The semi-official South Africa News Service has taken the unusual action of denouncing WorldNetDaily’s expos? of a government plan for Draconian Internet monitoring and censorship.
The Marxist government of South Africa is pushing – under the guise of crime-fighting – an intrusive Internet-monitoring bill that would allow officials to intercept all postal and electronic communications virtually at will. The bill is based on similar measures enforced on the Internet by the communist dictatorship in China. South Africa and China are new, if not strong, allies in the post-apartheid era.
Privacy International has come out against the Internet Interception and Monitoring Bill. The group represents member organizations and individuals from a variety of backgrounds specializing in privacy, surveillance, data protection and freedom of information in over 40 countries and has offices in London and Washington, D.C. Privacy International is a human-rights group dedicated to the protection and promotion of individuals’ privacy interests worldwide. The organization and its members have been actively involved in deliberations and campaigns on electronic surveillance in many jurisdictions for over 10 years.
According to Dave Banisar, the deputy director, the group “engages in a wide variety of educational and other activities each year, including testifying before many national and international bodies, organizing campaigns, issuing reports, holding conferences and co-producing the annual international survey on privacy and human rights.
“What I can say is that the bill gives substantial power to conduct surveillance and is quite weak at limiting possible abuses, compared with other democracies’ laws,” Banisar told WorldNetDaily.
Yet, the South Africa News Service says it is wrong to characterize the proposed legislation as a “censorship bill.” It traced local reports to the original story in WorldNetDaily, but took no issue with specific facts addressed by the news account – with one exception.
“The judiciary is, constitutionally, independent, so the law will not, by any stretch of the imagination ‘give the ANC (African National Congress) the ability to censor, block and intercept all postal and Internet communications,’ as claimed in the WorldNetDaily article,” the South Africa News Service report said.
But, in a letter to South Africa’s Committee on Justice & Constitutional Development, which is currently reviewing the bill, Banisar wrote, “While we understand the importance of combating serious crime in South Africa, we believe that the lack of legal protections in this bill will invite abuse and have a severe impact on human rights and privacy. We recommend that substantial modifications be made before there is any further consideration of approving it.”
Privacy International has made the letter available to the press.
Banisar wrote, “Overall, we find the bill lacking many basic safeguards found in other countries’ laws. We believe that the bill represents a step backwards from the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act of 1992 and is inconsistent with international standards on human rights and the legal requirements of the South African Constitution. On the basis of international experiences, we believe that the lack of safeguards will inevitably lead to abuses.”
The letter indicated the Internet monitoring bill “… is likely to reduce South African citizens’ confidence in their government because of its broad powers and lack of protections.”
Banisar wrote, “The right of privacy of communications is also equally recognized on the national level worldwide. Nearly every country in the world recognizes privacy as a fundamental human right in its constitution, either explicitly or implicitly. Most include secrecy of communications. … One of the most troublesome aspects of the bill is the broad allowance for surveillance allowed under Article 4. The scope for authorizing surveillance under this section does not include meaningful limitations to prevent abuses.”
The South African bill, says Banisar, “imposes significant burdens on an extremely wide range of private persons, organizations and companies. There are few, if any, computer or communications systems that would not fall under this definition. Every new communications tool and system would be required to implement surveillance capabilities.
“We are very concerned about the impact of Article 7(1), which prohibits all telecommunications and service providers from making available new services that are not wiretap capable,” he said. “We believe that is inconsistent with basic human rights for a government to demand that no conversation should ever be free from being overheard. While we recognize that many telecommunications networks have the capability for interception, making it a primary function of the system changes the nature of the network and places a chill on free speech and other human rights.”
Related story:
South Africa’s Internet crackdown
