More than twelve years after the US terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the security versus privacy debate has once again been thrust into the limelight.

Following a tumultuous year of revelations involving the National Security Agency’s ability to amass and scrutinise internet and communication data being generated by millions of Americans and citizens from other countries, one question is once again being debated all over the globe: Is it is possible to find the right balance between security and privacy?

Within an international context for countries such as the United States and Israel, the pendulum of public opinion seems to sway in favour of one over the other, according to the level of peace and stability within that country.

If there are high occurrences or threats of terrorism and violence within a country, there is a favourable outcome for security in the age old debate, and public paranoia over privacy takes a back seat.

However, during times of relative peace where anxiety over terrorism wanes, the gap is filled with a heightened public awareness of the intrusiveness of said security and surveillance measures, immediately followed by privacy concerns.

The privacy of South African citizens is prized over heightened security measures, with every citizen’s right to privacy guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

When the security vs. privacy debate does rear its head locally, it is mostly in the courtrooms where high profile figures from the public or private sectors wish to protect their right to scrutiny from the media.

The most recent and prominent example of this is the Oscar Pistorius murder trial.
Earlier this year, a South African high court ruled that cameras will be allowed in court for the Pistorius trial in which the Paralympic star stands accused of killing his model girlfriend, ReevaSteenkamp.

This ruling is seen as a watershed moment in South Africa’s legal history, since it marks the first time that a court has allowed cameras to record a criminal trial.

The ruling was the result of several local media houses, Primedia, Media 24 and Carte Blanche, applying for the right to broadcast the trial live to millions of South Africans who were seemingly hooked on every detail emerging from the case.

Internationally, the pendulum swings in favour of privacy or security based on the level of peace and stability within a nation, but for South Africa, the debate is mostly one of privacy vs. freedom of expression.

The swing of the pendulum in this instance is guided by the courts.
Roy Alves, Business Development Manager for Axis Communications MEA warns South Africans however, stating that they too will soon have to engage in the debate over privacy vs. security.

“South African citizens are already being filmed quite extensively throughout their day by surveillance cameras.

Whether you are being watched by Metro Police Service cameras within strategic spots in the City of Johannesburg, having your picture snapped whilst driving underneath one of SANRAL’s eToll gantries, or entering a secured building, someone more often than not is watching you.”

Roy Alves, writes from Lagos