WASHINGTON -- South Africa is about to approve a wiretapping law that bans private citizens from eavesdropping but hands police broad surveillance powers.
Last month, South Africa's cabinet quietly agreed to the Interception and Monitoring Bill, which orders Internet providers and telephone companies to create "monitoring centers" for police, and forwarded it to the parliament for ratification.
The legislation, which has prompted an outcry among the country's Internet users, also restricts privacy-protecting encryption products, bans anonymous Internet access, and allows law enforcement to conduct surveillance with minimal oversight.
South Africa's Internet Service Providers Association, which represents 50 firms, said in a letter to the government on Monday that the measure "should be reviewed in order to ensure sufficient" privacy safeguards. The government asked for comments in a three-week period that ended Monday.
"I don't think this intends to lead to any government censorship," said Daniel Ngwepe, a spokesman for the South African embassy. "We have difficulty with acts of crime and this bill would help our country fix them.
"Currently the bill is up for debate. Every South African stakeholder will have the opportunity to make their opinions known to the government," Ngwepe added. "Before this is voted on, broadcast interests, telecommunications interests, NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and other organizations will all be able to share their view. This bill will be subject to rigorous debate and scrutiny before it is passed."
On Tuesday, the human-rights group Privacy International wrote a detailed letter to the parliament recommending it to "refrain from approving this bill" until it is rewritten to take into account complaints about privacy and accountability.
Some observers said the legislation seems to be a step backwards for what has recently become a progressive country.
Adam Powell of the Freedom Forum, a U.S. nonprofit organization devoted to free speech with an office in South Africa, said: "A great deal has been done in South Africa to wire the country as a way to leapfrog the 20th century. At one point there was serious talk about eliminating schoolbooks from the classrooms and teaching everything with online text. How can the (current) government rectify this bill with their past Internet policies?"
Complicating South Africa's debate over the Interception and Monitoring Bill is an initial report that incorrectly described the measure as a threat not to privacy, but to free expression.
The story seems to begin with an activist website called Censorship Bugbear, which published an article by a reporter named Adriana Stuijt. That article ran under the headline "S-Africa plans to block Internet access!" and compared the legislation to China's far more restrictive rules.
That prompted a columnist for ITWeb, a South African tech site, to write an article entitled "Censorship hysteria breaks out in local media." The author, Ivo Vegter, began by saying: "Sparked by an online article, a frenzy of anger has been whipped up in the local media about a non-existent 'Censorship Bill' being sneaked through Parliament."
What the bill actually does require is that ISPs and telephone companies must provide a pipe to a National Monitoring Center for ongoing surveillance. It says: "The Police Service, the Defense Force, the Agency, the Service and the Directorate must, at State expense, establish, equip, operate and maintain central monitoring centers.... Duplicate signals of communications authorized to be monitored in terms of this Act, must be routed by the service provider concerned to the designated central monitoring center concerned."
Internet providers and telcos must pay for these costs, which means they will likely be passed on to consumers.
While the bill says that no person may intentionally "intercept a communication," it contains loopholes that provide police with powerful surveillance abilities.
According to a BBC report, for instance, in most cases a judge must approve a wiretap, but in some cases a police or army officer may do so. No court order would be required to obtain a list of calls that someone made, websites visited, or the names of recipients of sent e-mail.
The bill also says that Internet providers may not "provide any telecommunication service, which does not have the capacity to be monitored" and says a provider is responsible for "decrypting any communication encrypted by a customer if the facility for encryption was provided by the service provider concerned."
The country's Internet Service Providers Association fears this restriction will limit the use of encryption products.
South Africa's parliament is expected to vote on the bill before it recesses on Dec. 17. Public hearings are scheduled for later this month.
Andrew Osterman contributed to this report.
