Alan Knott-Craig’s article, Rica will wreak havoc on SA’s poor (May 31), cannot go unchallenged. It crosses the line of wrong in what it says and naughty in what it hides.

Knott-Craig is wrong in comparing the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication Related information Act (Rica) to the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica): it wants far less information, and sticks to active customers. Bank accounts stay open although customers move and die, so banks carry accounts from unreachable customers.

In contrast, cellphone contracts expire and prepaids need to be renewed, so Vodacom holds its customers close and hasn’t the redundancy. Knott-Craig is wrong to imply Rica asks the impossible: Vodacom already conquers greater logistics in producing/distributing/billing/charging/millions of cells, numbers and SIM cards annually.

He is wrong about the numbers: he argues Vodacom has to register 9000 customers an hour. Actually, 5000 cellphone shops can dawdle over three customers in an eight-hour day of an easy 250-day year. He forgets we pay his direct debits. We know that Vodacom is good at processing the calls and itemising the billing for millions of customers each day.

Knott-Craig is naughty in what he hides: his fear that transparency will affect cellphone theft. Is he doing a Zuma? Appealing to populism to win exemptions that protect thieves?

Vodacom is no defender of the poor — its obscene prices, abuse of the (often poor) prepaid customers and “grey listing” stolen phones when it promised to “blacklist” them chooses money over morality. Enron did no different.

If government wants to protect the poor, it should tighten every control on Vodacom.