The cryptography provision covers only providers, not users. The government appears to believe that such providers would have copies of users' private keys, or could provide assistance in decoding an encrypted message.
I suspect that those involved in drafting this law know nothing about cryptography. Only a lunatic would give the software provider a copy of their private key.
They also probably haven't considered something like gpg - how are they going to go after them for 'allowing' their product to be distributed in South Africa.
The law appears to try to hold producers of cryptography products liable, but the drafters seem to be blissfully unaware that buying cryptography products does not require them to be directly distributed in South Africa. Criminals need not even pay for their software. If they're true professionals they'll only use products where they have access to the source code and employ experts to comb through that code.
It comes down to a double edged sword - how do we protect the rights of individuals (both of privacy and safety) by not restricting some of those rights (or - how can we catch the bad guys, without infringeing on the good guy's right to privacy).
As we all know criminals would never resort to breaking a law prohibiting the use of encryption. When the police are honest they admit that decrypting a message seldom helps them much because criminals typically talk in code.
My feeling is that when it specifically comes to acts of terrorism, or the planning thereof, interception of private data & communications is useful in protecting the safety of many individuals that would otherwise fall victim to such an act of terrorism.
Then you're in favour of a police state. Governments will conveniently attach claims of imminent terrorism any time they wish to spy. The criteria for what is considered terrorism will be lowered until it allows spying on anyone, any time. This is the trend overseas.
Terrorism isn't new. It hasn't changed. It just happens to have turned out to be a very convenient excuse for increasing government power and intrusion. People are more than happy to sell freedom for the delusion of safety. Governments are gleefully seizing the opportunity to reduce freedom.
Someone with a gun (other than a law-enforcment officer) is automatically a criminal, and is arrested = safer
No, less safe. Criminals, strangely, don't walk down the street waving their gun about so they can get arrested. They have this odd tendency to attack people in the dark, in alleys, behind close doors. This country is already headed down the ridiculous road of the UK, where it is essentially illegal to protect yourself against a piece of scum that tries to rob you. It is every person's right to protect themselves when attacked. If someone tries to mug you or enters your home with intent to commit a crime you can and should employ any means necessary to deal with them. If they are maimed or killed that is just tough luck.
However the law does not make owning or using cryptography products or guns illegal.
The other favoured excuse for spying is stopping the drug trade. Governments talk big on this subject, but they have no chance of ever winning (short of a completely locked-down police state). The abject failure of the drug laws shows us that this activity will adapt and continue. Drug smugglers will continue laughing in the face of law enforcement.
Finally since this spying technology is allegedly for the good of all South Africans the cost should be carried by all South Africans, not just ISP users, therefore the government should pay the full cost of data interception and retrieval. Meanwhile good people will continue to work to make this equipment useless by giving us the means to make the data unreadable.
