SA Internet movie pirate arrest: did Safact break the law?

I think those anti-pirating lobbies are more eager to prosecute and punish offenders before checking all the legal facts.

They've been knows for their crazy eyed zeal.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there will be exemptions for investigations, but is Safact allowed to investigate crimes like that? I mean, surely only the police should have that authority?
 
abzo said:
This is where we need House's input.
Click to expand...

I miss House's careful, well-thought out legal arguments - and he sure had the weight of extensive experience to back them up.
 
The "law" is above the law and the law only applies to citizens and not to the ruling body.....
 
Tns said:
The "law" is above the law and the law only applies to citizens and not to the ruling body.....
Click to expand...

Incorrect the law applies to a ruling body or any government organization as stipulated in the constitution.
 
GoofySmurf said:
Incorrect the law applies to a ruling body or any government organization as stipulated in the constitution.
Click to expand...

in theory yes, but when have this stop "them" from doing what they want to
 
I don't moan about mybb articles but this one seems like it has absolutely no information at all. No man.

Before it is possible to come to a conclusion on this, however, Hall said that the full facts of the case would need to become available first.
Click to expand...
 
Basic guide to interception under RICA # 1
(html version at http://www.internet.org.za/ricpci.html)

Start with section 2 which entrenches the constitutional right to privacy:

Prohibition of interception of communication

2. Subject to this Act, no person may intentionally intercept or attempt to intercept, or authorise or procure any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, at any place in the Republic, any communication in the course of its occurrence or transmission
Click to expand...

Sections 3 - 11 detail the permitted / lawful exceptions and the procedure to be followed.

3. Interception of communication under interception direction
4. Interception of communication by party to communication
5. Interception of communication with consent of party to communication
6. Interception of indirect communication in connection with carrying on of business
7. Interception of communication to prevent serious bodily harm
8. Interception of communication for purposes of determining location in case of emergency
9. Interception of communications authorised by certain other Acts
10. Monitoring of signal for purposes of installation or maintenance of equipment facilities or devices
11. Monitoring of signal and radio frequency spectrum for purposes of managing radio frequency spectrum
Click to expand...

The above relates to the content of the communication. There are different rules where law enforcement authorities (LEAs) want to get traffic information (i.e. information about the fact of the communication rather than the content of the communication) as this is less sensitive.

AFAIK Safact took plenty of legal advice before starting out....(FWIW ;))
 
No interception required

I don't think that it's necessary for SAFACT to have performed any interception - all they had to do was ask for a complete copy of the content, and see who is willing to provide it. That gives them one or more IP addresses and a time window. The legal questions should be about whether an interception provision in law can lawfully be used to identify a party for a civil dispute.

xrapidx said:
But don't two wrongs make a right?
Click to expand...
No, but three lefts do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter