The Registration of Prepaid Phones - Is It Taking Things Too Far?
As you may or may not have heard, the new regulations relating to the Regulation of Interception of Communication-Related Information Act (Rica), came into effect on Wednesday 1 July 2009. Under these amended regulations it has now become mandatory for the purchaser of a pre-paid cell phone to register his details, before he will be allowed to own the cell phone.
Many commentators and advocates of privacy laws have already slammed these new amendments. Operators now have to obtain the full name, address and identity number of customers buying SIM cards for prepaid services. According to a report in the Sunday Tribune, MTN, Vodacom and Cell C have been given 18 months to get this information from customers.
However, it says, only Cell C has been able to commit to this period. The report quotes Gus Hosein, a senior fellow of human rights watchdog Privacy International, as saying the retention of users' information as ‘an absolutely useless policy that introduces more problems than it solves’. And Charles Goredema, head of organised crime research at the Institute of Security Studies in Cape Town, is quoted as saying he failed to see ‘any link between (the legislation) and combating organised crime’.
He told the paper the new law ‘contravened the right to privacy’ and that the idea was to widen the amount of information accessible to police with no specific end other than to hoard as much data as possible. He suggested that the new measures could, in fact, increase crime. Criminals might be able to conduct business hiding behind the identity of the owner of the cellphone they had stolen.
Not only have the cell phone operators complained about the extreme difficulties of implementing these far reaching regulations, but of far greater importance is the issue of the interception of phone calls.
The law changes have also placed interception rules, including ‘tapping’ of phones, under scrutiny, says a Sunday Tribune report. Pointing out that Rica allows for a ‘designated judge’ appointed by the Minister of Justice to authorise an ‘interception direction’, it suggests information about the judge in question, retired former Pretoria High Court Judge Johannes Swart, is shrouded in secrecy.
The report claims Ministry of Justice's spokesperson, Tlali Tlali, refused to give any information on him, and a researcher at Parliament's library was also denied any information on his background from the Justice Department. Professor Pierre de Vos, chair of constitutional governance at UCT, told the paper he was not surprised by the Justice Department's secrecy in this area. He suggested this might be particularly sensitive after the fraud and corruption charges against Jacob Zuma were dropped by the chief prosecutor when phone-tap evidence was brought to light, suggesting the prosecutor's predecessor had timed charges to cause political damage to Zuma.
The origin of the secret recordings was unclear. The report quotes De Vos as saying it was ‘important to have someone (in this role) who wouldn't put their finger too heavily on the balance in aid of the state’.
With South African's rights to privacy being ever more infringed about there are definitely certain constitutional implications regarding the protection of a citizen's right to privacy. In order to find out how to protect your rights to privacy from unfair infringement by the state, it might be important that you consult your attorneys to protect your rights.
Naudés Attorneys
As you may or may not have heard, the new regulations relating to the Regulation of Interception of Communication-Related Information Act (Rica), came into effect on Wednesday 1 July 2009. Under these amended regulations it has now become mandatory for the purchaser of a pre-paid cell phone to register his details, before he will be allowed to own the cell phone.
Many commentators and advocates of privacy laws have already slammed these new amendments. Operators now have to obtain the full name, address and identity number of customers buying SIM cards for prepaid services. According to a report in the Sunday Tribune, MTN, Vodacom and Cell C have been given 18 months to get this information from customers.
However, it says, only Cell C has been able to commit to this period. The report quotes Gus Hosein, a senior fellow of human rights watchdog Privacy International, as saying the retention of users' information as ‘an absolutely useless policy that introduces more problems than it solves’. And Charles Goredema, head of organised crime research at the Institute of Security Studies in Cape Town, is quoted as saying he failed to see ‘any link between (the legislation) and combating organised crime’.
He told the paper the new law ‘contravened the right to privacy’ and that the idea was to widen the amount of information accessible to police with no specific end other than to hoard as much data as possible. He suggested that the new measures could, in fact, increase crime. Criminals might be able to conduct business hiding behind the identity of the owner of the cellphone they had stolen.
Not only have the cell phone operators complained about the extreme difficulties of implementing these far reaching regulations, but of far greater importance is the issue of the interception of phone calls.
The law changes have also placed interception rules, including ‘tapping’ of phones, under scrutiny, says a Sunday Tribune report. Pointing out that Rica allows for a ‘designated judge’ appointed by the Minister of Justice to authorise an ‘interception direction’, it suggests information about the judge in question, retired former Pretoria High Court Judge Johannes Swart, is shrouded in secrecy.
The report claims Ministry of Justice's spokesperson, Tlali Tlali, refused to give any information on him, and a researcher at Parliament's library was also denied any information on his background from the Justice Department. Professor Pierre de Vos, chair of constitutional governance at UCT, told the paper he was not surprised by the Justice Department's secrecy in this area. He suggested this might be particularly sensitive after the fraud and corruption charges against Jacob Zuma were dropped by the chief prosecutor when phone-tap evidence was brought to light, suggesting the prosecutor's predecessor had timed charges to cause political damage to Zuma.
The origin of the secret recordings was unclear. The report quotes De Vos as saying it was ‘important to have someone (in this role) who wouldn't put their finger too heavily on the balance in aid of the state’.
With South African's rights to privacy being ever more infringed about there are definitely certain constitutional implications regarding the protection of a citizen's right to privacy. In order to find out how to protect your rights to privacy from unfair infringement by the state, it might be important that you consult your attorneys to protect your rights.
Naudés Attorneys