comments3

2025-03-19 18:47:22 +02:00

Cedric

No I do not

Chapter 3 — Exemptions and prohibitions

We as per constitution ( in line with democratic lands) entitled to be safe and secure.. JMPD not doing their work also like the saps-we can pay twice for the same service.let alone paying the 3rd time to a security company ( security companies growing as saps /JMPD eating money and not doing their jobs..the government is financial raping us via “ heavy taxation “ thus no money . Is this arranged as the superintendent of the JMPD (cctv section at Martindale) and saps wants to bring their daughter to take over the “private tender “ form the JMPD ( which is a failer-due to employing pals /family etc.
Cancel the body guards etc to meet their corruption

2025-03-19 11:39:30 +02:00

Beyers

No I do not

Other

The Criminal Procedure Act and other legislation allows the South African Police Services to gain access to footage in a lawful manner by having for example a warrant officer visit the premises and obtaining the video footage from the person in charge. This bylaw cannot introduce new processes that complicate or delay such operations etc. A citizen does not require permission to monitor the front or back of their home or business as long as it does not impede on other’s right to privacy. This bylaw is unnecessary and will cause problems as it does not make logical or legal sense, nor will it ensure anything special to occur other than waste time and resources.

2025-03-19 11:30:45 +02:00

Shirley

No I do not

Other

I object to this bylaw in its entirety. The purpose gives no benefit to the general public and rate payers. The need to register and pay registration fees is going to add an administrative burden costs of which will just be passed to ratepayers - both from the Council and from businesses, institutions and landlords who now have extra cost. The need for private CCTV to meet City requirements is ridiculous and again, will add cost. It is also likely to be abused in order to benefit certain product and service providers and is likley to lead to graft and corruption. The city of Johannesburg cannot even maintain and police the bylaws they have nor maintain the city so they will NOT be able to police this. Only the law abiding will be punished and those who commit crimes will get away it. This bylaw was promulgated without consultation with ratepayers, community policing organisations, the SAP or private security and SHOULD NOT be allowed to be passed. Adding cost to premises in Joburg will encourage developers to move to neighboring municipal areas without this nonsense bylaw.

2025-03-19 11:11:22 +02:00

Neil

No I do not

Chapter 1 — Interpretation and application

Welcome to South Africa, where criminals have more rights than the citizens. What's next, will locks be banned?

2025-03-19 09:08:23 +02:00

Bruce

No I do not

Chapter 1 — Interpretation and application

This is an abuse of power, the state should not be able to control this.
Community security and support is necessary because the state does not adequately protect us against rampant crime

2025-03-18 19:13:07 +02:00

Leon

No I do not

Chapter 1 — Interpretation and application

2025-03-18 18:23:14 +02:00

Jarod

No I do not

Chapter 1 — Interpretation and application

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.

2025-03-18 08:42:51 +02:00

Michael

No I do not

Other

This is a tyrannical affront to privacy. Assuming you can claim ownership of data that I may or may not have, that I may or may not have captured using cameras I bought, installed, maintain, and own, is an absurd imposition on my privacy that could only have been dreamed up by someone completely ignorant of human rights. I have the right to privacy, and that includes privacy of documentation, videos, and whatever spins around on my disk inside my surveillance systems, my computer, phone, and car cam captures. Those are mine, I pay for it, it is for my use and my protection. You, the government and the police have no right to access my data without my consent, and I do not give it. I will support legitimate request for data in the event that I have evidence useful to a police investigation, but dont dream of claiming ownership and power over my information that I collect, keep, capture, and maintain. You will probably tell me I cant show it to others after you claim ownership, right? Your fantasies of the power over the people needs to be corrected, you should be straining for the opportunity to serve we the people instead of your self enrichment. Go make the traffic lights work, or work to
keep water in the taps, or arrest some criminals, or disband some mafias, turn in your corrupt thieving work companions.

2025-03-18 06:52:27 +02:00

Anke

No I do not

Other

2025-03-18 06:32:49 +02:00

Madeli

No I do not

Chapter 1 — Interpretation and application

2025-03-17 18:12:28 +02:00

Bruce

No I do not

Chapter 8 — Provisions relating to residential and private property

Invasion of privacy, nevermind the incredible governmental overreach. I don't trust that the ANC has my best interests at heart and that goes double for cities controlled by them. This law WILL be abused

2025-03-17 13:04:09 +02:00

Anna

No I do not

Chapter 8 — Provisions relating to residential and private property

This is an invasion of privacy. I do not agree with registration of my private cameras on my property and their footage being accessed. My permission should be asked for before viewing my camera or video details. Furthermore, I will want to be able to allow or decline approval.

2025-03-17 12:56:57 +02:00

Raymond

No I do not

Chapter 3 — Exemptions and prohibitions

I do not trust the government and access would be used for nefarious purposes

2025-03-17 11:11:28 +02:00

gerhard

Yes I do

No concern

2025-03-17 10:41:01 +02:00

Casper

No I do not

Other

The whole idea is scrap

2025-03-17 10:24:50 +02:00

Kobus

No I do not

Chapter 2 — Approval and consideration of applications

2025-03-17 08:35:52 +02:00

Luz

No I do not

Chapter 8 — Provisions relating to residential and private property

This is an invasion of privacy. Have no problem if I am asked for permission to view camera or video details in order that I am will be able to allow or decline approval

2025-03-17 03:30:12 +02:00

Marcell

Yes I do

No concern

2025-03-16 22:49:01 +02:00

Faizel

No I do not

Chapter 1 — Interpretation and application

This law gives rise to citizens being unable to express free speech by aiding other people through informing them of any possible thefts or perpetrators coming in their midst. It creates uncertainty which is what will escalate crime further.

2025-03-16 16:10:02 +02:00

Pat

No I do not

Chapter 2 — Approval and consideration of applications

There are many issues with which I disagree, not only chapter 2. We as individuals have a right to protect ourselves when our city and country do not help us and they are just using this as another way to take money from citizens without improving their ability to protect us.

2025-03-16 14:16:01 +02:00

Wouter

No I do not

Chapter 3 — Exemptions and prohibitions

Om mense te verhoed om die beeldmateriaal publiek te maak wek beslis agterdog. Dan is daar `n kans dat dit onder die mat ingevee word deur die Polisie, veral as daar `n Polisieman betrokke was. In daardie geval is ek volstrek hierteen gekant. Niks mag vd publiek weerhou word nie, hierdie is `n demokrasie waar misdaad bekend gemaak moet word deur enige iemand. Beeldmateriaal lieg nie, almal moet toegang hê tot die waarheid.

2025-03-16 14:03:10 +02:00

Wouter

Yes I do

No concern

As die rede vir hierdie wetsontwerp is om meer beheer oor kriminele aktiwiteite te hê, dan sal dit simpel wees om nié die Polisie by te staan en hul toegang tot beeldmateriaal te gee nie.
As dit kan help om misdaad te bekamp, dan behoort mense nie besware te hê nie, solank die regte vd eienaar vd kamera nie in gedrang kom nie

2025-03-16 05:49:22 +02:00

Danie

No I do not

Chapter 8 — Provisions relating to residential and private property

2025-03-15 22:19:16 +02:00

Jacob

Yes I do

Chapter 11 — General provisions

2025-03-15 16:14:16 +02:00

Drina

No I do not

Other

vir moontlike misbruik van inligting