Webber Wentzel media law podcasts

posted in Broadcasting, Court reporting, Live streaming, Media law, Musings on Media, Open justice, Openness, Podcast on by

On Wednesday, Webber Wentzel launched the first episode in our media law podcast series, which deals with the important principle of open justice, exceptions to the principle, and broadcasting/ streaming the courts.

I hosted two fascinating guests.  The first is Advocate Andrea Johnson of the National Prosecuting Authority, who with Gerrie Nel successfully prosecuted Oscar Pistorius for murder (amongst other important prosecutions).  This was the first criminal trial that was broadcast/ streamed to the public, and forms a large part of the discussion.   The second guest is Franny Rabkin, leading legal journalist, Mail & Guardian associate editor, brilliant writer and expert analyst of legal issues.

You can listen to the podcast here or on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.  It’s just over 30 mins – so something different to do during the national lock down.

In the next few weeks, we will drop a podcast every Wednesday.  The next topics (not necessarily in order of release) include surveillance of journalists with Jane Duncan and Sam Sole; media ethics with Prof Glenda Daniels and the Press Ombudsman, Pippa Green; disinformation and defamation with William Bird; and a case study on disinformation with Thandeka Gqubule-Mbeki and Prof Anton Harber – a deep dive into their successful defamation case against the EFF (read the case here).

Hope you enjoy listening as much as I enjoyed the recording!

 

COVID-19 and location surveillance

posted in amaBhungane, Bulk surveillance, COVID-19, Privacy, Privacy Law, RICA, Surveillance on by

Given the rapid spread of  COVID-19 infections around the world and in our country, the South African government has had to act quickly to pass regulations under the Disaster Management Act, to regulate aspects of our lives as we fight the pandemic.

One of the more interesting of the regulations now passed deals with “track and tracing”, which is essentially the ability of the government to compel the mobile phone operators to share location data of those who have COVID-19 so that their contacts can be traced and tested.

Of course any form of surveillance of our personal data should raise constitutional eyebrows, and location information is no different.  But given the importance of contact tracing to arrest the spread of the disease, and thus ultimately save lives, is this kind of law permissible during the pandemic?  More specifically, what safeguards are necessary for such a law to pass constitutional muster?

Lavanya Pillay, an associate who works with me, and I grappled with this issue in a recent article in Daily Maverick – here.

I reproduce the article below: we ultimately conclude that the regulations are in may respects a fairly  good attempt to balance privacy and the compelling government objective involved – they contain 9 essential safeguards to minimise the privacy invasion, including post-surveillance notification (which amaBhungane argued so vociferously for in the recent RICA constitutional challenge: read more about that in my blog on the Pretoria High Court’s decision here.  The Constitutional Court’s decision is eagerly awaited).  And Justice Kate O’Regan – retired Constitutional Court judge and one of our constitutional rock stars – has been appointed as the “designated COVID-19 judge” to oversee the implementation of the regulations in so far as the right to privacy is concerned – a bold and important appointment.

The article follows below:

Continue reading