We published an article on Friday, denouncing ADT for using ‘unknown numbers’ and not sending an SMS when customers’ alarms go off. Instead of implementing basic social comms, they sent this:

To recap, here is the main excerpt from the offending article:

Last week my mother was at the Safe House and she set off the alarm by mistake. I was at a lunch at the time. My phone rang twice in the space of two hours, showing up on my phone as UNKNOWN NUMBER. Because I have manners and because it wasn’t someone I know’s number (therefore allowing me to gauge whether or not a lunch interruption was necessary), I ignored it, as would most people. To be honest, I don’t know one person in my group of friends who DO answer unknown numbers.

I have a voicemail that makes it clear that I cannot take messages and the caller should SMS. So when the unknown number came up again after my lunch, I was ready to pounce.

Turns out it was ADT.

How can it POSSIBLY be legal for an emergency services company to call from an unknown number? It completely defies any sense of logic. What if my mother hadn’t set off the alarm by mistake and was busy being tied up and raped during my lunch? How is it that we, as clients, haven’t demanded that this practice stops? We’ve tried before, and the practice still carries on. I cannot fathom how this can be legal.

[more here]

Imagine if they sent an SMS the first time I didn’t answer? I could glance at my phone, excuse myself from the table, and call my mother. Instead of hours and hours passing by.

So Rob Dale, the Managing Director of ADT, Western Cape, sent this:

Thanks for the letter, Rob.

We also received an actual response to the concerned questions we raised in the article, also from Rob Dale, but sent via Lynn Erasmus who works for ADT’s apparent communications specialist, HWB Communications.

Here it is:

Mr Rob Dale, Managing Director for ADT Security in the Western Cape responds:

“Without detailing all of the regulations, there is an ICASA regulation in South Africa that prevents the masking or ‘spoofing’ of a line with any other number apart from the actual number of the outgoing line. In the event that an organisation has more than one out going number, and service provider, the options are:

1. Allow the identity of the outgoing line, however if there are a large number of outgoing lines the receiver will be called on any one of a number of lines, and in the event that they are leased cost routers, the receiver will not be able to return dial on that number

2. Block the CLI so that the outgoing call shows ‘unknown’ or ‘private’ number

ADT is in the process of trialling a single outgoing number that may be stored on a cell phone and identified as ADT, however this is not as yet ready for market.”

Just to clarify – yes, there is only one Rob Dale. But sometimes he contacts you directly (like when he sent me the letter), and sometimes he speaks via a communications company. Both emails arrived within 45 minutes of each other.

By the way, and I want to be quite clear about this – that bold heading above is exactly as it appeared in the body of the email I received. Let’s look at that again:

Mr Rob Dale, Managing Director for ADT Security in the Western Cape responds:

I do love how they raise the trumpets within the email body, before delivering the response (the email subject already headlined this email with ‘Response from ADT Security’).

Can you imagine that bold heading being announced by the movie-trailer voice guy?

The movie’s title would obviously be, “Rob Dale Responds.”

Imagine the voiceover:

In a world.
With no hope.
Where some companies save money on expensive SMS services.
One man
must stop anyone who applies logic and fact to these blatantly nonsensical practices.

This summer.

Rob Dale Responds

on behalf of Rob Dale.
Powered by HWB Communications.

You’d see Rob Dale on the screen – probably responding to someone – but all the time you would be wondering – “Is that really Rob Dale responding? Or is it HWB Communications responding on his behalf?”

And so… the moment has arisen.

Please will you all be upstanding and be acutely aware that we will now be responding to Rob Dale.

SETH ROTHERHAM, EMPEROR OF 2OCEANSVIBE MEDIA,  RESPONDS TO ROB DALE

Hi Rob.

See I went for the red?

In response to the defamation letter.

These are the three points you raised in defamation letter that you sent (copy and pasted below):

You have also personally posted wilfully misleading comments:
(a) “Yesterday it occurred to me that ADT’s systems are bordering on illegal and we once again urge everyone that subscribes to their services to address this incredibly serious offence with them”
(b) “How can it POSSIBLY be legal for an emergency services company to call from an unknown number? It completely defies any sense of logic”.
(c) “I cannot fathom how this can be legal”.
The above statements are utterly false and without merit and depict us as engaging in illegal activity. Additionally, you actively encourage and solicit further defamatory statements from readers.

a) Can you define the term ‘bordering on illegal’ to me? From where I’m sitting it’s quite clear that it is not stating that anything is illegal. For something to be bordering on illegal, it is NOT illegal. It must surely be involved in practices deemed by some (their opinion) to be of a dubious or suspect nature. Something that might perhaps in time, become illegal. Who knows?

So let me be very clear that I am of the opinion that your company’s practices (of not sending an SMS, but rather to pester from an unknown number FOR HOURS, whilst someone’s mother might be raped) are suspect and I do believe that in time it will become illegal for a security company to call from an unknown number and not to SMS their subscribers if the alarm goes off. Again, it is legal but I believe it is bordering on illegal.

b) I’m asking a question. There’s nothing wrong with that. I also make a statement that it defies any sense of logic. Which it does. It’s an emergency security company which is not making use of basic automatic SMS communications to notify their subscribers that there might be an emergency at their home, relying rather to call from unknown numbers. For an emergency company to be allowed to carry on like this, DOES defy logic.

c) Again, I am stating a fact. Because it is true that I cannot fathom how this can de legal. I’m not saying that it is illegal. I simply cannot FATHOM why it is not A lot of people can’t.

You follow-up, stating that these statements are “utterly false” (I think we’ve cleared up that they are not false – you just don’t like how they sound) and that I have encouraged further defamatory statements from readers.

That in itself is a false statement.

In the article we urged other ADT members to address this issue with you. Then at the end of the piece we invited the readers to leave comments under the article, leaving it open – asking them what they think. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Furthermore, I am somewhat perplexed that you went this route given the second paragraph of your letter, where you made it clear that ADT has no intention of restricting free-speech.

But now you don’t want anyone else to freely give their thoughts on the matter, after I suggested an open discussion on whether it bothers them or not? That’s how the original article ended. One would imagine you to be quite used to this free debate, given the deluge of complaints on your hellopeter page.

In response to your response sent via Lynn Erasmus at HWB Communications:

Thanks for that. So you feel unknown numbers are better than leased cost router numbers? Come now. The consumer is used to these systems and will very quickly learn what general pattern of numbers are coming from ADT.

More importantly, I see there is no mention of SMS?

That’s all we want, Rob.

SMS.

Later.

What would Rob Dale do?

He would respond.

Rob Dale Responds: Part II

Coming soon..

We would like to add that we have raised this issue before (here) and Rob Dale did not respond. Nor did anyone on his/ADT’s behalf