-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
SA websites not legally compliant
- Thread starter crbuys
- Start date
Perdition
Expert Member
mbs, you need to get out more [
]
]donn
Well-Known Member
It seems like the "critics" were willing to pass comment but unwilling to do any work.
I think that Lance's point about the risks of not having a compliant web site are valid, though. If you're not doing any online transactions you aren't going to get sued by a customer unless you've done something really bone-headed.
FWIW, Metropolitan Life have dropped their law suit threats against me now that I have removed their logo from my web site. What a storm in a teacup!
<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards
<div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right">
I think that Lance's point about the risks of not having a compliant web site are valid, though. If you're not doing any online transactions you aren't going to get sued by a customer unless you've done something really bone-headed.
FWIW, Metropolitan Life have dropped their law suit threats against me now that I have removed their logo from my web site. What a storm in a teacup!
<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards
<div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right">
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by donn</i>
<br />It seems like the "critics" were willing to pass comment but unwilling to do any work.
I think that Lance's point about the risks of not having a compliant web site are valid, though. If you're not doing any online transactions you aren't going to get sued by a customer unless you've done something really bone-headed.
FWIW, Metropolitan Life have dropped their law suit threats against me now that I have removed their logo from my web site. What a storm in a teacup!
<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards
<div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Donn is correct and so is Lance's assumption that non e-commerce sites face less compliance issues. But nobody disputed that... it is a valid comment in light of the compliance survey. What it is NOT is a "legal knife" drawn or an indication of whatever is misleading and incorrect about the survey results.
In general I agree with most of what Steven and Lance said in the article. What I disagree with is the references to misleading, incorrect and "takes issue" with. The 2004 website compliance survey merely counted certain things on a total of 1500 local websites. By saying that X% of websites have terms and conditions we're not saying that you MUST have terms and conditions and amen!
In any event, the survey methodology was based on the same principles, issues and rating of recent website compliance surveys in the US and Australia, adapted slightly for SA legal purposes.
We encourage debate and free speech... especially on forums like these. We like it when fellow lawyers or others test our views and comment on what we say. In the legal profession there are obviously different opinions, but as part of the our professional ethics we NEVER attack one another, but rather raise the facts and provide solutions; to attack someone without proof or without providing a practical solution for the man on the street, is wrong, underhanded and unethical.
If we could debate valid legal issues in forums like these with resulting benefit to the public, we all win. Bring it on. BUT if we use comments in the media by others just to get into the media or attack others with incorrect or unproven facts, forums like this would be worthless and more like something you would find in YOU magazine (with all respect).
Also, Lance's comment that most SA websites are B2B transaction sites raises some questions. Does anybody know if that is true? Is there any stats available on how many websites of what kind are available in SA?
If some of your know Lance or Steven, please tell them that my challenge has now been unanswered for 3 days... where's those "legal knives"?
Cheers[
]
Reinhardt Buys
<br />It seems like the "critics" were willing to pass comment but unwilling to do any work.
I think that Lance's point about the risks of not having a compliant web site are valid, though. If you're not doing any online transactions you aren't going to get sued by a customer unless you've done something really bone-headed.
FWIW, Metropolitan Life have dropped their law suit threats against me now that I have removed their logo from my web site. What a storm in a teacup!
<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards
<div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Donn is correct and so is Lance's assumption that non e-commerce sites face less compliance issues. But nobody disputed that... it is a valid comment in light of the compliance survey. What it is NOT is a "legal knife" drawn or an indication of whatever is misleading and incorrect about the survey results.
In general I agree with most of what Steven and Lance said in the article. What I disagree with is the references to misleading, incorrect and "takes issue" with. The 2004 website compliance survey merely counted certain things on a total of 1500 local websites. By saying that X% of websites have terms and conditions we're not saying that you MUST have terms and conditions and amen!
In any event, the survey methodology was based on the same principles, issues and rating of recent website compliance surveys in the US and Australia, adapted slightly for SA legal purposes.
We encourage debate and free speech... especially on forums like these. We like it when fellow lawyers or others test our views and comment on what we say. In the legal profession there are obviously different opinions, but as part of the our professional ethics we NEVER attack one another, but rather raise the facts and provide solutions; to attack someone without proof or without providing a practical solution for the man on the street, is wrong, underhanded and unethical.
If we could debate valid legal issues in forums like these with resulting benefit to the public, we all win. Bring it on. BUT if we use comments in the media by others just to get into the media or attack others with incorrect or unproven facts, forums like this would be worthless and more like something you would find in YOU magazine (with all respect).
Also, Lance's comment that most SA websites are B2B transaction sites raises some questions. Does anybody know if that is true? Is there any stats available on how many websites of what kind are available in SA?
If some of your know Lance or Steven, please tell them that my challenge has now been unanswered for 3 days... where's those "legal knives"?
Cheers[
]Reinhardt Buys
dominic
Legal Expert: Telecoms
...from steven ferguson - Nicciferguson Incorporated
Hi Reinhardt
Regarding your comments on the ITWeb article by Paul Vecchiattio, I cannot comment on the headline or the author’s comments – let’s call it journalistic creativity. I’m sure there are many in and outside this forum who would enjoy seeing a bunch of lawyers squabbling amongst themselves. So, from the outset, I don’t want this to detract from the real issues.
To clarify my comments and concerns regarding the survey: I have no problem with the survey itself. In fact, the results regarding lack of awareness and affordability highlight some real problems that need to be addressed. I also found your “compliance checklist” useful.
What prompted comment from me were the comments made about “gross negligence” on the part of companies who do not comply with the ECT Act and related legislation and the reference to non-existent criminal sanctions to create “awareness”. As far as the comments about affordability for SME’s are concerned, the less said the better.
We can debate the use of the term “legal compliance” until we are blue in the face – it doesn’t change the fact that the man on the street sees legal compliance as: Law A states that I must do this, if I don’t I can be fined or imprisoned.
Call a spade a spade – there are no criminal penalties in the ECT Act which are applicable to websites. I am not sure what other legislation is referred to in the survey but in your checklist you mention the Copyright and Trademark Acts. From my understanding of the law, if you commit an offence in terms of these Acts, no amount of drafting expertise can absolve clients of liability if they are in fact liable.
The formalities that arise from certain provisions of the Companies and CC Act are easily remedied without the need for a full set of terms and conditions. As stated in the article, the penalties for such an oversight on a company website do not justify an SME spending R5000 on legal fees.
My input for the IT Web article was to counter a situation where website owners, who already don’t have a proper awareness, are now frantically running around trying to get Terms and Conditions drafted without taking a real look at their risk profiles and whether such an exercise will compliment their business objectives and their pockets.
Reinhardt, I am all for knowledge sharing (even as a marketing tool) because a better informed client results in a better service from us. But surely it needs to be done in a responsible way!
Hi Reinhardt
Regarding your comments on the ITWeb article by Paul Vecchiattio, I cannot comment on the headline or the author’s comments – let’s call it journalistic creativity. I’m sure there are many in and outside this forum who would enjoy seeing a bunch of lawyers squabbling amongst themselves. So, from the outset, I don’t want this to detract from the real issues.
To clarify my comments and concerns regarding the survey: I have no problem with the survey itself. In fact, the results regarding lack of awareness and affordability highlight some real problems that need to be addressed. I also found your “compliance checklist” useful.
What prompted comment from me were the comments made about “gross negligence” on the part of companies who do not comply with the ECT Act and related legislation and the reference to non-existent criminal sanctions to create “awareness”. As far as the comments about affordability for SME’s are concerned, the less said the better.
We can debate the use of the term “legal compliance” until we are blue in the face – it doesn’t change the fact that the man on the street sees legal compliance as: Law A states that I must do this, if I don’t I can be fined or imprisoned.
Call a spade a spade – there are no criminal penalties in the ECT Act which are applicable to websites. I am not sure what other legislation is referred to in the survey but in your checklist you mention the Copyright and Trademark Acts. From my understanding of the law, if you commit an offence in terms of these Acts, no amount of drafting expertise can absolve clients of liability if they are in fact liable.
The formalities that arise from certain provisions of the Companies and CC Act are easily remedied without the need for a full set of terms and conditions. As stated in the article, the penalties for such an oversight on a company website do not justify an SME spending R5000 on legal fees.
My input for the IT Web article was to counter a situation where website owners, who already don’t have a proper awareness, are now frantically running around trying to get Terms and Conditions drafted without taking a real look at their risk profiles and whether such an exercise will compliment their business objectives and their pockets.
Reinhardt, I am all for knowledge sharing (even as a marketing tool) because a better informed client results in a better service from us. But surely it needs to be done in a responsible way!
donn
Well-Known Member
> What I disagree with is the references to misleading,
> incorrect and "takes issue" with
In re-reading the article it would seem that the "takes issue" wording comes from PAUL VECCHIATTO (the author of the article) rather than any of the direct quotes attributed to those interviewd.
So either they said things that were so harsh that they couln't be printed, or they didn't say them at all. []
> Legal knives drawn on compliance survey
I wonder whether Paul suggested this headline, or one of the sub-editors made it up? It seems a bit of stretch between the cautious and measured tones of the quotes from those interviewed.
I think the "legal knives" are a figment of someone's, and don't exist in real life.
My own experience of being quoted by journalists (admittedly from The Star) is that they don't always get it right. Especially on detail. I expect that if Lance or Steve respond, it will be to clarify what they said, rather than to take issue with Reinhardt or the survey.
<b>What does bother me</b> is that the LegalSentry web site doesn't contain the results of the survey. What I would like to see is a list of, say, the top 10 web sites that are compilant in each category of web site.
At least the Buys Inc Newsletter has a link to the Compliance checklist, but not the results.
Also, I tried printing out the Terms and Conditions of the LegalSentry web site, with disasterous results on my modest little Laserjet printer. I understand that part of the purpose of the web site is to sell "Web site Terms and Conditions" notices, but to make them encrypted, secure, non-copyable, print-only PDFs is a bit much.[xx(]
At least the Buys Inc one didn't have a background graphic that overloaded the printer's memory.[]
<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards
http://privacy.4mg.com
<div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right">
> incorrect and "takes issue" with
In re-reading the article it would seem that the "takes issue" wording comes from PAUL VECCHIATTO (the author of the article) rather than any of the direct quotes attributed to those interviewd.
So either they said things that were so harsh that they couln't be printed, or they didn't say them at all. [
]> Legal knives drawn on compliance survey
I wonder whether Paul suggested this headline, or one of the sub-editors made it up? It seems a bit of stretch between the cautious and measured tones of the quotes from those interviewed.
I think the "legal knives" are a figment of someone's, and don't exist in real life.
My own experience of being quoted by journalists (admittedly from The Star) is that they don't always get it right. Especially on detail. I expect that if Lance or Steve respond, it will be to clarify what they said, rather than to take issue with Reinhardt or the survey.
<b>What does bother me</b> is that the LegalSentry web site doesn't contain the results of the survey. What I would like to see is a list of, say, the top 10 web sites that are compilant in each category of web site.
At least the Buys Inc Newsletter has a link to the Compliance checklist, but not the results.
Also, I tried printing out the Terms and Conditions of the LegalSentry web site, with disasterous results on my modest little Laserjet printer. I understand that part of the purpose of the web site is to sell "Web site Terms and Conditions" notices, but to make them encrypted, secure, non-copyable, print-only PDFs is a bit much.[xx(]
At least the Buys Inc one didn't have a background graphic that overloaded the printer's memory.[
]<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards
http://privacy.4mg.com
<div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right">
mithrandi
Well-Known Member
Legally compliant???? What the !@#$ing hell? And people thought Orwell was crazy...
<hr noshade size="1">mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar
<hr noshade size="1">mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar
dominic
Legal Expert: Telecoms
For the record I am an associate at Nicciferguson Inc. as can be seen from my profile...
After issuing a challenge on this forum which was responded to, the latest development in the debate was sent out off-forum as the headline article in the latest Buys Incorporated newsletter.
"In response to the results of the 2004
Website Compliance Survey conducted by
Buys Inc., ITWeb featured an article
claiming that e-lawyers have drawn their
‘legal knives’ and implying that the survey is
‘misleading’. View the article.
Recently, Steven Ferguson, one of the
alleged e-lawyers seemingly quoted in the
article responded to a challenge by Buys
Inc. to substantiate the wild claims in the
article. Buys Inc. issued the challenge on
the MyASDL forum. Ferguson denied
responsibility and blamed the ITWeb
reporter for the unfounded claims: “I cannot
comment on the headline or the author’s
comments – let’s call it journalistic
creativity.” View discussion forum: Page 1,
Page 2."
the above statement (c) 2004 Buys Inc.
This is a personal attack which takes quotes out of context.Could we have a response on the merits posted on the forum please?
if anyone cares the comments to Paul Vecchiatto's article offer a refreshing perspective...
see links from article at http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2004/0409271028.asp?S=Legal View&A=LEG&O=FRGN
After issuing a challenge on this forum which was responded to, the latest development in the debate was sent out off-forum as the headline article in the latest Buys Incorporated newsletter.
"In response to the results of the 2004
Website Compliance Survey conducted by
Buys Inc., ITWeb featured an article
claiming that e-lawyers have drawn their
‘legal knives’ and implying that the survey is
‘misleading’. View the article.
Recently, Steven Ferguson, one of the
alleged e-lawyers seemingly quoted in the
article responded to a challenge by Buys
Inc. to substantiate the wild claims in the
article. Buys Inc. issued the challenge on
the MyASDL forum. Ferguson denied
responsibility and blamed the ITWeb
reporter for the unfounded claims: “I cannot
comment on the headline or the author’s
comments – let’s call it journalistic
creativity.” View discussion forum: Page 1,
Page 2."
the above statement (c) 2004 Buys Inc.
This is a personal attack which takes quotes out of context.Could we have a response on the merits posted on the forum please?
if anyone cares the comments to Paul Vecchiatto's article offer a refreshing perspective...
see links from article at http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2004/0409271028.asp?S=Legal View&A=LEG&O=FRGN
dominic
Legal Expert: Telecoms
sorry to bug on - was rereading the thread and felt compelled to highlight the following from a previous post
"We encourage debate and free speech... especially on forums like these. We like it when fellow lawyers or others test our views and comment on what we say. In the legal profession there are obviously different opinions, but as part of the our professional ethics we NEVER attack one another, but rather raise the facts and provide solutions; to attack someone without proof or without providing a practical solution for the man on the street, is wrong, underhanded and unethical.
If we could debate valid legal issues in forums like these with resulting benefit to the public, we all win. Bring it on. BUT if we use comments in the media by others just to get into the media or attack others with incorrect or unproven facts, forums like this would be worthless and more like something you would find in YOU magazine (with all respect)."
?
"We encourage debate and free speech... especially on forums like these. We like it when fellow lawyers or others test our views and comment on what we say. In the legal profession there are obviously different opinions, but as part of the our professional ethics we NEVER attack one another, but rather raise the facts and provide solutions; to attack someone without proof or without providing a practical solution for the man on the street, is wrong, underhanded and unethical.
If we could debate valid legal issues in forums like these with resulting benefit to the public, we all win. Bring it on. BUT if we use comments in the media by others just to get into the media or attack others with incorrect or unproven facts, forums like this would be worthless and more like something you would find in YOU magazine (with all respect)."
?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If we could debate valid legal issues in forums like these with resulting benefit to the public, we all win. Bring it on. BUT if we use comments in the media by others just to get into the media or attack others with incorrect or unproven facts, forums like this would be worthless and more like something you would find in YOU magazine (with all respect)."
?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree, transparency and open discussion is hard to find in SA.. if we can all discuss things out in the open and bring across our point of view, so much the better for everyone involved.
<font color="navy"><font size="1"><b>Where others have progress, we have Telkom.</b>
Hellkom website - www.hellkom.co.za</font id="size1"></font id="navy">
If we could debate valid legal issues in forums like these with resulting benefit to the public, we all win. Bring it on. BUT if we use comments in the media by others just to get into the media or attack others with incorrect or unproven facts, forums like this would be worthless and more like something you would find in YOU magazine (with all respect)."
?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree, transparency and open discussion is hard to find in SA.. if we can all discuss things out in the open and bring across our point of view, so much the better for everyone involved.
<font color="navy"><font size="1"><b>Where others have progress, we have Telkom.</b>
Hellkom website - www.hellkom.co.za</font id="size1"></font id="navy">
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
Hi all,
With reference to Dominic's postings above.
1. Anybody would note that Steven's explanation above and the ITWeb article that quoted (or mis-quoted or whatever) him are very different. Why?
2. Steven noted that the heading of the ITWeb article and references to whatever was "misleading" had nothing to do with him. He attributes these to the reporter.
3. The subsequent report in the current Buys Inc. newsletter (http://www.buys.co.za/gbNewsletters.asp?RID=60) is 100% correct. Steven blamed Paul. Paul's article failed to substantiate various wild and incorrect claims. Steven story above and the ITWeb article do not correspond. End of story.
If you want to jump on the media bandwagon get your facts straight. If you want to point fingers, have your evidence ready. If not, shut up.
Cheers,[
]
Reinhardt Buys
With reference to Dominic's postings above.
1. Anybody would note that Steven's explanation above and the ITWeb article that quoted (or mis-quoted or whatever) him are very different. Why?
2. Steven noted that the heading of the ITWeb article and references to whatever was "misleading" had nothing to do with him. He attributes these to the reporter.
3. The subsequent report in the current Buys Inc. newsletter (http://www.buys.co.za/gbNewsletters.asp?RID=60) is 100% correct. Steven blamed Paul. Paul's article failed to substantiate various wild and incorrect claims. Steven story above and the ITWeb article do not correspond. End of story.
If you want to jump on the media bandwagon get your facts straight. If you want to point fingers, have your evidence ready. If not, shut up.
Cheers,[
]Reinhardt Buys
dominic
Legal Expert: Telecoms
my last stooping...
1. what is an "alleged e-lawyer"? is that respect between colleagues?
2. where is your response on the merits? You have issued a challenge which was answered and then have chosen to respond in an underhand manner in a newsletter where nobody has a right to reply? why?
"If you want to jump on the media bandwagon get your facts straight. If you want to point fingers, have your evidence ready. If not, shut up."
I think the forum can now, if anyone cares enough, have their say on what they think about this thread.
1. what is an "alleged e-lawyer"? is that respect between colleagues?
2. where is your response on the merits? You have issued a challenge which was answered and then have chosen to respond in an underhand manner in a newsletter where nobody has a right to reply? why?
"If you want to jump on the media bandwagon get your facts straight. If you want to point fingers, have your evidence ready. If not, shut up."
I think the forum can now, if anyone cares enough, have their say on what they think about this thread.
Perdition
Expert Member
It's great to see a debate between legal minds on this forum and I hope we see more in the future. You both make valid points and the mud-slinging is entertaining when it's in jest (mbs must be wriggling in his seat with excitement []), however I think you're both walking that fine line and starting to let emotion cloud the issue.
]), however I think you're both walking that fine line and starting to let emotion cloud the issue.LOL at PERDITION - hey, there's other ways I get my jollies, too! Anyway, can only but concur. Methinks there's common cause here, gents - let's rather focus on that, with a view to appropriate legal remedy. Surely a synergistic outcome for mutual benefit will result? How about cooperatively pursuing representations to the Law Commission, for suitable amendments designed to avoid inadvertent website contraventions, for example?
Steven
New Member
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by crbuys</i>
<br />Hi all,
With reference to Dominic's postings above.
1. Anybody would note that Steven's explanation above and the ITWeb article that quoted (or mis-quoted or whatever) him are very different. Why?
2. Steven noted that the heading of the ITWeb article and references to whatever was "misleading" had nothing to do with him. He attributes these to the reporter.
3. The subsequent report in the current Buys Inc. newsletter (http://www.buys.co.za/gbNewsletters.asp?RID=60) is 100% correct. Steven blamed Paul. Paul's article failed to substantiate various wild and incorrect claims. Steven story above and the ITWeb article do not correspond. End of story.
If you want to jump on the media bandwagon get your facts straight. If you want to point fingers, have your evidence ready. If not, shut up.
Cheers,[]
Reinhardt Buys
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Reinhardt
I wasn't sure whether I needed to ask your permission before I aired my further comments, so I apologise for this flagrant abuse of my right to free speech.
A "challenge" was issued to Lance and myself to "<i>clarify exactly what they take issue with, to give examples of whatever they consider to be misleading or misinformation</i>" I responded on this forum by clarifying that it was references to non-existent criminal penalties and the harsh commentary about gross negligience etc. on the part of non-complying companies that got my back up.
I also made it quite clear in my response that I didn't want to get side-tracked by the "legal knives" headline. Personally I found the headline amusing and if anyone knows Paul, you will know exactly what his style is. For someone who is so prevalent on the "media bandwagon", I would have thought that you would have seen it for what it was. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.
So, to clarify once again - if you have a problem with the headline or the way the article has been written, take it up with Paul - I am sure he would be happy to hear from you. As far as my input into the article is concerned, I await any constructive response you may have. If not, please don't quote me out of context again.
I would be grateful if this reply could be added to your next newsletter for the benefit of clarifying my position to your readers. (But I won't hold my breath)
Thanks
Steven
SF
<br />Hi all,
With reference to Dominic's postings above.
1. Anybody would note that Steven's explanation above and the ITWeb article that quoted (or mis-quoted or whatever) him are very different. Why?
2. Steven noted that the heading of the ITWeb article and references to whatever was "misleading" had nothing to do with him. He attributes these to the reporter.
3. The subsequent report in the current Buys Inc. newsletter (http://www.buys.co.za/gbNewsletters.asp?RID=60) is 100% correct. Steven blamed Paul. Paul's article failed to substantiate various wild and incorrect claims. Steven story above and the ITWeb article do not correspond. End of story.
If you want to jump on the media bandwagon get your facts straight. If you want to point fingers, have your evidence ready. If not, shut up.
Cheers,[
]Reinhardt Buys
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Reinhardt
I wasn't sure whether I needed to ask your permission before I aired my further comments, so I apologise for this flagrant abuse of my right to free speech.
A "challenge" was issued to Lance and myself to "<i>clarify exactly what they take issue with, to give examples of whatever they consider to be misleading or misinformation</i>" I responded on this forum by clarifying that it was references to non-existent criminal penalties and the harsh commentary about gross negligience etc. on the part of non-complying companies that got my back up.
I also made it quite clear in my response that I didn't want to get side-tracked by the "legal knives" headline. Personally I found the headline amusing and if anyone knows Paul, you will know exactly what his style is. For someone who is so prevalent on the "media bandwagon", I would have thought that you would have seen it for what it was. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.
So, to clarify once again - if you have a problem with the headline or the way the article has been written, take it up with Paul - I am sure he would be happy to hear from you. As far as my input into the article is concerned, I await any constructive response you may have. If not, please don't quote me out of context again.
I would be grateful if this reply could be added to your next newsletter for the benefit of clarifying my position to your readers. (But I won't hold my breath)
Thanks
Steven
SF
crbuys
Legal Expert: Internet
Hi all,
Hopefully my last posting on this matter.
Firstly, I must agree with Predition and mbs - valid and sobering points.
Secondly, we must face that fact that all e-lawyers are "on the media bandwagon". Unlike "normal" lawyers we need to spend a lot of time and money on marketing e-Law and our related services. I always use the analogy of a divorce... the first thing most people do when they consider a divorce is getting lawyers involved. Yet legal advice is the last think on the minds of those creating websites or IT networks. eLaw is new and, like technology, fast paced and vibrant.
If one e-lawyer succeeds in getting media headlines, he or she indirectly helps all the others. The 2004 Website Compliance survey is a good example... the benefit of the media attention was (is) not limited to Buys Inc., but created an opportunity for all e-lawyers.
However, if we just shoot down others' media releases we harm e-law as a whole and indirectly also ourselves. The public will start thinking that all e-lawyers are bulsh@#$%$#s if one or two keep on shouting that from the rooftops.
Buys Inc. has NEVER publicly criticized any media releases from Nicci Ferguson, Michalsons or others. Yet, this is now the third time that these firms do it to us.
Steven should know that the comments about i) "non-existing" criminal penalties and ii) gross negligence was NOT made by Buys Inc. but by Adv. Willem Heath (former judge and head of the Heath Special Investigation Unit). See the advocate's press release at: http://www.buys.co.za/gbDownloads.asp?field=file&RID=121
Now, if you publicly take on an ex-judge you better be 100% sure of your facts.
Adv. Heath is correct in both instances. There's many activities on a website that may attract criminal sanction and those we fail or refuse to be compliant are nothing but negligent. What would Steven and Dominic say to a client who refuses to get his / her website compliant....? Ag, it's OK, website compliance is not a big issue, rather leave it, you cannot get into any legal trouble, refusing to do it is not negligent, it's actually very clever???
I doubt it.
My final comments on this issue:
1. We all need to make money and do to so we need to make media releases every now and then. If that happens, let's respect the resulting media attention. It benefits us all.
2. If we really MUST criticize publicly, lets direct the criticizm and the correct person and back up our statements with facts, examples and evidence.
3. And finally, if we debate legal issues publicly, let's keep is professional. When ITweb, Steven and Lance publicly took on Buys Inc. for things we did not even say or claim, I got a bit hot under the collar and referred to Steven as an "alleged e-lawyer". That was unprofessional and I apologise.[V]
My lunch invitation to Steven and Dominic stands![]
Cheers,
Reinhardt Buys
Hopefully my last posting on this matter.
Firstly, I must agree with Predition and mbs - valid and sobering points.
Secondly, we must face that fact that all e-lawyers are "on the media bandwagon". Unlike "normal" lawyers we need to spend a lot of time and money on marketing e-Law and our related services. I always use the analogy of a divorce... the first thing most people do when they consider a divorce is getting lawyers involved. Yet legal advice is the last think on the minds of those creating websites or IT networks. eLaw is new and, like technology, fast paced and vibrant.
If one e-lawyer succeeds in getting media headlines, he or she indirectly helps all the others. The 2004 Website Compliance survey is a good example... the benefit of the media attention was (is) not limited to Buys Inc., but created an opportunity for all e-lawyers.
However, if we just shoot down others' media releases we harm e-law as a whole and indirectly also ourselves. The public will start thinking that all e-lawyers are bulsh@#$%$#s if one or two keep on shouting that from the rooftops.
Buys Inc. has NEVER publicly criticized any media releases from Nicci Ferguson, Michalsons or others. Yet, this is now the third time that these firms do it to us.
Steven should know that the comments about i) "non-existing" criminal penalties and ii) gross negligence was NOT made by Buys Inc. but by Adv. Willem Heath (former judge and head of the Heath Special Investigation Unit). See the advocate's press release at: http://www.buys.co.za/gbDownloads.asp?field=file&RID=121
Now, if you publicly take on an ex-judge you better be 100% sure of your facts.
Adv. Heath is correct in both instances. There's many activities on a website that may attract criminal sanction and those we fail or refuse to be compliant are nothing but negligent. What would Steven and Dominic say to a client who refuses to get his / her website compliant....? Ag, it's OK, website compliance is not a big issue, rather leave it, you cannot get into any legal trouble, refusing to do it is not negligent, it's actually very clever???
I doubt it.
My final comments on this issue:
1. We all need to make money and do to so we need to make media releases every now and then. If that happens, let's respect the resulting media attention. It benefits us all.
2. If we really MUST criticize publicly, lets direct the criticizm and the correct person and back up our statements with facts, examples and evidence.
3. And finally, if we debate legal issues publicly, let's keep is professional. When ITweb, Steven and Lance publicly took on Buys Inc. for things we did not even say or claim, I got a bit hot under the collar and referred to Steven as an "alleged e-lawyer". That was unprofessional and I apologise.[V]
My lunch invitation to Steven and Dominic stands![
]Cheers,
Reinhardt Buys
dominic
Legal Expert: Telecoms
<i>Lance Michalson of Michalson's Information Technoogy Attorneys has asked me to post the following:</i>
In the third edition of its September 2004 electronic newsletter, Buys Inc attorneys reported on the results of a website compliance survey conducted by itself and Legalsentry. Legalsentry is described as an "online website compliance tool".
The results of the survey were summarised as follows: "In short, the number of South African websites that fail to comply with the provisions of related legislation have risen from 47% 2002 to a disgraceful 81% in 2004". An often cited reason by participants for their non-compliance, was the "uncertainty of applicable legal requirements".
Should the online business community be scandalised by these results, or is one observer correct when he described it as a "useless survey... that [is] a waste of time"?
Recently, the editor of a South African technology magazine made a very pertinent statement in an email exchange between us when he wrote that "... the only problem I have with much of the elaw communciations we're exposed to, is that it lacks consistency, and there is much too'ing and fro'ing ... a sort of the 'sky is going to fall' approach, as opposed to a truly educational approach. The IT security vendors suffer from the same over reported doomsday stuff, and the net result is that readers and decision makers become jaded ... and simply opt out of the debate with ... 'if it happens, it happens' ... self insurance if you would."
the full article is available from http://www.michalson.com/opinions/ - well worth a read for those wish to properly evaluate their response to legal risks posed by, and best practice in managing, their web sites
__________________________________________________________________
there are no experts - we are all flying by the seats of our pants
In the third edition of its September 2004 electronic newsletter, Buys Inc attorneys reported on the results of a website compliance survey conducted by itself and Legalsentry. Legalsentry is described as an "online website compliance tool".
The results of the survey were summarised as follows: "In short, the number of South African websites that fail to comply with the provisions of related legislation have risen from 47% 2002 to a disgraceful 81% in 2004". An often cited reason by participants for their non-compliance, was the "uncertainty of applicable legal requirements".
Should the online business community be scandalised by these results, or is one observer correct when he described it as a "useless survey... that [is] a waste of time"?
Recently, the editor of a South African technology magazine made a very pertinent statement in an email exchange between us when he wrote that "... the only problem I have with much of the elaw communciations we're exposed to, is that it lacks consistency, and there is much too'ing and fro'ing ... a sort of the 'sky is going to fall' approach, as opposed to a truly educational approach. The IT security vendors suffer from the same over reported doomsday stuff, and the net result is that readers and decision makers become jaded ... and simply opt out of the debate with ... 'if it happens, it happens' ... self insurance if you would."
the full article is available from http://www.michalson.com/opinions/ - well worth a read for those wish to properly evaluate their response to legal risks posed by, and best practice in managing, their web sites
__________________________________________________________________
there are no experts - we are all flying by the seats of our pants
donn
Well-Known Member
> the 'sky is going to fall' approach
Unfortunately this approach has been created by the media itself. I used to work at The Star, and I'm fully aware of the journalist's need for an "important" (i.e. alarming) story as opposed to an "educational" one.
But putting that aside for now, ... I think a lot of the too-ing and fro-ing <b>comes from a lack of legal precedents</b> (and cases) in SA, and lack of clarity on what is acceptable and what isn't.
For example: has anyone been charged, or even warned, in relation to the ICT Act? Who is supposed to police it?
Similarly, we all jump up and down about our right to privacy, but apart from Martin Welz challenging the court about the inclusion of his phone records in a divorce proceeding, what else has happened?
Then there is the kalahari.net matter. They fixed a hole on their web site, but were they in danger of court action, or just bad publicity?
Perhaps I'm not reading the newsletters enough, but most of the cases being reported do not happen on our shores.
I realise some of you have said "this is my last post" but I'd really appreciate it if y'all could reply further to these questions.
<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards <font size="2"><div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right"></font id="size2">
<font size="1">“If our government ever goes bad, as sometimes happens in a democracy... As we extrapolate our [surveillance] technologies into the future, if the incumbency has that political advantage over their opposition, then if a bad government ever comes to power, <b>it may be the last government we ever elect</b>.” See http://privacy.4mg.com </font id="size1">
Unfortunately this approach has been created by the media itself. I used to work at The Star, and I'm fully aware of the journalist's need for an "important" (i.e. alarming) story as opposed to an "educational" one.
But putting that aside for now, ... I think a lot of the too-ing and fro-ing <b>comes from a lack of legal precedents</b> (and cases) in SA, and lack of clarity on what is acceptable and what isn't.
For example: has anyone been charged, or even warned, in relation to the ICT Act? Who is supposed to police it?
Similarly, we all jump up and down about our right to privacy, but apart from Martin Welz challenging the court about the inclusion of his phone records in a divorce proceeding, what else has happened?
Then there is the kalahari.net matter. They fixed a hole on their web site, but were they in danger of court action, or just bad publicity?
Perhaps I'm not reading the newsletters enough, but most of the cases being reported do not happen on our shores.
I realise some of you have said "this is my last post" but I'd really appreciate it if y'all could reply further to these questions.
<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards <font size="2"><div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right"></font id="size2">
<font size="1">“If our government ever goes bad, as sometimes happens in a democracy... As we extrapolate our [surveillance] technologies into the future, if the incumbency has that political advantage over their opposition, then if a bad government ever comes to power, <b>it may be the last government we ever elect</b>.” See http://privacy.4mg.com </font id="size1">