Weather Bill exposes absurdity of the State

South Africa’s burgeoning state apparatus appears want to legislate over everything, including the weather.   Like the European King Canute who commanded the tides to go back, our politicians have sought to control the weather and all those who happen to casually remark about it. In what can only be termed  Brussels Madness, Environmental Affairs found themselves responding to a public storm this week over the South African Weather Service Amendment Bill, while groups like the South Durban Environmental Alliance, were  issuing pollution warnings.The department now says it would reconsider if [the bill] has “unintended negative consequences”,

Aside from the obvious problems with legislation that tackles weather,  there is a political sub-text behind the ANC tinkering with synoptic charts. The bill is in reality,  a thinly disguised attempt in the aftermath of COP17 to stop such groups from issuing warnings related to pollution by the Oil Industry.  With a government firmly in the hands of polluters, the public must be wondering what the department is spending its money on.

You can read their submission here.

 

Khayelitsha residents arrested for protest outside new Khayelitsha Hospital

This is real SA logic, we are building hospitals in neighbourhoods and refusing to employ the locals, then when the locals get upset, we shoot them, thereby putting them in hospital and creating work for the people who are already employed

Khayelitsha residents arrested for protest outside new Khayelitsha Hospital.

Occupy COP17 Activists Stage Protest at South African Embassy in London


In solidarity with the 31 families from Durban who were unlawfully evicted for the UN’s COP17 Climate Change Conference, activists from the Occupy COP17 movement will stage a colourful protest at the South African Embassy in London, England. At 9:30am on Thursday 5 January, they will gather with giant cardboard cut-outs of the community members in an international solidarity action that aims to draw local and international attention to put pressure local Councillor Lucky Mdlalose to provide immediate housing for these 31 families.

Just days before the international summit last November, residents of KwaMashu Above (an area north of Durban) had their houses destroyed and all their possessions and food stolen from them in an unlawful eviction. There were told by local officials that they were making the place look untidy for visiting dignitaries and so were being moved on. The next night, as members of this community crouched in the rain under plastic bags in the spaces where their houses used to stand, Mwempi Caka caught a chill and died soon after. To this day, this community of grandmothers, mothers, babies and sons sleep each night on the floors of the kind neighbours that surround the empty land where their own houses once stood. Weeks later, this community is still without shelter and is being ignored by their local government.

“The municipality said we were messing up the community and they didn’t want the people coming to Durban for the United Nations conference to see us,” said Jabulile Mdlalose, 36, who is now one of the displaced. “They are ashamed of us. We have nowhere to go in our own country.”

Article 26, Section 3 of the South African Constitution States: “No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances.” The PIE act was also violated: “whether people have been living lawfully or unlawfully they cannot be evicted without there being alternative accommodation.”

This creative action is part of an ongoing international campaign, that began in Durban, in support of the community from KwaMashu Above.

On Friday, there will be an international “Call-In”, with people from all over the world calling the office of Councillor Lucky Mdlalose’s to put further pressure on him for immediate action. Please join us this Friday by calling Councillor Lucky Mdlalose at +27 822565398 to demand that he respect the constitutional rights of these families and provide them with immediate housing.

via Occupy COP17 Activists Stage Protest at South African Embassy in London.

Nedbank’s Biometric Bungle exposes Personal Info Bill shortcomings.

South Africa’s constitution may have guarantees against the invasion of one’s body in addition to strong privacy protections, but corporations perceive a future in which article 12 and 14 will be amended by simple legislation. Nedbank for instance, has already installed biometric scanning equipment in the expectation of the eminent passing of the so-called “ Protection of Personal Information Bill” (POPI) . A piece of post-RICA and 911 legislation drawn up by government securocrats that could open the doorway to intrusive gathering of biometric information by private companies under the pretext of new privacy protections in the “interests of the consumer”.

Rights Violation?

The new bill  may authorise “a responsible party” to process personal information, even if that processing is “in breach of an information protection principle.” According to the Bill, ‘biometric’’ data means “a technique of personal identification that is based on physical characteristics, including fingerprinting, DNA analysis, retinal scanning and voice recognition.”

Although already aware of the bill due to  my ongoing lobby work for the People’s Health Movement and the Right2Know Campaign — I have submitted concerns related to the problem of securing patient records under the new NHI –  I only became aware of the breadth of the new legislation being contemplated by our government, upon encountering Nedbank’s Guardian system during the festive season

The bank has already rolled out its biometric fingerprinting and security device “pursuant to legislation” being passed.

The issue of consent, which is also covered by the proposed act proved a lot more trickier to navigate than Nedbank had contemplated.

Upon entering the double-door security system which is de rigeur even at the post office, I was assaulted by the new guardian system which at the time, had been programmed to bar entry unless one “consented” to being fingerprinted and photographed.

I immediately objected and complained to management. Surely this was a violation of my constitutional rights, a biometric assault in fact, that could in no way  imply consent?

After numerous phone-calls and a few tweets later, I received the following letter, in which it appears Nedbank capitulates, customers will be requested to use the system on a voluntary basis for the time being, at least until the legislation is passed:

We refer to your complaint regarding the use of fingerprints at Nedbank branches in the Nedbank Guardian biometric system, in particular during your visit to Nedbank Salt River on 21 November 2011, and advise as follows.

You are correct in stating that the Constitution provides a right to privacy for all citizens.

As is indicated on the poster wording outside the Nedbank Salt River branch door, use of the Nedbank Guardian system is optional, however, and you may enter a participating Nedbank branch whether you choose to provide your fingerprints or not. Should you not wish to provide your fingerprints, you are welcome to speak to the security guard on duty or contact branch management. Branch management will then arrange for your access to the branch, as is also indicated on the poster wording outside the Nedbank Salt River branch door.

The wording in the notices placed on posters at Nedbank branch doors is based on the wording of the Protection of Personal Information Bill (“the Bill”). The Bill has not been enacted yet, but Nedbank is already striving to embrace the spirit of the Bill by using the appropriate wording in anticipation of this enactment.

Consent would be required for the use of biometrics at branch after enactment of the Bill, since other exemptions in the Bill which would allow Nedbank to process personal information without consent would not necessarily apply to the processing of personal information of visitors to its branches.

“Consent” is defined in the Bill as “… any voluntary, specific and informed expression of will….”  This would include cases in which visitors voluntary elect to enter participating branches and provide their fingerprints.

The sole purpose of the fingerprinting is to match the identity of visitors to branches with records kept by the Department of Home Affairs, and will only be disclosed to the Department of Home Affairs, the South African Police Service, the South African Fraud Prevention Services, and to Nedbank’s security services providers, or when Nedbank is compelled under law to disclose this information to other parties.

We confirm that Nedbank Guardian records and stores biometric data and photographs of visitors to the branch confidentially and in accordance with applicable legislation.

Nedbank Guardian uses the Advanced Encryption Standard specification for the encryption of electronic data, and we attach a link in the event that you would like to obtain more information in this regard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

Nedbank will not sell your personal information to third parties.

Nedbank strives to provide the best customer service possible, and to protect its clients and members of the public against criminal activities. It is with this in mind that it has introduced the Nedbank Guardian biometric system at branch doors.

We trust that our response is satisfactory to you.

If not, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned so that we can follow up on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Edwin Smerdon

Read the Bill

A Death Sentence for Africa The Durban Climate Deal and Eight Corporate Media Unmentionables

The UN climate summit in Durban, South Africa, ended with one of those marathon all-night cliffhanger negotiations that the media love so much. The outcome was a commitment to talk about a legally-binding deal to cut carbon emissions – by both developed and developing countries – that would be agreed by 2015 and come into effect by 2020. It was about as tortuous and vague as that sounds.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/12/a-death-sentence-for-africa/