Legal updates and opinions
News / News
The sword finally falls, ironically on justice itself | DoJ fine by Information Regulator
What is the price that one pays for not having antivirus software? R5 million according to the Information Regulator of South Africa (Regulator). That is the fine that has been levied against the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ) for not having appropriate security measures to protect the personal information it holds. It is also the first fine issued by the Regulator against an organisation for failure to comply with the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA).
In a previous article we talked about how the DoJ had suffered a data breach wherein its systems were encrypted by cyberhackers, preventing employees of the DoJ from accessing over 1,204 files necessary for service delivery.
In light of risks to personal information, including the risk of a data breach, POPIA requires organisations (public and private) to secure the integrity and confidentiality of personal information in their possession or under their control. In other words, reasonable measures must be implemented both on an organisational (people) and technical (systems and processes) level to protect personal information. This was not the case when the Regulator investigated the DoJ following the data breach it suffered. Amongst others, it was found that the DoJ had failed to renew the licenses to its security incident and event monitoring system, intrusion detection system, and antivirus software in 2020 (a year prior to the data breach). Had those licenses been renewed then the breach may have been prevented.
Following its investigation the Regulator issued an enforcement notice in May 2023 requiring the DoJ to show proof within 31 days that it had renewed its security software licenses. This was an opportunity for the DoJ to remedy its lack of appropriate security measures and perhaps avoid a fine. However, it failed to abide by the enforcement notice which constitutes an offence under POPIA, hence the R5 million fine.
Consequently, it is important for organisations to note that suffering a data breach is not in and of itself an offence in terms of POPIA. Rather, it is the failure to have appropriate security measures in place to protect personal information that will be cause for concern. Worse yet, where the Regulator points out to an organisation that it has fallen short from a data protection perspective and indicates where remedial action should be taken, and such remedial action is not taken by the organisation, a fine will most likely follow. Accordingly, this should serve as a sounding warning to all organisations to get their proverbial data protection house in order and, if so required, abide by enforcement notices from the Regulator!
Latest News
Whether a workplace policy automatically forms part of or can otherwise be construed as a collective agreement
and Tasreeq Ferreria - Candidate Attorney Issue Whether the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (the "CCMA") was correct in [...]
Stretching Boundaries: Can a Trade Union Represent Employees Who Fall Outside of its Registered Scope in Employment Disputes?
and Yendiswa Sithole - Candidate Attorney The Constitutional Court ("the CC") in AFGRI Animal Feeds (A Division of PhilAfrica Foods [...]
The South African Reserve Bank tightens “instant payment” framework in South Africa – screen scrapers beware!
Following the COVID-19 pandemic, more people than ever are ordering goods online based on the variety of good and services [...]
FIC publishes Directive 9 to ensure CASPs comply with FATF Recommendations
- reviewer and authored by Slade van Rooyen - Candidate Attorney The Financial Intelligence Centre ("FIC") on 15 November 2024 [...]
Machine managers: AI monitoring in the South African workplace
The impact of AI on the workplace is a rapidly evolving field of study, and South Africa can look to [...]
A Shift in Creditor Protections – The application of Section 34 of the Insolvency Act during Business Rescue Proceedings
Section 34 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (the "Insolvency Act") has historically safeguarded creditors' interests in South Africa [...]