4 ms·
> it also covers information about organised crime Let's just pause a bit here. In South Africa, if your phone gets stolen and you go to the police, they may w
by mikorym 7y ago
> it also covers information about organised crime
Let's just pause a bit here. In South Africa, if your phone gets stolen and you go to the police, they may well respond with: "Yes we know the guy, but we're not going to do anything." [1]
I think that surveillance doesn't have the same twang in South Africa that it has in the US and EU. Organised crime and unorganised violent crime for that matter in one thing that a lot of South Africans would like to see better monitored or "surveilled" if you will.
South Africa has this sort of dichotomy between illiteracy and high level tech that I think many people outside of Africa are not aware of. There is 60% youth unemployment [2] and at the same time it's the most developed African country. I heard a story that some of the surveillance tech that Muammar Gaddafi used was built by a company in Stellenbosch.
Most middle class people will have some form of armed response and cities especially are pro-surveillance for crime prevention, many of it by 3rd party security companies. I think that there is some kind of common sense notion of how to differentiate between security and privacy that the CIA or NSA could only dream of. Security means not being robbed; privacy means leave my life out of yours.
As mentioned in some of the comments, surveillance is not new at all in South Africa and in fact is much less than under the previous, non-democratic government.
But to summarise, South Africa is from a "freedom" point of view a really great country. You can pretty much do things and live the way you want. The level of crime and incompetency of the police is, however, too much to live with for some people.
- maxheadroom 7y agoYou seem to have meant to put citations in (e.g.: [1], [2]) but forgot to include them. :(
- throwawayza 7y ago[1] Personal story from a fellow colleague from Botswana. [2] http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=11129 http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=11129
- dalbasal 7y ago"surveillance is not new at all in South Africa and in fact is much less than under the previous, non-democratic government." This is a sort of sad irony of our day. It turns out that technology/accessibility are more important than ideology in determining how much surveillance happens. Non democratic surveillance states like apartheid SA or stazi East Germany might have been ideologically in favour of using surveillance to depress democracy but even ostensibly liberal-democratic regimes today do more of it.. because it's cheap, easy and "standard practice around the world."
- raxxorrax 7y agoTo think of surveillance as a solution against violent crime is fantasy anyway. It wasn't a requirement at least for all other countries getting it to manageable levels. Sure, you might catch some guys but as you yourself reported, it may not even matter if there is evidence. But the incentive to abuse surveillance is certainly something western nations have readily helped with their active approval that couldn't even net results besides more civil resistance. So I am not pointing the finger on South Africa here.
- mikorym 7y agoI think you are right, but I think it's more about people's sentiment. It's like saying in Washington's time people respected politicians. The question is then did people's perception change or did policians change? In terms of surveillance, I don't think people are "pro" surveillance, I think it's just not a priority.