October 16, 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/secunia_tests_backlash/
Symantec for one protects against “all unknown and zero day threats”! They told me here. The testing must be flawed!
Trend Micro protects against the threats at the source, so attacking a system directly by Secunia shows the approach by them is flawed.
We know HackerSafe or whatever it is now called protects everyone from hackers.
And I am sure many of the others in the “test” also provide total protection – I just haven’t had time to confirm this with their marketing departments!
What a cheap publicity stunt guys! 
There’s absolutely no point reporting them (Symantec) to the ACCC for potentially false or misleading advertising under the Trade Practices Act, either.
According to the ACCC’s website, The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s primary responsibility is “to ensure that individuals and businesses comply with the Commonwealth competition, fair trading and consumer protection laws”.
But as they say, what they say, and what they do, can be completely different things, as I discovered recently.
After filing a complaint with the ACCC some months ago about alleged misleading advertising by a large organisation “greenwashing” it’s brand, to wit: making verifiably misleading eco-friendly statements, I was told by the ACCC Investigator that I was not entitled to know anything about what, if any, action they had taken in relation to my complaint. “Furthermore”, she stated in a pious and condescending tone, as a private citizen, I was “entitled to pursue the matter in a private capacity” if I so desired. My reply, “Well what the hell do we pay you for ?” was met, unsurprisingly, with a hang-up.
So there you have it. If you file a complaint with the ACCC you (as the complainant) are not entitled to know;
1. Whether your complaint has been investigated;
2. Whether your complaint will be investigated;
3. Whether your complaint has been or is likely to be actioned, in any way.
In other words, you are not entitled to know anything about your complaint, once filed with the ACCC. It might as well disappear into a black hole, and probably will.
So much for accountability.
BG.
Did you go through?:
http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/default.html
I am guessing who you are talking about and it’s nothing to do with this topic here at the moment? In which case, if I am right, I reckon they have looked at your case and put it into the too hard basket given the depths they may have to trawl (whilst not that deep in reality) to make a case. It’s poor and lazy practice on their part if that is the reality of it but I am no Lawyer.
In cases where companies make claims about what their products do, the information on the Fair Trading site is quite clear and if claims were to be made against such advertising, I think action would be taken. Probably a case of no one doing it as yet and thus they continue to get away with it!
@DD,
Good point.
If my complaint was with a company whose only presence and impact fell only within the State of NSW and no other jurisdiction, I may well have considered that option.
However, given that the organisation I’m referring to has a nation-wide presence, it’s potential impact upon consumers and ad campaign were national, I chose to refer it to the relevant authority whose Federal jurisdiction it is to deal with such matters under the Federal Trade Practices Act. That authority, and responsibility for investigating matters on a national basis, resides with the ACCC. This was one and only point agreed upon by myself and the ACCC investigator, ie, my complaint fell within their jurisdiction under the Trade Practices Act.
In the circumstances, the NSW mob may well be hearing from the Big Galoot in the near future.