comments

2025-03-18 15:56:43 +02:00

Andrew

No I do not

Chapter 1 — Interpretation and application

2025-03-18 15:38:28 +02:00

Roelf

No I do not

Other

Private Citizens already live in fear of criminals in Johannesburg, and now the City wants to remove one of the simplest defensive mechanisms from it's citizens.

The sharing of video footage is protected under our freedom of speech and expression in South Africa and attempting to regulate that is simply another overreach of civil liberties.

Grow up! Police more!

2025-03-18 13:25:23 +02:00

Pieter

No I do not

Chapter 3 — Exemptions and prohibitions

The bylaw's prohibition on unauthorized use of drone cameras is too restrictive, failing to account for legitimate uses such as journalism or recreation. The city should establish clear guidelines or a permitting process for drone camera use in specific circumstances rather than a blanket prohibition. Additionally, the special approval requirements for certain city properties may be unnecessary and add an extra layer of bureaucracy without clear justification.
Section 7.2 prohibits unauthorized drone camera use, and section 7.3 allows the city to determine special circumstances for temporary permits, but this is too discretionary, as noted in Johannesburg introduces new by-law for CCTV surveillance regulation. This could hinder innovation and legitimate uses, especially as drone technology becomes more common.

2025-03-18 12:02:00 +02:00

Mike

Yes I do

No concern

Crime prevention and prosecution is critical.

2025-03-18 09:31:01 +02:00

Nicholas

Yes I do

No concern

I think this is a great idea. I had a robbery the other day where they came in from a university building next door to my property. The university refused to give footage of the robbery that they had via their cameras that would have drastically helped the police. The University sighted the Popi Act as their refusal. This should not be allowed.