Remove relection board members, page-9

"announcing personal detailed information of their share holders to the market."

Might that not have been a simple mistake or misunderstanding? The addresses on the signed notices I mean. They had concealed the HIN numbers if I recall correctly - and directors addresses are often on publicly available documents so perhaps they didn't consider shareholder addresses (without being specifically requested not to display them by the senders as being particularly sensitive - this isn't something they'd deal with very often).

"I do however have a problem with the company handing over my phone number to unknown third parties."

Do you know how they got your phone number in the first place? Did you give it to them? Did you request they not give it to third parties or did you just fill out a form from the registry without reading the details?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. But a lot of people seem to mess these privacy related things up on the user side by not reading and some of the outrage I'm reading seems a bit overblown when it attributes to malice what might have just been a mistake or an oversight.

Did you ask or raise your privacy issue with the company directly to get their response.

I've always found that they reply unless I say a reply isn't necessary, so I'm having trouble accepting malice as a motive when mistake or misunderstanding remains a possibility - it just doesn't gell with my own experience.

It's a pretty big deal to accuse malice (and they don't have an easy right of reply here) - I think its unfair to go that far on the evidence I've seen where error and misunderstanding and miscommunication could explain.