SMS Spam Fight

andres101 said:
SMS messages are electronic communications and thus fall under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. 2002 (Act 25 of 2002)


After numerous complaints to RCS Credit/Foshini, I decided to open a case at my local police station. Case was opened on 15 January 2009 (I have a case number). If they are successfully prosecuted, I will tackle the other spammers and post a howto. It took me +/-4 hours to get SAPS to open the case!
Click to expand...

Well I complained to WASPA and after 4 mths they where fined. They appealed but as I'm in the industry and know what they contravened they could not overturn the fine.
 
xrapidx said:
What was their excuse?
Click to expand...

They did not know about the Act or understand what the case was about. Their "internet-division" only dealt with internet related fraud and could not assist me.

An advocate told me exactly what to tell the SAPS to get them to open the case. (bla bla bla contravened section x of act x of...). As soon as I mentioned advocate, they took down my statement and a few days later, the case was opened.
 
Deenem said:
OK, there's a misunderstanding here. When I say WASP I'm referring to the 32xxx numbers in the back of the You magazine. Send an SMS to receive ringtones, wallpapers or whatever.
Click to expand...

Ok, what you want is a Global Opt-out list from all premium rated SMS services and all premium subscription services. This will benefit businesses that sponsor phones for employees, or parents sponsoring phones for children.

Deenem said:
What you are referring to I'd call bulk SMS senders, and even in that case I'd still like a global opt-out list with the ability to allow certain senders. I get SMS's from my bank with once off PIN numbers so I would add them to my opt-in list. I get usage notification from my ISP, so I'd add them to my opt-in list.
Click to expand...

Again, here a particular WASP could be sending your banking messages, ISP usage notifications, and also possibly some unwanted messages from a different company. Each business, whether it is the bank, the ISP or the rogue business is really responsible for its own messaging policy and opt-in/out procedures.

The WASP can really only act once a complaint has been lodged. At this point, the WASP has a responsibility to act. It can block messages from a particular client. In severe cases, it might be required to suspend a client and notify WASPA to send out an advisory to other WASPs.
 
vodacom3g said:
Something slightly more tangible than weak logic, to be honest.

You say the absence of something is automatic proof of intent to not do it? :confused:

For example, let's assume you've not written matric yet. Is this proof that you refuse to write matric?

You seem to confuse speculation with proof.
Click to expand...

Yes, after repeated requests from consumers to implement a global opt-out system, you are still refusing to implement such a system.

If your parents have sat you down time and time again and asked to please write your matric exams, and you still don't have got your matric then , Yes, I am going to assume that you are refusing to do what they're askign you to do.
 
andres101 said:
They did not know about the Act or understand what the case was about. Their "internet-division" only dealt with internet related fraud and could not assist me.

An advocate told me exactly what to tell the SAPS to get them to open the case. (bla bla bla contravened section x of act x of...). As soon as I mentioned advocate, they took down my statement and a few days later, the case was opened.
Click to expand...

Cool - well, even if nothing comes of it, well done!
 
vodacom3g said:
Proof please, or are you still speculating?
Click to expand...

Do you always sound like an idiot, or is it just on monday's?

If the cell providers had implemented a global opt-out system then surely there would be an actual global opt-out system in place. Or are you too stupid to understand that?

I'm certainly not speculating about the fact that there is no global opt-out system in place, nor am I speculating about the fact that I know at least a half dozen parent who have phoned their cell providers to ask that their child's phone be blocked from subscribing to premium content, only to be told that it cannot be done.
 
Last edited:
Deenem said:
Do you always sound like an idiot, ... Or are you too stupid to understand that?
Click to expand...

Is this really necessary? :mad:

Proof please, or are you still speculating?
Click to expand...

Deenem, do you have an e-mail, sms, fax, letter, recorded audio or video or web-site ref or some form of evidence where anyone in Vodacom (or any of the others) have specifically stated any of the usual expected excuses or denials? eg:
"not within our interest"
"not commercially viable"
"too costly to implement"
"technically challenging"
"requires commitment from all market players"
"full industry participation"
... or any of those kinds of excuses which lends credence to your claims of their "refusal"

Because if they are "refusing" on the grounds of "technical" - this certainly is the place to refute or validate those claims. Ditto re potential "commercial" and "industry" related excuses.

We're looking for documentation here.

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack"
 
apogeeza said:
Deenem, do you have an e-mail, sms, fax, letter, recorded audio or video or web-site ref or some form of evidence where anyone in Vodacom (or any of the others) have specifically stated any of the usual expected excuses or denials? eg:
"not within our interest"
"not commercially viable"
"too costly to implement"
"technically challenging"
"requires commitment from all market players"
"full industry participation"
... or any of those kinds of excuses which lends credence to your claims of their "refusal"

Because if they are "refusing" on the grounds of "technical" - this certainly is the place to refute or validate those claims. Ditto re potential "commercial" and "industry" related excuses.

We're looking for documentation here.

"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack"
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but when did it become neccesary to get everyones permission before expressing your opinion around here?

All I've said is that myself and many people I have spoken to, have asked for a global opt-out list in order to control what gets sent to our and our childrens phones and despite many requests to create such a list, none currently exists.
 
Last edited:
Deenem said:
Do you always sound like an idiot, or is it just on monday's?

If the cell providers had implemented a global opt-out system then surely there would be an actual global opt-out system in place. Or are you too stupid to understand that?

I'm certainly not speculating about the fact that there is no global opt-out system in place, nor am I speculating about the fact that I know at least a half dozen parent who have phoned their cell providers to ask that their child's phone be blocked from subscribing to premium content, only to be told that it cannot be done.
Click to expand...

Again, and I'll type this slowly; In all of this who told you Vodacom refuse to provide such as a system?

All that you (and others) were told is that such a system is not yet in production.
 
Deenem said:
I'm sorry, but when did it become neccesary to get everyones permission before expressing your opinion around here?

All I've said is that myself and many people I have spoken to, have asked for a global opt-out list in order to control what gets sent to our and our childrens phones and despite many requests to create such a list, none currently exists.
Click to expand...

Expressing your opinion is very far from 'proof'.

By all means, express your opinion and we can gladly discuss, but you said you have proof. And it's this 'proof' I asked for.

You do agree that an opinion does not constitute proof?
 
I don't know why you guys are hammering Vodacom here. They have the strictest policy towards spamming and are the only network that have banned the use of international carriers by companies to send "promotional" (spam) messages to consumers.
 
apogeeza said:
There is the Direct Marketing Association's Do Not Contact Me database (http://www.facilities.co.za/dma/dnc.aspx) - if you are on that list no company who is a member of DMA is allowed to solicit you in any way or form whatsoever ... but that does not apply to those who are NOT members.

As far as I am aware this is the closest we have to a global list in SA, but it still does not work as intended.
Click to expand...

This is from much much earlier in the thread, but I've seen this many times, and I refuse to use this facility simply due to the amount of personal information they require to add you, and I'm skeptical as to what they will do with all that info.

I don't see why they require a valid ID number, and also how they check the ID number is valid. I just think its possibly more of a data mining exercise rather than a true DNC register
 
ToxicBunny said:
This is from much much earlier in the thread, but I've seen this many times, and I refuse to use this facility simply due to the amount of personal information they require to add you, and I'm skeptical as to what they will do with all that info.

I don't see why they require a valid ID number, and also how they check the ID number is valid. I just think its possibly more of a data mining exercise rather than a true DNC register
Click to expand...

I'm glad I registered at the Do Not Contact Me database. I'm right in the middle of the typical marketing "hitlist" (marketing profile & demographics of the most targeted people) and used to get loads of junk in all forms from random companies from all over the country. Since registering on the dB, 90% of that stopped almost overnight.

I guard my privacy and fight spam, but I'm glad I divulged my info to that site as it has made my life much less cluttered. Additionally it give me "ammunition" against any potential breach by the DMA members.
 
vodacom3g said:
Again, and I'll type this slowly; In all of this who told you Vodacom refuse to provide such as a system?

All that you (and others) were told is that such a system is not yet in production.
Click to expand...

And that why I'm saying that you're stupid. I have not said anything about anyone at Vodacom saying anything to me or anyone else about anything.

Where on earth do you get that I've spoken to anyone at Vodacom about this? Certainly not from anything that I've posted.

Maybe if you actually read what I've written you wouldn't come across as such an ignorant idiot.

There, the court is yours. Please point out the post where I said that someone at Vodacom told me that they refuse to implement an opt-out system and then I'll apologise for my lack of proof.
 
Last edited:
Deenem : You claimed to have proof that they are refusing to implement a Global Opt-Out list. This would kind of say that you've spoken to someone at Vodacom or MTN or CellC about this, and that they've given you a letter or an email stating such.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Deenem : You claimed to have proof that they are refusing to implement a Global Opt-Out list. This would kind of say that you've spoken to someone at Vodacom or MTN or CellC about this, and that they've given you a letter or an email stating such.
Click to expand...

Please point me to the post where I made this claim, I'd really like to see it.

I've expressed my opinion , which is that the providers don't want to implement a global opt-out list because it would affect their revenues, and I've made the claim that I asked to my service provided (not Vodacom, BTW) if it's possible to block premium rate numbers from my phone, and they said that it wasn't, which is the truth.

I have never made any claim about having spoken to anyone at Vodacom about anything.

Please point me to me to the post where I said these things that you claim I said.
 
Deenem said:
And that why I'm saying that you're stupid. I have not said anything about anyone at Vodacom saying anything to me or anyone else about anything.

Where on earth do you get that I've spoken to anyone at Vodacom about this? Certainly not from anything that I've posted.

Maybe if you actually read what I've written you wouldn't come across as such an ignorant idiot.

There, the court is yours. Please point out the post where I said that someone at Vodacom told me that they refuse to implement an opt-out system and then I'll apologise for my lack of proof.
Click to expand...

OK, it seems you don't understand the definition of the word "proof" which indicates the existence of "evidence" that's "irrefutable". Typically something physical.

You, at this point, "assume" something based on your own "reasoning". Your are thus "speculating". Which is cool.

But none of this is "proof", just your "opinion".

I'm sorry if I come across as stupid and an idiot, but the last time I looked an opinion is not automatic proof of anything. It's just not how the scientific method works.

Now go and read your posts above and notice how you used the word "proof".

If you said you *believe* the networks do not want to build opt-out systems, we can debate that.

But you did not say that, you said you have "proof". And I asked for this "proof".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X