Johannesburg City is trying to "cash in" on civilian assets again - I think it's a BAD idea!
Stanley B.
Forensic Specialist | Court Expert | Tactical Risk Analyst | Trainer | Speaker | Author
ALL owners of CCTV cameras, body-worn cameras, and even drones, including private ones, in Johannesburg will soon be required to register their systems as the municipality seeks to regulate their use, allegedly as part of strengthening law enforcement.
I think this law is nothing more than another revenue generator for the City! It's simply a BAD IDEA! Here's why I think this...
1. The By-Law Creates a Surveillance State
The by-law effectively transforms Johannesburg into a surveillance state by granting the city unchecked access to privately owned CCTV systems and the data they capture. By requiring registration of all surveillance equipment, including cameras on private property with a view of public spaces, the by-law blurs the line between public and private surveillance. This allows the state to co-opt private systems into a broader surveillance network without adequate oversight or accountability.
Bypassing Judicial Oversight: The by-law eliminates the need for search warrants or court orders to access CCTV footage, effectively bypassing judicial oversight. This undermines the constitutional right to privacy (Section 14 of the South African Constitution) and the principle that state surveillance should be subject to judicial authorization.
State Control Over Private Assets: By declaring privately owned CCTV systems as part of the city’s broader surveillance network, the by-law effectively treats private property as state assets. This is a dangerous precedent that undermines property rights and opens the door to further encroachments on civil liberties.
Lack of Transparency: The by-law does not provide clear guidelines on how data will be used, stored, or shared. Citizens have no way of knowing how much data is being collected about them, who has access to it, or how long it will be retained. This lack of transparency creates a chilling effect, where individuals may alter their behavior out of fear of being watched.
2. Challenges for Information Subjects
Individuals captured on CCTV cameras face significant challenges in accessing and controlling their personal data, which violates their rights to dignity, privacy, and access to information.
Inability to Access Footage: If a person is involved in a non-criminal incident, such as a road accident, they may have no legal recourse to access footage captured by private or public cameras. This denies them critical evidence that could be used to resolve disputes or insurance claims.
No notification of Data Capture: The by-law does not require individuals to be notified when their data is captured, stored, or accessed. For example, ANPR systems can record license plates without the vehicle owner’s knowledge, creating a database of movements without consent or transparency.
Potential for Abuse: The by-law grants law enforcement agencies unrestricted access to CCTV footage, creating opportunities for abuse. For instance, footage could be used to target individuals for political, racial, or personal reasons, or to conduct mass surveillance without justification.
3. Monetization of Surveillance
The introduction of tariffs, charges, and fines under the by-law reveals a clear intent to monetize surveillance, rather than prioritize public safety.
Double Taxation: Many CCTV systems were installed by businesses and communities to safeguard their properties, and these systems already attracted taxes like VAT and import duties. The by-law imposes additional financial burdens on these owners, effectively taxing them twice for the same equipment.
Passive Income for the City: The by-law creates a revenue stream for the city through registration fees, fines, and potential surcharges. This incentivizes the city to prioritize revenue collection over meaningful crime prevention, as the financial benefits of the by-law are guaranteed regardless of whether the cameras are effective.
Disincentive for Compliance: The financial burden of compliance may lead some property owners to remove their cameras, reducing the overall coverage of surveillance systems and potentially decreasing public safety. This is counterproductive to the stated goal of deterring crime.
4. Decreased Public Safety
The by-law’s financial and regulatory burdens could have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety.
Removal of Cameras: Property owners who disagree with the by-law’s requirements may choose to remove their cameras rather than pay fees or comply with intrusive regulations. This would leave gaps in surveillance coverage, undermining the city’s crime-fighting efforts.
Over-Reliance on Surveillance: The by-law assumes that increased surveillance will automatically lead to reduced crime. However, studies have shown that surveillance alone is not a panacea for crime prevention. Without addressing root causes such as poverty, inequality, and inadequate policing, the by-law risks being an expensive and ineffective solution.
5. Better Alternatives
The by-law’s flaws could be addressed through more balanced and rights-respecting measures:
Free Registration: Requiring cameras to be registered for free would encourage compliance without imposing financial burdens on property owners.
Minimum Data Retention Periods: Introducing laws that mandate footage to be stored for at least 60 days (or longer) would ensure that evidence is available when needed while imposing penalties for the premature destruction of footage would deter misuse.
Notification Requirements: ANPR systems should be required to notify vehicle owners when their license plate data is captured, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Judicial Oversight: Access to CCTV footage should require a court order, except in emergencies, to prevent abuse and protect privacy rights.
6. Broader Concerns About JMPD and SAPS
The by-law’s reliance on the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD) and the South African Police Service (SAPS) raises additional concerns, given their track records.
Debt Collection Over Policing: The JMPD has been criticized for prioritizing revenue collection (e.g., roadblocks and fines) over effective policing. The by-law risks exacerbating this trend by creating another revenue-generating mechanism.
Selective Enforcement: Certain groups, such as minibus taxi operators, are often perceived as exempt from law enforcement. The by-law could perpetuate this inequality by focusing on easy targets while ignoring systemic issues.
The City of Johannesburg’s new by-law represents a significant overreach that prioritizes surveillance and revenue generation over public safety and constitutional rights. By co-opting private CCTV systems, bypassing judicial oversight, and imposing financial burdens on property owners, the by-law creates a surveillance state that undermines privacy, transparency, and accountability.
Instead of fostering trust and cooperation, the by-law risks alienating citizens and reducing the effectiveness of surveillance systems. A more balanced approach, focused on free registration, data retention, and judicial oversight, would better serve the city’s crime-fighting goals while respecting citizens’ rights.
Consultant and Project Manager. NNBP - The South African Nuclear New Build Programme. Eskom RFI GEN3281
3 天前I would not trust them with all the data. We need to establish a new CAN which will have access to all the data too. Let's remember our Whistleblowers!
Digital Forensics Practitioner & OsInt/ Due Diligence, Fraud &Cybercrime investigator, Speaker
1 周It's been well proven in the W-Cape that these systems are better and more effective in the hands and under the control of civilian bodies with access given to LE via closed groups. We don't need more regulation at all and we definately don't need abuse/ over-reach. Civilian ownership and shared access works just fine.
Whistleblower - Activist: GBV & Corruption - Motivational & Public Speaker - Artist
1 周Great perspective and makes sense Stanley. Seems as if the government are scratching the bottom of the barrel for additional funding. VAT, solar panels, CCTV’s, what else have I left out?