply

If you thought it was bad that they yellow pages and white pages were available to the general internet (with restrictions) you can also get this information from the CyberTel service on Telkom's Cybertrade system. I got a call from a Holiday Club company (groan) who told me they got my business phone number from Cybertel.

From the Cybertel web page:

CyberTel is an exclusive service to CyberTrade. This service allows subscribers to gain access to Telkom’s electronic telephone directories and access information on consumer and business customers that are listed in the white pages.

Information searches include telephone and fax numbers, toll-free numbers and telex numbers.

The service allows for various different ways of searching the database and receiving information on customer particulars.

I phoned their enquiries number 0800 578 578 and was told that I can get 10 hours usage per month for as little as R64.30. What this particular mareking company has done is use special software the interrogate the CyberTel database and print out the names and numbers of target clients and phone them. They just type in a particular target area, and get a list of phone numbers and company names. Never mind that this violates the copyright of the Telkom phone directory. And Telkom has a disclaimer that indemnifies them from the improper use of the information they provide. How convenient.

The company in question that is misusing this information is called Equitac, 11 Somerset Office Park, Constantiakloof, Roodepoort. Phone 011-279-1400, or phone Willem van Yaarsveld 012-304-5700 at their Pretoria office.

---

“Dangerous Data” - your privacy has expired

The title of the book says it all. Fortunately it's a novel, but it illustrates just where our information-rich society could be headed. The entire story is told from the point of view of a self-confessed "data detective" who works entirely from his office. He uses credit card, medical, shopping, telephone, department store, legal, corporate email and other records to follow the lives of 4 people in London. He never meets them, but gets to know them intimately: what they eat, what perfume they wear, where they went on holiday, who is cheating on whom, and so on. It's fascinating, but it leaves one simple question unanswered: how did he gain access to this data? I think of the real answers to those questions were known to the general public, we would have riots in the streets. But the novel also asks other more profound questions, such as the nature of privacy, and the ethics of how the data is revealed and used.

I bought my copy at the CNA, and paid for it with my card. But then you knew that already. You can get it online. All you need to do is search.

Title: Dangerous data
Author(s): Lury.Gibson
Publisher: Corgi
ISBN: 0552148709
Published: 2002
Format: Softcover
Kalahari.net, exclusivebooks.com, amazon.co.uk
There is no longer a simple delete button. Nothing can ever be truly erased. The facts are always there, safe on a database. Someone's looking through it. Sifting. Data-mining. Discovering your secrets. Someone like Dogg: Data Detective.

---

Why Monopolies Are Really Bad

Partially privatised arrogance

You are the monopoly service provider in a market with millions of customers. You have a stranglehold on everything from residential voice calls to commercial data and internet services. You set your prices with no reference to any obvious market imperatives and thumb your nose at the regulatory authority.
You have the political cover to slash staff numbers in half, declare large profits and pay astronomical bonuses to top management, threaten trade unions with "derecognition", and then slash staff numbers some more.
As the saying goes: nice work if you can get it.
This week, the arrogance and lack of accountability that Telkom serves up to its customers in abundance were shovelled in the direction of its employees. Interdicted by the labour court from laying off more than 4000 workers until they had consulted with recognised unions, Telkom wasted no time in announcing that it would go ahead with the layoffs whatever the outcome of the "consultations".
Add this to the list that Telkom treats with contemptuous disregard, a group that includes the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, telecoms companies, and even the government's stated social goals of job creation and poverty reduction.
The labour court made a good call on Sunday. While it did not stop Telkom from pursuing retrenchments, it decided that the company was in breach of the Labour Relations Act if it offered voluntary severance packages without discussing its options with the three unions that represent almost 80 percent of its workforce.
Unions insist that the company does have other cost-cutting options if it is genuine in its quest for greater efficiency. One of these would be more reasonable salaries and bonuses for its chief executive Sizwe Nxasana, and other senior managers. Telkom paid Nxasana almost R12million in salaries and bonuses last year, as reward after the company declared profits of R4,5billion.
It goes without saying that very little of that lucre saw its way to the workers, who still bear the brunt of a one-sided cost-cutting regime that is pursued with almost ideological zeal. Since its partial privatisation in 1997, Telkom has shed 25000 jobs, its tariffs have skyrocketed, 80 percent of the new fixed lines rolled out under its development obligations have been disconnected and its customer service remains appalling. Nor is efficiency a word that comes to mind.
Indeed, it seems that the only people who have gained anything of value out of the 1997 sale of 30 percent of Telkom and the 2002 listing are its executives and major shareholders.
Free-market advocates often warn that the only thing worse than a state-controlled monopoly is a privatised one. Over seven years, Telkom has done little but prove the truth of this dictum. This government, which wants to halve unemployment by 2014, would do well to examine precisely what has been achieved by the privatisation exercise at Telkom.

Editorial from ThisDay newspaper, 18/08/2004 page 10. Cartoon from ThisDay 26/08/2004. © 2004 ThisDay Media (Pty) Ltd.

---

Legal Warning

If you send me a lawyer's letter/email or threaten to sue I will publish it, even if you ask me not to. I have the right to fair comment and criticism in the public interest. It's called freedom of speech. And it's protected by both the US and SA constitutions.

If you feel some statements are incorrect because details or further information is missing, rather send me the missing information, and explain the inaccuracies. I would rather sort out the errors than get involved an a legal slanging match. Bear in mind that threats of legal action only make you or your company look worse. And be sure you understand exactly what you mean by defamation or trademark infringement. If your trademark doesn't have a ™ or ® symbol on it, don't expect people to know it is trademarked. And bear in mind that this site doesn't sell anything or make money. Please read the acceptable use policy of the hosting company.

Every care and effort is made to ensure that links are correct and details are accurate. If you find a link that no longer works, please let me know. If you know of any companies or sevices that infringe on the privacy of others, or that go out of their way to protect the privacy of others, please let me know.

There are past copies of this web site here

This site is brought to you in part by the good graces of Metropolitan Life, who threatened to sue me but have decided not to. Together we can ... settle our differences like adults by talking to each other instead of sending nasty emails.
Many thanks to Eddie Arpesella, General Manager of Metropolitan Direct, who apologised, clarified things and set the record straight.

---

How More Embarrassing Can It Get?

When you're a partner in a prestigious law firm and you sue a parody web site on behalf of a monopoly that everyone hates because of their shoddy service, don't do a shoddy job. Unfortunately this advice comes too late for Mr Jan Stander of the Trademarks department Adams and Adams in Pretoria. His email to the webmaster of the Hellkom.co.za web site reads as follows:

Dear Sir
SOUTH AFRICA - Trade mark registration no. 91/5809 TELKOM and others in class 35 in the name of Telkom SA Limited and objection to website telkomsucks.Ocatch.com

1. We act on behalf of Telkom SA Limited.

2. Our client is the proprietor in South Africa of the well-known TELKOM and Keypad logo (TELKOM) trade marks in various classes. We attach as Annexure "A" details of our client's trade mark registrations. We collectively refer to the above trade marks as the 'TELKOM' trade marks.

3. Our client has spent considerable time, money and effort in the promotion and establishment of this trade mark, and as a result, the mark has become known in the relevant trade sectors in South Africa and internationally. As a result of this extensive use, our client has acquired a reputation and goodwill in its mark, and therefore also has common law rights in its TELKOM trade marks, worldwide.

4. Accordingly, our client is also entitled to prevent the use by another person of its registered trade mark in relation to goods or services, if the use would be likely to take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of our client's registered trade mark. Section 34(1)(c) and Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act no. 94 of 1993 apply in this regard. Furthermore, our client is also entitled to protection of its well-known trade mark in terms of Article 6(1)bis of the Paris Convention.

5. Our client has been made aware of the fact that you are the subscribing partner of the domain name telkomsucks.Ocatch.com. This domain name is confusingly similar to our client's well-known TELKOM trade mark. You are further using various logos, such as HELLKOM, TELSCUM, MELK-HOM, TELKON, TELSKAM, MONOPOLY-DOTCOM, GELDBOM, DJOUMA, EXPENSIVE on your website that are confusingly similar to our client's TELKOM trade mark.

6. Your unauthorized use of our client's trade mark in this manner, takes unfair advantage of, and/or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of our client's TELKOM trade mark, and thus infringes Section 34(1)(c) of the Act. Your actions also amount to unlawful competition, at common law but are also defamatory in nature.

7. Therefore, your registration of the domain name furthermore amounts to male fide use of our client's trade mark, and is thus objectionable. It also constitutes defamation of our client. Our client is therefore entitled to object to the domain name and the use of the disparaging logos. Our client is also entitled to apply to the High Court in the United States for an interdict against you based on the above.

8. Accordingly we call upon you immediately to:

8.1 cease all use of and disenable the domain name www.telkomsucks.Ocatch.com or any other name confusingly or deceptively similar to our client's TELKOM trade mark, as you are no doubt unilaterally entitled to do so;

8.2 cease all use of the infringing marks mentioned in paragraph 5 above, or any other marks/logos that are confusingly similar to our client's TELKOM trade mark.

8.3 undertake, in writing, never to make any unauthorized use of our client's TELKOM trade mark, or any confusingly or deceptively similar trade mark, in any manner or form whatsoever, again in future;

9. We require your response by no later than Friday, 13 August 2004. Should you fail to comply with our demands, we will take our client's instructions on instituting further action against you, as well as claiming damages against you in an amount of no less than R5 million.

Yours faithfully
ADAMS & ADAMS

Ms N Harryparsad
obo J F STANDER
PS: Please note that the annexure are voluminous, and will follow separately.
Tel : + 27 12 481 1707
Fax: +27 12 362 6437
Jan@adamsadams.co.za

Of course the problem with this is not the outragous threats, but all the mistakes made.

• They got the web site address wrong. Twice. One wonders if the author has even visited the web site.
• The "High Court in the United States"? I always thought it was the Supreme Court of the United States
• The .com domain is not country-specific. I guess it's because "ZeroCatch" has their mailing address in 252 North Orem Blvd, Orem, Utah 84057, USA. So they file suit against a South African site in Utah? The mind boggles.
• None of the "offending" logos are even displayed on the telkomsucks.0catch.com site.
• Erroneous citations: Trade Marks Act "no. 94 of 1993" when it should read "194 of 1993"
• Paris Convention "Article 6(1)bis" when it should read "6bis (1)"

All of this prompted an advocate to write the following:

Dear Mr Stander,
I have been asked by Gregg Stirton to respond on his behalf to your email to him of 10 August (as forwarded to me by him and copied beneath the line of "xxx"s below) concerning various complaints of your client Telkom SA Limited with regard to (a) the domain name telkomsucks.Ocatch.com and (b) the content of a website hosted (or formerly hosted) under that domain name. For the purpose of this response, I shall assume that Mr Stirton is -- as your email seems to imply or take for granted -- the owner and/or controller of the said domain name and website (though I have no authority from Mr Stirton to admit on his behalf that he is, and though I do not in fact know whether he is or is not). Accordingly, I shall in what follows (and for the sake of convenience only) refer to the said domain name and website as "Mr Stirton's domain name" and "Mr Stirton's website" respectively.

I ought perhaps to make it clear at the outset that I am not Mr Stirton's attorney of record in this matter. He has (so far as I am aware) NO such attorney at present, and I am merely a legally-trained friend of his -- I am an advocate (not an attorney) in this country and also an attorney (in the American rather than in the South African sense) in New York -- who has agreed to assist him (on a voluntary basis) for the time being. Further, I have no specialist knowledge of the South African law relating to trade marks and I have made it clear to Mr Stirton that in my view he ought to consult an attorney who DOES have such knowledge if there is any real prospect of litigation between your client and him concerning the trade-mark-related matters alluded to in your email. I am, however, able to read -- and even the most cursory examination of the Trade-Marks-Act sections and Paris-Convention article which are referred to in your email is in fact sufficient to reveal the utter IRRELEVANCE of such sections and article to a situation (such as I understand the present one to be) in which the person whose conduct is complained of is in fact carrying on no trade or dealings of any sort in relation to any goods or services whatsoever. Section 34(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act (194 of 1933) is quite EXPLICITLY limited (in its application) to unauthorized uses of marks "in the course of TRADE in relation to any GOODS OR SERVICES" (my caps) -- and so far as I am aware no such trade is being or ever has been conducted from or via Mr Stirton's website. Section 35 of the same Act, in so far as it has any conceptual bearing upon the matters presently in controversy at all, is (in effect) similarly limited by the words "in relation to goods or services ... [etc]" in subsection (3) thereof. And Article 6bis (1) of the Paris Convention (for the Protection of Industrial Property) -- which is what I assume to be meant by the reference in your email to the non-existent Article 6(1)bis -- has to do only with marks "considered ... to be well known ... as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR GOODS" (my caps).

By reference to what "goods" or "services" traded or dealt in by Mr Stirton do you consider the above-discussed provisions of the Trade Marks Act and Paris Convention to be relevant to any legally-sensible complaint on your client's part concerning the content of Mr Stirton's website? In paragraph 6 of your email, you say that Mr Stirton's "actions" amount to "unlawful competition": can you please explain in what way you think that they amount to COMPETITION -- whether lawful or not -- AT ALL?

I have not yet had time to examine the content of Mr Stirton's website in search of possibly-DEFAMATORY content -- though so far as I am presently aware there is none. But in so far as your email has to do with TRADE-MARK INFRINGEMENT (including trade-mark dilution) it seems to me to amount to an attempt simply to scare the addressee through the use of suitably-intimidatory (but actually-irrelevant) legal jargon. The email is also replete with instances of bad grammar and faulty (and therefore confusing) punctuation, erroneous citations (e.g. Act "no. 94 of 1993" when you mean "194 of 1993", and "Article 6(1)bis" when you mean "6bis (1)") and logical non-sequiturs -- all of which have the effect of making it extremely difficult to follow. In the circumstances, I would greatly appreciate it if you could email me a simple and unambiguous statement of what exactly it is that your client wants and on what sensible legal grounds (if any) it claims to be entitled to it.

Meanwhile, I have to tell you that your clients' chance of obtaining injunctive (interdictory) relief from any court in the United States in respect of the bare existence (and/or use) of Mr Stirton's domain name (or any similar domain name) is in my opinion extremely remote, not least because of the implications of last year's US-Court-of-Appeals decision in Taubman v Webfeats and Mishkoff 2003 FED App. 0043P (6th Cir.), a copy of which is accessible online at http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03a0043p.06
Regards,
SMD (Michael) Alachouzos (Adv.)

Also, they should have read the following disclaimer on the www.hellkom.co.za site:

The contents of this site is for personal use - if you choose to download anything you do so at your own risk - I am not to be held liable for any proceedings against you or others resulting from the use of anything on this website. I am protected by the Freedom of Expression Act under Paragraph 16 of the Constitution of South Africa from any legal action being taken as a result of the use of any information on this website as it is my personal opinion. All news links are hosted on their respective publishers' websites, and Hellkom is not affiliated in any way with any of the website links which may appear in any of the pages. The logo creations and jokes are parody, intended for entertainment purposes only and are not to be taken seriously. As a precaution to eliminate any confusion which could arise regarding this website, do note that Hellkom does not endorse any goods or services by Telkom and is not affiliated with them in any way whatsoever. Furthermore the use of the Telkom name is not used on this website in any way which could be deemed as copyright/trademark infringement or unlawful competition and we have no intention of doing so. As this site has been registered as Hellkom and does not contain a trade mark to which goodwill is attached it cannot be considered as 'passing off' as documented in the terms of the South African Common Law. Additionally this is a non-profit website and has been established for public interest as everything stated herein is factual and true. Opinions may differ.

There are more interesting quotes in relation to "passing off" claims here. And Just when you thought it couln't get any more comical, check out www.fucktelkom.co.za as well as www.i.love.adams.and.adams.karnaugh.za.net

The moral of the story:
(a) Fools rush in where others fear to tread. So do your research first. Do it properly.
(b) If your customers are already upset with you, no amount of bullying will make it better.
(c) People who run parody web sites are not stupid. Don't underestimate them.
(d) Listen, learn, and improve your service. Turn adversity into an opportunity.
(e) If you're the law firm, make sure you don't make any serious cock-ups. And do your own PR.

Oh, and did I mention that all of the partners in the Trademarks department of Adams & Adams in Pretoria are all white (judging by their photographs)? Granted, some of the more recent, less senior partners are women, but still ... We are 10 years into our democracy, folks!

On the plus side, they have supplied me with a useful document on trademark law.

Can you spot the difference between these logos?
This one is boring. It appears on Telkom™ vehicles, invoices, adverts and just about everywhere else. The slogan is basically meaningless. The company that uses it fleeced the public of R4,5 billion last year alone.	This one is funny. It appears on a parody web site. The slogan is basically true. It is not used to market anything, and you can't buy it anywhere. The company on the left is claiming damages of R5 million against the private individuals who run the web site. The only reason they run the site is because of the arrogance and incompetence of the company on the left.

Before we leave the subject of logos completely, can you spot the Telkom™ logo in the logo of one of Telkom's lawyers? Of course they will say it is pure coincidence, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and ignorance is no excuse! What's more, they published the Hellkom logo in one of their newsletters. Is this a scandal, or do they know that the whole court case is just a load of hot air? You decide. I don't think we'll see Buys Inc as one of the defendants anytime soon, though. If there is a case at all.

Reinhardt Buys sent me this brilliant tongue-in-cheek response. I guess one of the reasons why he has earned the respect of the industry that he serves is that he is very much "with the program" in terms of technology and how it works. South Africa needs more legal minds like this.

“Free-market advocates often warn that the only thing worse than a state-controlled monopoly is a privatised one.”

---

---

Operators are standing by! Previous Page ...

On the previous page:

• Different Forms of Privacy
• Privacy Is Controversial
• Identity Theft: It can turn your life upside down
• Violations of Privacy
• Stop those Unsolicited Phone Calls
• Stop those Unsolicited SMS Messages
• The Code of Practice for Commercial SMS
• Stop that Unsolicited Junk Mail
• Insurance Companies and the Privacy Waiver Clause
• Say No To Unwanted eMails
• There Are Ways To Combat SPAM
• Stop those Annoying Web Ads
• Make Sure Your Web Site is Secure, Compliant
• Beware of SpyWare
• Your PC can be used to do some good
• How’s My Driving?
• Yahoo is Listening to You, and Paying Attention
• Some Companies Listen to their Customers, Others Don’t
• Autopage listens to their Customers
• Online Virus Checkup
• Online Security Checkup
• Never Assume They Know What They Are Doing

---

Contact Information

You can contact the webmaster at the address below in connection with this site. It is put in a gif file to prevent spam.

Privacy Policy: If you contact the author your name will not be placed on any mailing lists or disclosed to any other party without your express permission. Unless you send me a threatening legal letter. Then your email address is published on this site, as part of the letter. Please read the privacy policy and acceptable use policy of the hosting company.

Please visit the web site of Black and White Inc, the software development company of the author.

---

Monitor page for changes         it's private    by ChangeDetection

.

US Citizens are not welcome to this web site. FastCounter by bCentral This page last Updated: 13:10 11/11/2004

---

®™

I am informed by John Williams at Adams & Adams, “... according to my records, Telkom presently owns no less than 569 registered and pending trade marks.” One wonders why they don't use the ™ or ® marks on their web site or in the phone book. Except for the Yellow Pages logo, of course.

All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Copyrighted works remain the property of their respective owners. See the terms and conditions