LoneGunman
Expert Member
This article was picked up and spread around indymedia and watchdog sites worldwide. Locally, there was a crashing silence. You probably remember some bullsh*t coverage that referred to a 'new Bill' to 'protect the rights of consumers online' - but little else.
The reality is very different - as the writer below, took the time to read through the Bill. If you're worried about any current legislation, read what I think, is ALREADY in law, with - apart from this article below, from 2003 - NO uproar or mention by local media at all. The writer below, takes the time to demonstrate, quoting exact sections of the Bill, to prove his point - a good example of real journalism in action.
Funny that you never heard about this Bill, isn't it? Your worst nightmare already happened, and you know nothing about it.
(It appears within Frasers column: http://www.chico.mweb.co.za/pc/razor/2003/030514-raz.htm
and can be found at http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/orwell/93/howlfour.html
----------------------------------------------------------->
THE NEW SOUTH AFRICAN ELECTRONICS BILL
by Ian Fraser
(Permission is granted for reproduction of this article, in any medium, provided that Ian Fraser is credited.)
Under the diversionary tactic of helping make online transactions more secure, your rights online are in the process of being 'legally' removed.
In Chapter 5 of the Bill, there appears the following statement. "The Internet presents security challenges which, without an effective regulatory framework, would pose a threat to the security of consumers and the State." I think, based on some of the examples listed below, you can safely remove the word "consumers" - because this Bill appears to be all about the security of the State, while paying mere lip service to 'regulating electronic commerce' and 'protecting consumers'.
(Something like passing a Law to help Supermarkets, which requires that everyone in the area as well as those people using the Supermarket, can be watched and snooped on - just in case.. And of course the Media is focusing on the various sections dealing with 'regulating electronic commerce' and leaving the more sinister elements alone, or mentioning them in passing, buried deep within articles that - for the most part - read like quickly regurgitated press releases direct from the Government itself.
Did you know that once the new Bill is in law, so-called 'Cyber-Inspectors' can enter your home, search it, search your PC, and even search you, if they feel justified? Of course, this is only during daylight hours - although the Bill says a court can waive this nicety, if its deemed necessary. (87 (d) subsection 5).
They can also make copies of any documents or books they find on your premises which may "have a bearing on the investigation". The Bill also makes sure to say that you have to 'render technical and other assistance' if necessary, to the Cyber Inspector (86 (h) - presumably to help them find information proving that you're a criminal - and failure to help is illegal.
But wait there's more! According to my layman view, in section 90 of the Bill - if you happen to be using an encryption program which in the Governments view hinders, or prevents them getting the information they want, you can be jailed for up to 5 years. Of course they've tucked this away in a section dealing with unauthorised interception or interference with data. And naturally, this only refers to criminals.
Who are the criminals? Well, that's up to the South African Police and the Cyber Inspector to determine. And I'm sure we law abiding citizens therefore have absolutely nothing to worry about. Mistakes just dont get made, especially not by the South African Police - who can request the Cyber-Inspector to help them with ANY investigation.
And in Section 86 (1) - there's the innocent seeming phrase that - subject to getting a warrant, "the Cyber-Inspector may enter any premises or access an information system that has a bearing on an investigation". Lets look at this phrase more closely.Given my recent discovery of local Intelligence agents emails online (<http://cryptome.org/dirt-safrica.htm>) where local spies (with the full approval of our Government) were hunting for a good trojan-program to sneak into local users computers to intercept and access their data From a distance - the wording in that subsection covers a multitude of surveillance opportunities.
Now look again at the phrase "enter any premise or access an information system". They're not just saying 'enter your premises and snoop,'- they're discreetly talking about remotely accessing your PC - and wording it in such a circumspect way that it slips in under the radar.
Personally, I'd be very wary about downloading any programs from local sites from here on, given that they may be hiding the Governments new and improved snooping device(s), which they can turn on or off at their desire.
Then in Section 90 (3) - anyone who has any kind of software or device that is "designed primarily to overcome security measures for the protection of data" is guilty of an offence. So if you have any little program for those times when you've forgotten your zip or Word or PC password - you're about to be made a criminal.
There's also the fairly far reaching ramifications of 85 (1) - which states that a Cyber Inspector may "monitor and inspect any web site or activity on an information system in the public domain and report any unlawful activity to the appropriate authority".
What this means - to my reading of it - is that all the thousands of local users chatting away on MIRC, and/or sharing files on this and many other 'networking' applications, can now be monitored full time, if it's desired. After all, its "activity on an information system in the public domain".
Then there's the frankly Orwellian doublespeak of what the Bill calls "Protection of Critical Data" in Chapter 10. I quote - "Critical data is information which, if compromised, may pose a risk to the national security of the Republic or to the economic or social well being of its citizens". 'Social well-being'? What does this mean? So what happens when web-pages critical of the government are being run or hosted? Does this constitute 'misuse of critical data'?
I'm also curious about the role of local Internet Service Providers in all this. What happens when the police or the Cyber-Inspector comes knocking? Are the ISP's going to be allowed to notify users that they're being monitored and/or investigated? Are they going to be storing users emails for the police? Or having to quietly install software similar to the FBI's 'Carnivore' program, to browse data traffic of suspected criminals?
It's no good using the traditional statement by budding dictatorships that "If you're doing nothing wrong then there's nothing to worry about" - that's so insultingly simplistic and self-serving, that it cant be accepted as a valid argument by any intelligent citizen in this modern age.
Who trusts Government and intelligence agencies to do the right thing, or believes the State is responsible enough for citizens to abdicate their personal freedom and rights so easily? I dont. After all, that's my RIGHT. Democracy doesnt end where your keyboard begins. If you wouldnt allow a camera in your home to watch you when "a co
The reality is very different - as the writer below, took the time to read through the Bill. If you're worried about any current legislation, read what I think, is ALREADY in law, with - apart from this article below, from 2003 - NO uproar or mention by local media at all. The writer below, takes the time to demonstrate, quoting exact sections of the Bill, to prove his point - a good example of real journalism in action.
Funny that you never heard about this Bill, isn't it? Your worst nightmare already happened, and you know nothing about it.
(It appears within Frasers column: http://www.chico.mweb.co.za/pc/razor/2003/030514-raz.htm
and can be found at http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/orwell/93/howlfour.html
----------------------------------------------------------->
THE NEW SOUTH AFRICAN ELECTRONICS BILL
by Ian Fraser
(Permission is granted for reproduction of this article, in any medium, provided that Ian Fraser is credited.)
Under the diversionary tactic of helping make online transactions more secure, your rights online are in the process of being 'legally' removed.
In Chapter 5 of the Bill, there appears the following statement. "The Internet presents security challenges which, without an effective regulatory framework, would pose a threat to the security of consumers and the State." I think, based on some of the examples listed below, you can safely remove the word "consumers" - because this Bill appears to be all about the security of the State, while paying mere lip service to 'regulating electronic commerce' and 'protecting consumers'.
(Something like passing a Law to help Supermarkets, which requires that everyone in the area as well as those people using the Supermarket, can be watched and snooped on - just in case.. And of course the Media is focusing on the various sections dealing with 'regulating electronic commerce' and leaving the more sinister elements alone, or mentioning them in passing, buried deep within articles that - for the most part - read like quickly regurgitated press releases direct from the Government itself.
Did you know that once the new Bill is in law, so-called 'Cyber-Inspectors' can enter your home, search it, search your PC, and even search you, if they feel justified? Of course, this is only during daylight hours - although the Bill says a court can waive this nicety, if its deemed necessary. (87 (d) subsection 5).
They can also make copies of any documents or books they find on your premises which may "have a bearing on the investigation". The Bill also makes sure to say that you have to 'render technical and other assistance' if necessary, to the Cyber Inspector (86 (h) - presumably to help them find information proving that you're a criminal - and failure to help is illegal.
But wait there's more! According to my layman view, in section 90 of the Bill - if you happen to be using an encryption program which in the Governments view hinders, or prevents them getting the information they want, you can be jailed for up to 5 years. Of course they've tucked this away in a section dealing with unauthorised interception or interference with data. And naturally, this only refers to criminals.
Who are the criminals? Well, that's up to the South African Police and the Cyber Inspector to determine. And I'm sure we law abiding citizens therefore have absolutely nothing to worry about. Mistakes just dont get made, especially not by the South African Police - who can request the Cyber-Inspector to help them with ANY investigation.
And in Section 86 (1) - there's the innocent seeming phrase that - subject to getting a warrant, "the Cyber-Inspector may enter any premises or access an information system that has a bearing on an investigation". Lets look at this phrase more closely.Given my recent discovery of local Intelligence agents emails online (<http://cryptome.org/dirt-safrica.htm>) where local spies (with the full approval of our Government) were hunting for a good trojan-program to sneak into local users computers to intercept and access their data From a distance - the wording in that subsection covers a multitude of surveillance opportunities.
Now look again at the phrase "enter any premise or access an information system". They're not just saying 'enter your premises and snoop,'- they're discreetly talking about remotely accessing your PC - and wording it in such a circumspect way that it slips in under the radar.
Personally, I'd be very wary about downloading any programs from local sites from here on, given that they may be hiding the Governments new and improved snooping device(s), which they can turn on or off at their desire.
Then in Section 90 (3) - anyone who has any kind of software or device that is "designed primarily to overcome security measures for the protection of data" is guilty of an offence. So if you have any little program for those times when you've forgotten your zip or Word or PC password - you're about to be made a criminal.
There's also the fairly far reaching ramifications of 85 (1) - which states that a Cyber Inspector may "monitor and inspect any web site or activity on an information system in the public domain and report any unlawful activity to the appropriate authority".
What this means - to my reading of it - is that all the thousands of local users chatting away on MIRC, and/or sharing files on this and many other 'networking' applications, can now be monitored full time, if it's desired. After all, its "activity on an information system in the public domain".
Then there's the frankly Orwellian doublespeak of what the Bill calls "Protection of Critical Data" in Chapter 10. I quote - "Critical data is information which, if compromised, may pose a risk to the national security of the Republic or to the economic or social well being of its citizens". 'Social well-being'? What does this mean? So what happens when web-pages critical of the government are being run or hosted? Does this constitute 'misuse of critical data'?
I'm also curious about the role of local Internet Service Providers in all this. What happens when the police or the Cyber-Inspector comes knocking? Are the ISP's going to be allowed to notify users that they're being monitored and/or investigated? Are they going to be storing users emails for the police? Or having to quietly install software similar to the FBI's 'Carnivore' program, to browse data traffic of suspected criminals?
It's no good using the traditional statement by budding dictatorships that "If you're doing nothing wrong then there's nothing to worry about" - that's so insultingly simplistic and self-serving, that it cant be accepted as a valid argument by any intelligent citizen in this modern age.
Who trusts Government and intelligence agencies to do the right thing, or believes the State is responsible enough for citizens to abdicate their personal freedom and rights so easily? I dont. After all, that's my RIGHT. Democracy doesnt end where your keyboard begins. If you wouldnt allow a camera in your home to watch you when "a co
Last edited:
