South Africa's Cybercrimes Bill - How it will affect networks

dominic

Legal Expert: Telecoms
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
7,329
Don't disagree with this but there's still the problem that actively monitoring data is illegal. This doesn't repeal the provisions in the ECT act so how are ISPs going to realistically become aware? The only scenario I see is where a court order is already obtained or where a third party brings it to their attention. Both cases it should be redundant to report it again.

ECT Act says ISPs are under no obligation to monitor. RICA says prohibited for intercepting and monitoring. I agree re the redundancy of reporting (although this is not always the case) but as someone who works at the interface between law enforcement and ISPs i can live with the obligation

interestingly "piracy" is one area where ISPs receive notifications alerting to them to alleged unlawful conduct from copyrightholders - (leaving aside that these are received from US companies under US law) would this constitute sufficient notice to make the ISP aware? And to be clear i think the argument being raised in this article is BS.....

May be the case but I don't see how it would be workable or enforceable. Seems to me like it's the equivalent of polishing a turd. May look nice at first but when you start to handle it it still reveals itself as a turd.

it is required and it is mostly sound - implementation of many aspects will be problematic but that's how it goes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
27,898
ECT Act says ISPs are under no obligation to monitor. RICA says prohibited for intercepting and monitoring. I agree re the redundancy of reporting (although this is not always the case) but as someone who works at the interface between law enforcement and ISPs i can live with the obligation

interestingly "piracy" is one area where ISPs receive notifications alerting to them to alleged unlawful conduct from copyrightholders - (leaving aside that these are received from US companies under US law) would this constitute sufficient notice to make the ISP aware? And to be clear i think the argument being raised in this article is BS.....
Ok that's one instance. However the ISPs receiving notices are hosters and they receive take down notices. Piracy isn't a criminal offence so it would still take legal action from the copyright holder. That therefor shouldn't be a matter for ISPs to deal with. Sure there can be other crimes reported to ISPs but if someone can report something to an ISP they can just as easily report it to the relevant authority. Seems to me this is a way to shift common reporting onto ISPs which is something they were never set up for and isn't something they should have to deal with.

it is required and it is mostly sound - implementation of many aspects will be problematic but that's how it goes
Didn't say it wasn't but the way these things go they usually end up creating more problems than what they solve. The issue isn't the legislation itself but certain aspects of it. This is also not the only area that's problematic as we've pointed out before. As it is we have 3 pieces of legislation dealing with the protection of children. All 3 contain redundant clauses that are unaligned and even contradictory. I see this going the same way.
 

dominic

Legal Expert: Telecoms
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
7,329
Ok that's one instance. However the ISPs receiving notices are hosters and they receive take down notices. Piracy isn't a criminal offence so it would still take legal action from the copyright holder. That therefor shouldn't be a matter for ISPs to deal with. Sure there can be other crimes reported to ISPs but if someone can report something to an ISP they can just as easily report it to the relevant authority. Seems to me this is a way to shift common reporting onto ISPs which is something they were never set up for and isn't something they should have to deal with.

don't disagree, argument was raised and lost in the consultation over this


Didn't say it wasn't but the way these things go they usually end up creating more problems than what they solve. The issue isn't the legislation itself but certain aspects of it. This is also not the only area that's problematic as we've pointed out before. As it is we have 3 pieces of legislation dealing with the protection of children. All 3 contain redundant clauses that are unaligned and even contradictory. I see this going the same way.

...working on this: in the near future the law relating to child sexual abuse material will be consolidated into the Sexual Offences Act (the Cybercrimes Bill starts this process by deleting sections from the Films and Publications Act). The South African Law Reform Commission will be releasing a discussion paper on children and pornography online for comment hopefully in the next few weeks.
 
Top