Wikileaks Irony Moment

White House "deeply concerned" over conviction of former Russian tycoons

"We are troubled by the allegations of serious due process violations, and what appears to be an abusive use of the legal system for improper ends," the White House said in a statement. " The apparent selective application of the law to these individuals undermines Russia's reputation as a country committed to deepening the rule of law."

This from a government in the process of making a mockery of their own rule of law with "extra-legal" attacks on Wikileaks via their corporate sock-puppets at Amazon, Paypal, Visa, Mastercard and others.

Open Letter to Deputy Minister Gigaba at Home Affairs

Dear Deputy Minister Gigaba,

I have read (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=nw20100729143923925C771769) of your determination to "fast-track the passage" of legislation to force internet service providers to filter pornography. Ah yes! The age-old cry of "protect the children". Nothing like it for whipping up votes from frothing at the mouth evangelists.

Good luck!

No seriously, you'll need it! I don't know whether you were inaccurately quoted by io.co.za, or whether you are truly so badly misinformed when you are quoted as saying that "Technology [has] advanced to a point where ISPs would be able to filter out around 95 percent of the content in a highly cost-effective way".

I speak as a highly qualified technology IT and internet expert of 25 years experience: IT CAN'T BE DONE.

Not cost effectively. Not at all.

Please note that I have no interest in pornography - delivered via the Internet, the TV or Hustler magazine. I am merely pointing out the futility of any efforts in this regard.

But, while we're at it, why pick on one particular delivery channel? Surely you should also target the print-media, radio and television at the same time? Or do you have some agenda hiding under the cover of "protect the kiddies from sex"?

The only outcome of this stupid, unnecessary, idiotic, unwanted and futile campaign will be to load a huge cost burden on the internet service industry of this country, and accomplish EXACTLY NOTHING.

The kakistocracy at work again!

I wonder how many jobs you will destroy with this as you drive ISPs out of business with the needless burden of implementing such rubbish...

Head Firmly Up Arse

So some shithead deputy-minister wants to ban internet porn. Again.

No thought of what this is likely to cost internet service providers. No mention that it is technically impossible to achieve. So once again the kakistocracy is going to ram through some expensive dung-headed legislative rubbish that will achieve exactly nothing.

Nothing like the kakistocracy at work!

Technorati Tags: porn, internet, head-up-arse

Reply from DTI

Surprise, surprise, surprise! A reply from the DTI to the letter I copied the Minister on regarding CIPRO's Highway Banditry. From no less a personage than a Deputy Director General, too.

Thank you for writing to the Minister with your concerns. The Minister has requested that I indicate to you that this matter has been forwarded to the CIPRO Acting CEO to respond to you. 

As the department, we will however follow up on the issues you raise especially to the extent that you express concern about the requirement for companies that are already suffering to pay further monies in a form of tax and levies. The intention is not to burden businesses, especially small businesses, with unnecessary  additional costs in doing business.

Ordinarily, these are fees for administrative purposes in regard to government services and those of agencies of government. These fees are not intended to cover the total costs of providing the service, but merely a reasonable amount to contribute to administration of various respective functions of government.  

As indicated, to the extent that these fees may be steep for smaller entities, there is a need to look at them very carefully. In this regard, we will consider your concerns as we are currently in the process of determining the fee structure for services rendered in terms of the Companies Act. This will include the fees for annual returns that you are concerned about. We trust that you will also make use of the opportunity to make your comments to the Minister on the draft regulations and fee structure that will be issued in the next few weeks for public comments.

We trust that the Acting CEO of Cipro will assist you with other matters raised in your letter. Should you require further assistance from us the department, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Now this is all fine and well, and I confess to being pleasantly surprised that somebody in government could actually be bothered to respond. But somewhat misses the point. The primary problem is not the amount of the Protection Money Levy, but the fact that it must be paid at all. And that it is just one more onerous tax on our time and energy. And one more compliance requirement that government failed to properly inform us about but expects us (under Threat of Company Death) to comply with. I wrote back:

Thank you for your speedy and pointed response!

This is not intended to waste your time with a protracted dialog on the matter, but I feel compelled to emphasize one point you raised:

On 15/07/2010 18:50, [you] wrote:

of tax and levies. The intention is not to burden businesses, especially
small businesses, with unnecessary additional costs in doing business.

This is, however, the nett effect. However, it is not merely a question of the direct financial costs:

Ordinarily, these are fees for administrative purposes in regard to
government services and those of agencies of government. These fees are
not intended to cover the total costs of providing the service, but
merely a reasonable amount to contribute to administration of various
respective functions of government.

This cuts to the heart of the matter. The fee levied by CIPRO, together with the requirement for an annual return, achieves nothing and provides absolutely ZERO value over and above what we already have.

(Let them learn how to live within a budget - that provided by the treasury - just like the rest of the country has to. Ordinary people do not have the luxury of being able to go and put a gun to our clients' heads whenever we feel the pinch.)

CIPRO's claim that the annual return is intended to ensure that their records are kept up to date is irrelevant and spurious, since companies and CCs are already legally obliged to inform the Registrar of any changes to those details. So the annual return and associate levy are
a) unnecessary
b) financially burdensome, and
c) too demanding of time and energy.

This last point is particularly relevant for micro-enterprises already struggling to simply keep head above water. Every "couple of hours" I have to spend in regulatory compliances (from whatever quarter of government) is a couple of hours that must be stolen from the attempt to keep body and soul together.

Add to that the ever-increasing requirements to somehow track new regulations and changed compliance requirements in the absence of proper, clear, understandable information and you will understand that it all quickly becomes overwhelming.

So, thanks again for your time and kind consideration, but, as CIPRO has promised to deregister my CC today for non-compliance with their ridiculous requirements, I guess I am now officially out of business. Having gone from creating direct employment for others a few years ago, I am now free to disappear into the cash economy. I guess I should thank you all for my freedom.

Open Letter to CIPRO

Update: Also sent to Rob Davies, Minister for Trade and Industry. No reply realistically expected from anybody.

14 July 2010

Chief Executive Officer, CIPRO

Re: Annual Returns

Sir,

See you in court.

Your organisation's handling of the matter of annual returns for Close Corporations has been handled in a completely unacceptable, unconstitutional, unfair, uninformative, unfriendly and unlawful manner.

The first information I received concerning this new requirement for submitting an annual return, along with extorting yet more money from your unwilling victims, was a letter threatening to de-register this CC. Normal business practise is to send an invoice, perhaps a statement, maybe even a brief note of explanation. But to open a conversation with threats? Unacceptable. This letter of threat then went on to give 90 days for us to act on it. It arrived 100 days after the date of the letter. Sheer incompetence. I know the Post Office's track record is not so good, but not even they take that long to deliver a letter. So it must, logically, have been delayed within CIPRO itself.

I attempted to contact CIPRO via your call-centre. After extremely long times on hold in the call queue, being charged at premium-rate phone rates, and after never having the phone answered by a human being, I attempted to find other contact phone numbers. To no avail. Evidently you are so ashamed of the high-handed manner in which you act that you are afraid of actual contact with your victims. I dare-say you are right to feel so.
I immediately (email 10 June 2010) contacted your organisation with my full contact details, requesting information, since I had no clue what this was about at that stage. Well done on providing information. It took fully 8 days before I received a reply (email 18 June), informing me of the requirement for submitting a return, and requiring me to register on your website.

Unfortunately the CIPRO website clearly and unambiguously states on its front page, “Customers must use Internet Explorer for any CIPRO transaction. “ Unfortunately this organisation does not possess any copies of Internet Explorer, nor are we technically able to use this software, since Internet Explorer only runs under the Microsoft Windows Operating System, and we exclusively use the Linux Operating System. We are therefore unable to legally comply with this condition of use of your website. Your Terms and Conditions make it clear that, in the case that we are unable or unwilling to accept your Conditions, our only remedy is to not use your website. OK – fine with me. I informed your organisation of our inability to comply with this requirement on 21 June (email 21 June 2010) and requested an alternative means to comply with your requirements. No reply was forthcoming.

I queried this matter again (email 29 June 2010) and was advised to phone your call centre again (email 29 June 2010). Once again I was unable to get through to your call centre, and informed your help-desk of this (email 29 June 2010).
I received a request for my contact details (email 30 June 2010) so that a consultant could contact me regarding this matter. Despite the fact that I had already supplied these details, I immediately complied (email 30 June 2010). On 2 July at approx. 14h00 I was contacted by your consultant Kate, and I explained the problem to her. She informed me that she would have to “consult with IT” to determine an alternative method of achieving compliance. I heard nothing further.

I again enquired on 12 July (email 12 July 2010) and received the snotty response “Further to our reply dated 30.06.2010, requesting your contact details and no response from you?” Clearly your help-desk is incompetent to keep track of simple stuff like contact details that have already been sent twice. I immediately responded (email 12 July 2010) explaining when details had been sent and the contact I had already received without any outcome.
No response.

I again enquired (email 13 July 2010) and was again told (email 14 July 2010) to send my contact details. What are you people up to? Let us not mention the fact that you allegedly keep track of all the details of all companies and CCs, so you already have those contact details on file as part of the CC's registration. Or have you lost the records? I responded – again (email 14 July 2010). Most recently was an email from Grace Masuku (email 14 July 2010) again requesting my contact details which have been supplied – again (email 14 July 2010.)

I ask you, with tears in my eyes...

So to sum up:

• You require us to submit some return and pay you some extortion money. You didn't bother to actually let anyone know. It may surprise you to learn that most of us do not ordinarily read the Government Gazette and you clearly made no effort to actually contact your intended victims.
• You require that submission to be via your website.
• Simultaneously you make it impossible for some of us to legally comply by imposing terms and conditions of use of your website that we are unable to meet.
• You have failed to provide any alternative means of compliance.

Despite many good-faith attempts to comply we are no closer to a resolution.

There is not a Magistrate nor a Judge in the land who will find in your favour on this.

Oh, yes! You would like us to register as “Customers” and pride yourselves on the “Service” you provide to us “Customers”. I have news for you: “Customers” have

• Freedom to choose another supplier.
• Freedom to choose not to buy the service being sold.

We have no such choices.

That makes us “Unwilling Victims”, not “Customers”. Victims of government's determination to suck every last drop of blood from small businesses such as ours. Every time we turn around to try and make an honest, law-abiding living in an entrepreneurial way, we get another road-block thrown in our path. It has become so onerous to comply with all the conditions, reports, manuals, return and payment upon tax upon levy upon payment that it is pretty much not worth the effort any longer. Much simpler to disappear into the cash economy where you will find it impossible to extort yet more money from us. The entire edifice of government has become nothing more than a blood-sucking parasite on the economy of ordinary people, and CIPRO the most excellent exemplar of that parasitism.

Your "Reaching Out" document (sent, I note, in the proprietary and closed MS Word format instead of an open, standards-compliant and accessible format as would be in line with governments alleged commitment to the use of Open Source software and open standards – fortunately my Open Source word processor can cope reasonably well with this closed format) claims that the annual fine is needed "to update information kept by an Office of the Registrar". What rubbish! We are already legally obliged to notify the Registrar of any changes to that information. It is nothing but another vampire tax to fund fat-cat officials and gravy-train robbers. Reference to CIPRO's own recent embarrassments in this regard is obvious.

Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

See you in court if you make any attempt to unlawfully deregister this CC.