Cybercrimes Bill threatens our freedom

Friday is deadline to send your comments to Parliament

By Murray Hunter
26 July 2017

Friday 28 July is the final day to comment on the the Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill. Image: <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/hacker-cyber-crime-internet-2300772/">Hypnobay on Pixabay</a> (public domain)

The Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill will affect every internet user in South Africa – but at 139 pages long, there’s a lot to go through. But if you haven’t yet, now is the time! There’s just two days left to give Parliament your comments on the Bill.

Why has this Bill been introduced? The government says it will help fight cybercrime and make South Africa’s cyberspace more secure.

In 2015, Right2Know criticized the draft version of the Bill for threatening internet freedom, and thousands of internet users signed a petition denouncing it. The 2017 Bill has some welcome changes from its 2015 draft version, but a lot of remaining concerns.
Good changes are:

• The “secrecy bill clauses” in the 2015 draft Bill, which would have criminalised journalists and whistleblowers for accessing classified information, are gone.
  
• The copyright offences in the 2015 draft Bill, which could have criminalised you for posting a meme, are gone.
  

But there’s some bad stuff.

Section 17 of the Bill makes it a criminal offence to send or resend “malicious communication”, which includes messages that could be harmful in various ways. This part of the Bill is new. This is what State Security Minister David Mahlobo was talking about when he proposed social media regulation – a proposal that has been widely rejected on social media under the hashtag #HandsOffSocialMedia. (You can add your name to that call here!)

Don’t insult Mr Trump

Section 17(2)(c) of the Bill makes it a crime to send or resend a message that “intimidate[s], encourages or harasses” a person to harm themselves or someone else.

While we appreciate the intention to protect vulnerable people from harassment online, this could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, which includes robust political expression that is often crude and unpleasant. For example, it is not uncommon for offended Twitter users to send messages to @realDonaldTrump (the President of the United States of America) to “go kill yourself”. These rowdy rejections of the politics of an unpopular leader would be criminal offences under this provision.

In any case, genuine cyberbullying should be dealt with in the Protection from Harassment Act of 2011, which allows someone to get a protection order against their harasser – after which, continued harassment is a criminal offence. Unfortunately the implementation of that Act has been extremely poor and has not delivered its promised protections to victims of harassment. But that is a failure of the justice system itself, not the existing law. The additional criminal penalties imposed by the Cybercrimes Bill give no further protections.

One positive thing: section 18 of this Bill very rightly criminalises revenge porn.

Fake news

Section 17(2)(d) of the Bill criminalises “fake news”, defined as the sending or resending of any message that is “inherently false in nature and … aimed at causing mental, psychological, physical or economic harm”. This is, evidently, the state’s response to “fake news”.

While this provision should have the programming manager of ANN7 feeling nervous, it is a bad idea. Even if the intention behind the Bill is noble, in practical legal terms it’s a mess. Who defines ”inherently false”? What is the borderline with “misleading”, “debatable”, or “unverifiable”? Would the law look at the intention of the message or the consequences? How is the “harm” measured?

Given the rise of politically motivated and vexatious prosecutions, a “fake news” clause would provide another avenue through which the state could intimidate investigative journalists and voices of dissent.

Criminalising retweeting

The Bill also makes it a crime to resend a message of which you were not originally the author. This could include forwarding an email or WhatsApp message, retweeting something on Twitter, or re-posting something on Facebook.

If there is something in the message that could be seen as threatening or inciting violence or property damage, or intimidating someone to harm themselves, or if the message is “inherently false in nature”, you are as guilty of an offence as the person who originally wrote it.

This does not take into account your intention for re-sending such a message. It would be very common for social media users to repost an offensive or irresponsible or even criminal message in order to draw attention to it.

More surveillance

The Bill tries to reform RICA, South Africa’s main surveillance law, but without addressing any of the problems with RICA that have led to serious surveillance abuses and pointless SIM card bureaucracy for all of us.

More power to State Security

This Bill gives the Ministry of State Security a large role in governance in South Africa. Placing cyber security under the domain of the intelligence agencies makes cybersecurity initiatives less transparent and harder for the public to have a say in them.

The law threatens freedom and could be used to intimidate government critics. But does it make us more secure? In an article to be published tomorrow I will explain the law’s shortcomings when it comes to making the internet more secure.

P.S. If you’re worried about how this Bill will affect freedom of expression, add your name to our Awethu campaign: Hands Off Social Media!

You can also make your own submission to Parliament by Friday.

The author is with Right2Know.

Views expressed are not necessarily GroundUp’s.

---

Published originally on GroundUp .

---

A 10-point plan to accelerate orderly land reform in South Africa

Land reform remains a divisive subject 23 years after democracy in South Africa.
Filckr

A more than 365 year history of colonialism and apartheid have indelibly affected land, heritage and human rights in South Africa.

Among the vast array of discriminatory laws was the Land Act of 1913 that spatially segregated people through land dispossession. It amplified the vast canyon of inequality, further shattered the social fabric of communities and radically compromised economic development of the black majority.

It was only after the 1994 democratic elections that the vast majority of citizens could hope for constitutional restitution of their land.

Significant socio-economic advances have been made since 1994, but several challenges need to be overcome as indicated by recent trends. Much more needs to be done. This is particularly true when it comes to land distribution and restitution.

The 2013 state land audit report illustrates why. By 1994 about 87% of the land was owned by whites and only 13% by black people. By 2012 only 7.95 million hectares had been transferred to black owners through land reform. This represented only 7.5% of formerly white-owned land.

Land reform was discussed with understandable intensity during the recent National Policy Conference of the governing African National Congress. Debates centred on whether land should be expropriated without compensation.

It’s within this context that a National Forum was established for dialogues on land reform. The National Forum is made up of a network of organisations that includes three universities, the South African Human Rights Commission and Foundation for Human Rights.

The National Forum focused on whether it was possible to achieve effective land reform through Section 25 of the South African Constitution, which deals with property rights. The National Forum also examined the bureaucratic, legal and constitutional constraints that slow down land redistribution and restitution. It also explored the policy and legislative options necessary to address the complex challenges.

The National Forum concluded that South Africa’s constitution doesn’t stand in the way of land reform. However, it’s clear that political negligence has fuelled undue bureaucracy, mismanagement and corruption, which have severely hampered meaningful land reform. It reached consensus on a 10-point plan for constitutionally accelerated land reform. The hope is that it can help break the long-standing impasse over land, and move the country toward radically inclusive socio-economic growth.

Accelerating land reform

Aspects of the 10-point plan include:

1. A human rights approach to land redistribution, grounded in the effective implementation of Section 25 of the Constitution. This could still guarantee a life of dignity, equality and freedom for all citizens.
2. Existing land reform legislation is not effectively implemented. The Land Claims Commission and Land Claims Court, which were created through the Restitution of Land Rights Act (1994), have not been effective. Unnecessary bureaucratic bungling, significant corruption and limited expert skills have been exacerbated by cadre deployment. This is the practice of appointing party political loyalists to government positions irrespective of ability. In addition, these institutions have yet to be made more accessible and more representative.
3. The possibility of adopting further laws to accelerate land reform is not being used. This is the case even though Section 25(8) of the Constitution specifically indicates that it can be done.
4. The possibility of repealing existing legislation that’s inconsistent with or hampering land reform is not being pursued. This should be rectified.
5. There is a need for national legislation on expropriation. A bill is before Parliament – the Expropriation Bill – but it’s been introduced late and processed without urgency. The possibility of effecting appropriate amendments to the 1975 Expropriation Act should also be considered.
6. There should be improved communication and coordination between various government departments. Currently, the location of relevant land reform mandates and competencies are spread across several departments. These should be aligned to accelerate the pace of the process.
7. A draft bill on cultural and spiritual access to land must be developed to enable citizens’ access to cemeteries and related holy sites where their family members are buried.
8. The courts should pronounce on the meaning of “just and equitable” compensation in Section 25 of the Constitution, to provide for better definition and interpretation of this provision within the context of land reform.
9. Communal Property Associations, community and traditional leader tensions must be resolved through meaningful engagement. Communication channels must be open, all role-players included and all relevant information made available to every stakeholder. Furthermore, all affected parties must be able to influence the decisions taken. In addition, skills training for officials dealing with land restitution is necessary, whilst an updated land audit is required.
10. There is need for a Land and Economy Convention, similar to the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). This was held to negotiate the country’s peaceful transition to democracy. A role for the new convention would be to address poverty, inequality and unemployment. The aim would be to restore citizens’ dignity, strengthen the economy and advance democracy.

The National Forum envisions the 10-point plan being effected within the context of the country’s National Development Plan’s Vision 2030. The plan was drawn up to provide a roadmap for the country to 2030. Its central aims are to reduce unemployment, poverty and inequality.

If land reform is realised, South Africa could present a more humane, just, peaceful, prosperous and democratic face to the world.

Key dialogue leaders at the National Forum were:
Retired Justice Albie Sachs, Professor Bongani Majola, Professor Mathole Motshekga, Advocate Leks Makua, Retired Justice Johan van der Westhuizen, Professor Frans Viljoen, Victor Mavhidula, Makgatho Motshekga, Koogan Pillay, Elson Kgaga and Advocate Hanif Vally.

Prof. Quinton Johnson, Campus Principal : Strategic Leadership and Management, Nelson Mandela University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Suspected Nyope drug use side effects VIDEO

The video shows what Nyope and  drug abuse is doing to our youth - heartbreaking.

They are literally "Holding back the years" - appropriate song in the background. Wasting years of their lives.

Last year I published an article on South Africa Today -  read the full story -

Nyaope Drug Abuse in South Africa

 The Nyaope drug is destroying the youth of South Africa and is forcefully given to children of all ages. The drug consists of rat poison mixed with heroin – dagga and antiretroviral drugs. The Nyaope drug can include detergent powder, milk powder, and pool cleaner leading to many social ills. HIV-positive people who use the drug are at risk because treatment is stopped, and Nyaope contributes to the spread of TB and HIV. It is a highly addictive, and dangerous street drug, unique to South Africa.
Drugs are a cause of the lunatic actions and by getting people hooked onto addictive substances, this will enrich the drug lords. As drugs are a problem in South Africa and an increasing nightmare for parents trying to prevent, children being swirled into the evil world of narcotics. Drugs are readily available in South Africa, and children are influenced from an early age to take illegal substances. Peer pressure, social inabilities and poor living conditions contribute to the children becoming involved in the dark world of drugs.

Who's who in the Godfather version of Trump's White House

The never-ending scandals surrounding the Trump administration reached hysterical levels recently with the allegation that in 2016 Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., met with Russians allegedly linked with the Kremlin to secure damaging information against the Clinton campaign.

The media reacted by publishing a series of pieces that compared Trump’s son to another troubled scion of a great family, Fredo Corleone, brilliantly played by John Cazale in the first two films of Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather trilogy.

Separated at birth? Fredo Corleone and Donald Trump Jr.
Boston Globe via Twitter

Fredo is the runt of the Corleone litter – lacking the macho bravado of his elder bother, Sonny, and the ruthless cunning of his younger brother, Michael. But to compare Donald Jr. with Fredo seems something of a lazy comparison – especially in the light of how many alarming parallels there are between the Corleone and Trump clans.

Now, there’s no suggestion that the Trumps leave severed horses’ heads in rivals’ beds, ship drugs and literally “whack” opponents, but closer and more considered review of these families provides not only similar characters but also some potential plotlines that might ensue for The Donald – or, should we say, The Don?

Vito: meet The Don

First and foremost, Donald Trump is the head of the family in the same way that Marlon Brando’s Vito Corleone was the head of his clan. Vito was a gangster, a self-made man who dragged himself up from poverty though crime and made himself and his family rich and powerful in the process. Trump is no gangster but certainly likes to put himself forward as a self-made tycoon who is the greatest of dealmakers (neglecting to acknowledge that his wealth was inherited from his father).

But how do the other players in the Trump saga fit the characters from Mario Puzo’s novel and Coppola’s films? Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr., actually more closely corresponds to Sonny – played in the film by James Caan. He is headstrong, arrogant – but, above all, dim. He doesn’t see the big picture and is eager to “go to the mattresses” and have a metaphorical gang war instead of being a sly diplomat like his father.

Donald Jr. showed the same hot-headedness in taking the Russians’ bait: “I love it,” he is reported to have replied to an email suggesting that he might be interested in a meeting to hear how Russians had been digging the dirt on Hillary Clinton. This lack of caution has prompted talk of potential felony charges that might well leave his political career, just like Sonny – cut short at a causeway tollbooth.

Ivanka, the most visible of the Trump children, corresponds neatly with Vito’s daughter, Connie (played by Talia Shire, Coppola’s sister). Connie is supposedly the good daughter, not involved in the family business, but is eventually scarred by it. Connie becomes something of a black widow but also enormously influential in the Corleone clan structure. By the third part of the trilogy, she is not only feeding poisoned pasta to rival mobsters but is also the de facto capo bastone (underboss) of the Corleone family (almost unheard of in such a patriarchal organisation). We won’t be seeing Ivanka poisoning her rivals, but, like Connie, she is a power player.

Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, meanwhile, has taken on a public role as Trump’s special adviser or consigliori, a position similar to that filled by Corleone’s Tom Hagen (played by Robert Duvall).

Will the real Fredo please stand up?

If there is a Trump who is a fit for Corleone’s second son, Fredo, it is Donald’s second son, Eric. Poor Eric is rarely wheeled out to face the media. And he appears to embody many of Fredo’s fictional flaws: he certainly doesn’t come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer.



Another weirdly relevant parallel with Fredo is that, before the US election, Eric was nominally in charge of Trump International Las Vegas. Fredo, of course, was packed off by the family to Las Vegas to look after the Corleone’s casino holdings there.

Keeping it in the family

It’s easy to see metaphorical parallels between the Trump organisation and Puzo’s picture of a Mafia family. As well as a consigliori in Kushner, The Don has surrounded himself with trusted lieutenants – or capos, to quote the Mafia lingo. Prominent among these is Steve Bannon.

In a previous life, Bannon ran the far-right website Breitbart, known for its pugnacious tone. “We call ourselves ‘the Fight Club’. You don’t come to us for warm and fuzzy,” he is reported to have said.

While the Corleone capo, Pete Clemenza, encouraged Vito Corleone to the top, Bannon was an early cheerleader for the Trump presidential campaign. In the White House, as Trump’s chief of strategy, he also shares some key Clemenza qualities, most obviously his pugnacious nature. Bannon’s trust has been tested by internal divisions in the troubled White House – but you just know he’d be dangerous when cornered.

But we need to address the one obvious omission. Michael was the Corleone child kept away from the family business so that a clean break could be made from its criminal past. Michael would go legit. However, just when he thought he was out … they pulled him back in. Who might fulfil this role in the Trump dynasty? Step forward Tiffany. She is an unknown quantity but may well be the one to rescue the clan from the mess in which it is now embroiled.

For Tiffany, destiny awaits. That destiny might be to become Capo di tutti capi … The Godmother.

Martin Carter, Principal Lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

The Mummy: what our obsession with ancient Egypt reveals

Universal

With another version of The Mummy menacing cinemas, the “curse of the pharaohs” is back. Again. Hollywood’s determination to put marauding mummies in our sights suggests we still haven’t reached “peak curse”, almost a century after the sudden death of Lord Carnarvon made headlines.

So why was the idea of ill-fated Egyptology so alluring in the 1920s, when Carnarvon and Howard Carter found Tutankhamun’s tomb – and why does it keep returning to haunt us? One answer is that our obsessions are never really about the ancient past. They arise from the perspective people develop at a given moment, as they use the ancient past to express their own anxieties – and aspirations.

The 1920s offers a case in point, as I explore in my new book. At the same time the treasures of Tutankhamun and the curse of the pharaohs caught the imagination of mainstream culture, two modernist movements (Pharaonism in Egypt, the Harlem Renaissance in America) were interpreting ancient Egypt in a very different way. To them, ancient Egypt was an inspiration to take seriously, not turn into a fun, or a fright, show.

King Tut

In November 1922, backed by the Earl of Carnarvon, Howard Carter discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun in Luxor’s Valley of the Kings. To the British press, it was the first positive news from Egypt in years. (Egypt had been a difficult “veiled protectorate” since 1882, and earlier in 1922 Britain had decided to let Egypt elect its own government while keeping hold of foreign affairs and the Suez Canal.) And so the world went mad for “King Tut”, as he was quickly dubbed.

Howard Carter and Lord Carnarvon opening the wall to the burial chamber of the tomb of Tutankhamun, February 1923.
Photograph by Harry Burton

In England and America, popular songs, stage shows, and fashion design all celebrated Tutankhamun, as did advertising for everything from biscuits to cigarettes. There were Tut-themed balls in New York, student hi-jinks at Cambridge University, and a life-size recreation of the tomb’s antechamber built for the British Empire Exhibition in 1924 and seen by more than 27m people at Wembley Stadium, which was built for the purpose.

Call it Tut-mania, as many people do, but there was a certain method beneath the madness. The more King Tut could be treated as “one of us”, with “us” being white Euro-Americans, the more it seemed like he belonged to “us”, too, along with the rest of ancient Egypt. What better way to make a claim on culture than commodify it? Even news coverage and photographs of the tomb were for sale: Carnarvon gave The Times (of London) exclusive access to the find in return for a share of its profits. That riled other news outlets – including the thriving Egyptian press, suddenly banned from reporting a discovery in its own back yard.

Other Egypts

But neither Carnarvon nor Carter had thought about how much this rare find – the only royal burial discovered more or less intact – would mean to modern Egyptians. Poets and playwrights lauded the resurrection of Tutankhamun, comparing it to the rebirth of Egypt itself after centuries of slumber. The movement for an independent Egypt went hand-in-hand with an artistic and literary movement known as Pharaonism (Fir‘awniyya). No one could dispute the might of the Egyptian pharaohs. Rulers such as Ramses or Cleopatra, plus symbols such as sphinxes and pyramids, were harnessed to express the ambitions of the new state – and the antiquity of its roots.

Nobel prize-winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz, who had witnessed street uprisings against Britain in his childhood (and visited the Cairo Museum), used ancient Egyptian themes in his first novels, while the Paris-trained sculptor Mahmoud Mukhtar raised public subscriptions for his colossal sculpture “Nahdet Misr”, “Egypt’s Renaissance”. Carved, like the lid of Tutankhamun’s sarcophagus, out of red granite from Aswan, the sculpture pairs a sphinx and an idealised image of Egyptian womanhood. It now stands outside Cairo University – an institution whose founding the British administration had opposed.

Egypt’s Renaissance, 1919-28, Mahmoud Mukhtar.
Zerida / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

The antiquity and independence of ancient Egypt spoke to other 1920s cultural movements, too – including the group of African-American writers and artists known as the Harlem Renaissance. “Egypt” and “Ethiopia” were both synonymous with an Africa free of European control: Egypt because of its ancient history, and Ethiopia because it had fought off an Italian invasion in 1896.

“Ethiopia Awakening” was the title of an Egyptian-themed statue by Philadelphia-born Meta Warwick Fuller, who had studied with Rodin in Paris. It represents a woman with a beatific expression, black physiognomy, and a pharaonic head-scarf, unwinding herself from the constraints of mummy bandages. Cast in bronze, the statue featured in the “Colored Section” of the America’s Making Exposition in New York in 1921, organised to celebrate immigration. Although African-Americans had been forced migrants in slavery, organiser WEB DuBois saw a chance for the exposition to promote their contribution to the US. Meta Warwick Fuller turned a mummy into a force for good: there is no curse or vengeance in her Ethiopia sculpture, just freedom – or the longing for it.

Egyptomania

We admire the 1920s as the Jazz Age, an era when what we think of as modern Western mores sprang from the ruins of war. But what looks more sophisticated in retrospect: Britain’s imperial adoption of Egyptology and the Western commercial mania for mummies and King Tut, or the creative output ancient Egypt inspired in Egyptians and African-Americans, in the same decade?

“Ethiopia Awakening” looked to a future based on dignity and equality, as did “Nahdet Misr” – while the British Empire Exhibition, with its Tutankhamun replicas, looked to the rapidly setting sun of British imperialism. Perhaps any curse in Carnarvon’s untimely death wasn’t from what he and Carter discovered, but what they overlooked – that theirs was not the only “ancient Egypt” out there.

It’s a useful caution that we should look for the method that might lie behind any Egyptomania today, whether that entails movie franchises or museum displays. Turning sacred objects (which is what mummies were, to the people who made them) into light entertainment hardly flatters any of us. Nor does imagining the Middle East as an origin-place for horror and a threat to white masculinity, this time in the guise of Tom Cruise. If we are doomed to rehashing The Mummy, in other words, it’s a curse not of Egypt’s making – but ours.

Christina Riggs, Reader in Art History and World Art Studies, University of East Anglia

This article was originally published on The Conversation.