Right2Know Campaign

Does govt have ‘Grabber’ technology? We demand answers!

by · Published · Updated

R2K is demanding answers after a series of news reports shed light on the use of a “super-surveillance gadget” called the Grabber, capable of mass surveillance without any oversight or protection for people’s privacy. Though the ‘Grabber’ was evidently found in the hands of private citizens who are now facing criminal charges, reports in The Star suggest that the South African government may have similar technology. This is the first time the public has been made aware of this, and it raises serious questions.

Question 1: has government acquired this technology, and if so, when and from whom, and at what cost?
At R2K’s request, the Open Democracy Advice Centre has submitted a batch of PAIA[1] requests asking for records of procurement for any such devices. These were submitted on 26 August 2015 to the South African Police Service, the State Security Agency, the Department of Public Works, and National Treasury.

Question 2: if this technology is being used for state surveillance, does the RICA judge know about it?
In terms of RICA[2], a designated judge must give permission for any interception of a person’s communications, by issuing a warrant called an interception direction. At R2K’s request, a separate PAIA request was sent to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to ask for evidence that the RICA judge has issued interception directions for the use of this technology.

Why the “Grabber” device and related technology are a threat to constitutional rights
The Grabber device is an example of what is sometimes called an “IMSI Catcher” or “Stingray”. These devices, which can be as small as a car battery, are capable of sucking up data from thousands of mobile phones in a radius of up to several kilometres, and identify each user by their SIM card. While they are acquired in secret for “national security” purposes, in other countries cops have been accused of using them to investigate petty crime and to identify participants at protests. In a number of countries, human rights groups have submitted complaints or legal challenges to their use.

Even when used in conventional criminal investigations, there are concerns that these devices may be inherently illegal. Because they can suck up the phone information of everyone in a certain radius, not just the person that is being targeted by police, even if a judge has authorised the surveillance of a particular person, in the process the device may violate thousands of other people’s privacy too. It is not clear how this can be lawful in terms of the RICA system, let alone section 14 of the Constitution, which protects the right to privacy.

South Africans need to be very worried about the possible existence of these devices in our society, and the extreme secrecy that surrounds them. Especially given the clear interest that our security agencies have in identifying and targeting people involved in protests, and the clear risk of abuse that these devices are capable of, they represent a huge risk to constitutional rights to privacy. In any case, even if governments acquire this technology with ‘the best intentions’, the “Grabber” saga shows that such devices may end up in the hands of criminals, raising the question – should this technology exist at all?

The state must account to the public: have these devices being acquired, and if so when, and from where? How much was paid? What are they being used for? What measures have been put in place to protect ordinary people against abuses of this technology?

Downloads:

[1] The Promotion of Access to Information Act
[2] The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Amendment Act

Tags:

You may also like...