A new by-law on the use of private CCTV cameras, promulgated by the City of Johannesburg on Friday, has been flagged as a huge blow to residents’ efforts to curb crime.
The by-law reinforces legislation prohibiting residents from posting their CCTV videos on the internet.
It states that “no data or information collected through a CCTV camera shall be disclosed or shared with any person not authorised to have access to such data” and that “all CCTV camera footage or imagery of captured criminal incidents that require further investigation, shall be kept confidential...”
While the city claims the new by-law will help authorities fight crime, crime activists André Snyman and Yusuf Abramjee believe it will achieve the opposite.
The by-law has two key elements. The first is that all CCTV cameras with a view of a public place, such as a road, must be approved and registered by the city. Following this the cameras cannot be moved, updated or taken down without prior approval. The second key element is that footage of a crime cannot be shared on the internet or WhatsApp groups.
“We’ve had so many incidents where the criminals would never have been caught if it weren’t for people sharing the footage from their own cameras,” said Snyman, of Eblockwatch — a network of South Africans who have banded together to forewarn each other of criminal activity and pending dangers.
“Security companies and CPFs using CCTV footage to track and trace criminals are working. Why would you take this important tool away?”
CPFs and members of the public could get footage and share it. Now they will have to go to law enforcement and you can only access it with a case number
— Sarah Wissler, Johannesburg public safety committee chairperson
The city’s public safety committee chairperson, Sarah Wissler, confirmed the promulgation. “We are not saying we want to interfere in your private spaces. We want access to the cameras looking out of your property into public spaces. Although access to private cameras in Joburg will give law enforcement a massive advantage, it is also about people’s privacy,” she said.
“Imagine there is a bank robbery. The robbers flee in a vehicle, and they go through a suburb. A young mother and her baby are out with a stroller, and they get hit. If there is footage of this incident, the by-law will allow it to be shared with law enforcement but prevent people from sharing it on the internet. Imagine it was your wife and your child and people you don’t know are watching the footage of their deaths on the internet.
“Community policing forums (CPF), and members of the public in some cases, could get footage and share it. Now they will have to go to law enforcement and you can only access it with a case number.”
Wissler believes the by-law is a step in the right direction.
“Security companies have been putting cameras up for ages all over the city. But there was no by-law to say what people could or couldn’t do. This is a big leap towards fixing that. Our teams will go out and check the cameras. If you live next to a public park, you obviously can’t have a camera pointing directly into the park.”
The privately closed circuit television surveillance camera by-law states that the city will inspect cameras before approval can be granted and that no person may install such a CCTV camera without prior written approval by the city.
Registration will be free, and the city will be unable to access registered cameras remotely. “People do not have to fear that at all,” said Wissler.
“We do not have that capability. The two main aims here are regulation of cameras facing public spaces and assisting law enforcement. I already had two more security companies who reached out to me this morning. They want to register so the city can access their cameras.”
Cape Town MMC for safety and security, JP Smith, said he had “perused” the Johannesburg by-law. “It is not much different to our own by-law, which we’ve been drafting for about two years. A workshop was held on Friday to finalise it.”
However, the Cape Town draft law doesn’t include any provision that the owners of footage would not be allowed to share it on social media or with CPFs.
“We expect a degree of responsibility from our residents when it comes to other people’s privacy,” said Smith.
“Essentially what we want to achieve is to regulate the cameras facing public spaces in our city. At the moment there is no national framework covering this issue.”
He does admit, however, that there can be some infringement on privacy. “It is important to figure out at what point you would exceed your constituted power, but at the moment it is a free-for-all when it comes to erecting cameras in our public spaces.”
According to Smith, even the city’s underbelly is taking advantage of this lack of regulation. “We’ve raided gangster houses and found evidence that they were monitoring security cameras in their area.
“At the moment, nothing stops them from erecting cameras and using them to monitor law enforcement. In some cases, unscrupulous security companies have even asked communities to contribute to the costs without telling them whether the footage will be resold or who would have access to the system.”
Snyman believes the new by-law is an attempt to wipe egg off the city’s face.
“We all know that over the last few decades security companies have pretty much taken over the role and function of the police. All these videos of crimes doing the rounds on social media must upset them terribly. To the extent that they are now trying something like this by-law.”
Snyman believes the numbers of the South African Police Service and metro police should be increased rather than “criminalising” residents who are fighting back against crime.
“We have all known people who called the police and waited a day for a response because of vehicles being out of order. More police and more vehicles instead of camera regulation, please.”
He admits that the Protection Of Personal Information Act (Popia) already speaks to the distribution of security footage. “We’ve had the act thrown in our faces many times. The police claim that sharing someone’s face on social media will influence things like identity parades and maybe derail the court case later. This is utter nonsense.
“Show me one case that was thrown out or one identity parade that went wrong because someone shared a video on social media. But I can show you many criminals behind bars because of sharing videos.”
Abramjee said a municipal by-law cannot trump the public interest.
“How can they stop me from sharing footage if it is in the public interest? This new by-law is here totally because social media has made the state’s failures in curbing crime too visible. I post hundreds of crime videos a month. If it wasn’t for social media users like myself, residents would have no idea about the extent of crime in our country.”
What the by-law says:
The privately owned closed circuit television surveillance camera by-law states that “no person may erect a CCTV camera or use or continue to use a CCTV camera ... without prior written approval of the city”.
It also regulates:
- Approval of CCTV cameras;
- Installation of temporary and mobile CCTV cameras, including drone cameras;
- Registration of all third-party existing CCTV cameras or systems on city property;
- Unregistered CCTV cameras and equipment;
- The creation of a database of all third-party CCTV cameras monitoring city property whose range or angle of coverage covers public space;
- CCTV cameras on residential or private property with a view to or angle of coverage to any public space;
- Minimum specification for CCTV camera structures and equipment; and
- The handling of data (recorded, captured and still imagery) captured by CCTV cameras.
Once registered, a camera may not be altered, removed, re-erected or upgraded, except for maintenance work, which may be required for upkeep, without the prior written approval of the city. Once an application has been submitted, the city must have “due regard” as to whether the camera will:
- Have a negative visual impact on any property under any applicable town-planning or land-use scheme;
- Constitute a danger to any person or property or to motorists or pedestrians or obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic or constitute a traffic hazard in general;
- Impair the visibility of any road traffic sign;
- Obscure any existing and legally erected CCTV camera;
- Obscure any feature which in the opinion of the city is a natural feature, architectural feature or visual line of civic, architectural, historical or heritage significance;
- In the city’s opinion, be unsightly or objectionable or detrimentally impact on the architectural design of any building of the property concerned or any adjacent or nearby property; and
- Unlawfully breach any constitutional rights like privacy and dignity.
The city may conduct an inspection on an installation site at any time.
- All CCTV camera footage or imagery of captured criminal incidents that require further investigation, shall be kept confidential in order not to compromise its integrity, stored and locked in a safe place.
- Where downloading or extraction has been done, a data removal register, tracking such removal and the whereabouts of such downloaded or extracted footage or imagery must be kept and made available to authorised law enforcement agencies.
- Data captured through CCTV cameras in public spaces or within private property with the view to or angle of coverage or view to a public space must only be used for lawful purposes including legitimate security monitoring, policing and law enforcement purposes, which are in the broader community’s interest and not in violation of any human rights.
- No data or information collected through a CCTV camera shall be disclosed or shared with any person not authorised to have access to such data.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.