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
Strike action in circumstances where there has been a long delay between the issuing of a certificate of outcome and the subsequent election to embark on a strike
PRASA t/a Metrorail v SATAWU and Others (C190/2016) ISSUE Whether a strike is protected in circumstances where there has [...]
Is length of service reason to pay different salaries to employees performing the same functions?
Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd v Workers Against Regression (WAR) & others ISSUE Whether length of service is a [...]
Is a trade union entitled to organisational rights in terms of the LRA after acquiring majority representation at a single branch?
Professional Transport and Allied Workers Union obo members / Professional Aviation Services [2016] 4 BALR 421 ISSUE Whether a [...]
Asset for share transactions – beware of selling your shares within 18 months especially in the context of a share buy-back
To prevent tax considerations from discouraging the incorporation of a business, a specific form of ‘rollover relief’ is available when an asset [...]
A new era dawns – criminalisation of cartel conduct
On 22 April 2016, a Presidential Proclamation (“Proclamation”) appeared in the Government Gazette which confirmed that the provisions contained in [...]
The employer’s responsibility during the transfer of an employee
Senne and others v Fleet Africa [2016] ZALCJHB 48 ISSUE One of the automatic consequences of a transfer in [...]
