Who watches Big Brother? Joburg’s private surveillance cameras come under fire

The company rolling out a “super-smart” camera surveillance network has been accused of breaking the law to fight crime.

Not only has the system been accused of being invasive but that it also breaks a number of laws.

The company, Vumacam, is installing the artificial intelligence (AI) capable closed-circuit television (CCTV) to fight crime in Johannesburg suburbs.

Police are investigating a criminal case against Vumacam and the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) has slapped the company and its director, Ricky Croock, with a code of conduct charge.

Information regulator Advocate Pansy Tlakula is also probing allegations that Vumacam deployed unregulated video surveillance, and the country’s information regulator has indicated it is also investigating whether data collected from these cameras has been shared with non-security companies.

The company, which has so far installed more than 1,000 of its intended 15,000 AI CCTV cameras in predominantly wealthy suburbs of Johannesburg, has also been accused of using illegally connected electricity to power its equipment and using invalid wayleaves.

Vumacam denies having contravened the law and says it is in discussions with City Power to resolve differences.

Last month former City of Johannesburg member of the mayoral committee responsible for economic development Democratic Alliance councillor Leah Knott wrote a letter to city manager Dr Ndivhoniswani Lukhwareni alleging contraventions by Vumatel, which owns Vumacam.

In the letter, she said Vumatel, which absorbed Fibrehoods, and Vumacam have illegally installed aerial fibre along with wooden poles as well as steel pole structures for CCTV cameras and third party advertising across the city.

Knott said the sub-contract with Fibrehoods was contrary to council policy and such installations had occurred with no regard to due process and in violation of the city’s bylaws.

“When we raise queries … we are told that they cannot provide clarity as they don’t agree with the installations but have been ordered by their head office to approve them,” she stated in the letter.

According to Knott, core issues with the smart camera network rollout was that there was lack of proper and meaningful public participation, compliance with supply chain management as well as contravention of competition laws, public roads and miscellaneous bylaws, and the misleading of residents that a contract exists with the South African Police Service and Johannesburg Metro Police Department as well as private control of state security with no oversight capability.

Knott also stated in the letter that the surveillance network infringed on residents’ constitutional rights to freedom and security, privacy, freedom of movement, environment and access to information.

She said the only bodies consulted for the roll-out were residents’ associations, which she said did not exist in many areas, as well as community policing forums and security companies, none of which have the numbers or authority to act on behalf of all residents.

“The processes was via an unsolicited bid in so far as they (Vumatel) are piggy backing off a cell mast contract which is unrelated to their activities and are indulging in third party advertising with no contract in place with the city, nor is there a payment plan for use of city power infrastructure or public space,” Knott said.

Lukhwareni is yet to respond to the letter, with Knott sending a follow-up letter last week and informing that the lack of action by the metro has resulted in other security companies following suit by illegally installing cameras.

“It appears that other companies … have now decided that since the city is not enforcing its bylaws or requiring any sort of approval that they too are installing CCTV cameras in various locations with complete disregard to any laws or the community’s rights,” she lamented.

Knott added that one of her biggest problems with the CCTV system was that it pushed crime out of wealthy areas and into poor areas that could not afford to have cameras.

Repeated attempts to get comment from the City of Johannesburg metro spokesperson, Nthatisi Modingoane, were unsuccessful. Lukhwareni was sent questions on WhatsApp and it was indicated the message had been read but he did not respond at the time of going to print.

CCTV cameras are pictured in Melville, 17 January 2020. Picture: Tracy Lee Stark

Active investigations

Inspectors from PSIRA visited Vumacam in March last year after receiving complaints from a member of the public. They accused Vumacam of not being registered with the regulator as required by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Act.

“We issued a letter addressed to the directors, informing them of the findings and their obligation to register Vumacam as a security service provider with the authority. [PSIRA] opened a criminal case in terms of Section 20 (1) (a) at the Randburg police station. A code of conduct charge was subsequently preferred against the company and the director, Ricky Croock, in his individual capacity, for operating a security business while it is not registered with the authority,” said PSIRA’s senior manager for law enforcement, Jan Sambo.

Though Vumacam subsequently registered with PSIRA, the regulator said both the criminal case and code of conduct probes remained in place.

Gauteng police spokesperson Captain Mavela Masondo confirmed the case.

“The docket has been taken to a senior public prosecutor [in the NPA] for a decision,” he said.

Member of the information regulator Advocate Lebogang Stroom-Nzama confirmed that they were investigating the roll-out of the smart CCTV network in relation to its compliance with the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA).

She, however, said the provisions of POPIA dealing with sanctions were yet to be put in force but said the regulator encouraged proactive compliance.

“In the event of a prima facie violation of the conditions for lawful processing, responsible parties and operators are guided by the regulator on the ramifications of such violations once the sections of POPIA providing sanctions have been put into force,” Stroom-Nzama added.

Vumacam: illegal electricity connections?

Vumacam has not denied powering their equipment by connecting to residential properties and paying residents a fee for the use of their electricity, but this has put them on a collision course with the law.

In a legal opinion, City Power’s general manager for legal and compliance, Monyai Mashudu, explained that Vumacam negotiated agreements with private households to supply electricity to their cameras.

However, he stated that some of the private households were querying the legality of the agreements and the procedure to be followed for such agreements to be in line with the law.

According to Mashudu, Vumacam is not a primary consumer of the electricity but a third party, which means private households were now trading in electricity.

He said that in terms of the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006, whoever was intending to trade electricity must make an application with the regulator for a licence to do so.

“It is apparent that any customer who wants to resell electricity to Vumacam as per their proposal must first apply to the regulator for a licence,” Mashudu said.

The Citizen has seen the agreement drafted by Vumacam for them to power their equipment from residential and commercial properties, with a promise to pay R150 and R200 a month for 12 months, respectively.

In a letter sent to Vumacam in September last year, Mashudu said their electricity connections were illegal as they contravened the city’s bylaws and the Electricity Regulations Act and they demanded that the equipment be disconnected immediately.

“It has come to our attention that you have embarked on a process of entering into agreements with our customers to buy electricity directly from them. We further learnt that such purchase of electricity direct from our customers is for the purposes of supporting the cameras that you are installing around the City of Joburg. Please note none of our customers who you are trading with and those you still intend to trade with are in possession of a trading licence issued by the regulator, which then renders such trade unlawful,” the letter stated.

Mashudu warned Vumacam that failure to comply with the demands would leave the city with no choice but to resort to criminal and civil action against the company.

But Vumacam has said that it obtained legal opinion that suggested the city’s assertion that connecting its infrastructure to the power supply of the nearest house would not be considered an illegal connection.

Notwithstanding this, Vumacam has said they have been in discussion with the city to rather make these connections via their preferred method, whereby each pole would have its own connection to the grid.

“We have met with the chief executive of City Power, Lerato Setshedi, and his team, in a very constructive spirit to work on solving the matters related to the supply of power to the camera poles. Both parties have agreed to reserve their differing legal interpretations of the legislation and regulations concerning the matter, pending the work of the duly appointed joint technical, legal and commercial committee tasked with arriving at a solution,” said Ricky Croock, chief executive officer of Vumacam.

She said this proposed solution would ultimately inform the power requirement process for CCTV roll-outs in Joburg to be captured in the city’s proposed CCTV policy and bylaws currently under development in respect of public space.

“This will ensure consistency across the board and avoid a multitude of disparate systems being installed and clarify any confusion or concern around what is officially permitted,” she said.

Vumacam said that the systems were installed because it was realised that there were a multitude of disparate CCTV solutions, often unconnected, and with ‘islands’ of uncovered suburbs adjacent to covered suburbs. Image: Facebook

 What Vumacam says:

Martens says the company is not a security firm but a technology company providing the infrastructure and a video feed platform to vetted and registered security companies to monitor the feed.

She said Vumacam immediately submitted their application to register with PSIRA once they were notified by an inspector and were now registered.

Martens explained Vumacam had realised there were a multitude of disparate CCTV camera solutions, often unconnected and with “islands” of uncovered suburbs adjacent to covered suburbs.

She said this left the various solutions to crime-fighting disconnected and largely ineffective in tracking vehicles of interest as the vehicles would disappear as the networks were not working in sync.

“The proliferation of fibre networks presented an opportunity to address this problem. Vumacam envisions a city-wide solution, whereby security companies and communities are encouraged to work together on a common platform, sharing information between areas,” Martens said.

She denied misleading the public about working with law enforcement agencies, saying Vumacam was working closely with the police and they were part of the “Eyes and Ears” of “Business Against Crime” and that some of their partners worked closely with some metro police ground teams.

She said that, in fact, law enforcement agencies could now access quality footage for investigation and prosecution of suspects and that only upon a court order or case number could investigators request information that could assist in their investigation.

Martens said it was untrue that the system was not compliant with POPIA, saying it was built from the ground up to comply with all applicable legislation and regulations currently in place.

TIMELINE:

2006: Imfezeko Investment Holdings, which boasts a portfolio of surveillance and tech-related companies, including Intelligent Surveillance and Detection Systems (ISDS), the developers of iSentry, is founded by the family of Vumacam boss Ricky Croock.

2008: Private security firm CSS Tactical began using software called iSentry in their day-to-day operations. iSentry was developed for the Australian military to detect “unusual” behaviour and works by fixing a camera to a single spot and letting it film for some period to allow the software to learn what to look for. It issues alarms when it determines something is “abnormal” – like loitering pedestrians or minivans – and prioritises video streams for review by human operators in a control room.

2010: CSS Tactical expands its proactive patrols and iSentry CCTV solution. At the time, they operated 44 cameras in Dunkeld and serviced 15 Johannesburg suburbs.

2011: Croock begins rolling out a fibre network to improve the CCTV network in Dunkeld.

2013: Croock forms residential fibre Internet offering called Fibrehoods.

2014: Reports that that Johannesburg and Cape Town neighbourhood will be among the first residential areas in Africa to receive fibre-to-the-home (FTTH), an initiative led by two ambitious new start-ups, Fibrehoods and Vumatel. The public was led to believe this was merely an extension of fibre optic internet to households in need of high-speed connectivity but in reality, the fibre project was originally created for high-tech surveillance.

November 2014:  James Bowling, then security portfolio manager of the suburb, told a briefing on fibre-driven surveillance for Parkhurst that security systems would be used “to start profiling people”.

2015: Cheryl Labuschagne, the chair of Parkhurst Village Residents and Business Owners Association, explained in a TV documentary that “the fibre-to-the-home [initiative] was actually born out of a security need”.

2016: Vumacam is formed by Ricky Croock, who was the chief executive of a private security firm, CSS Tactical, which patrolled the streets with armed guards aided by CCTV surveillance. CSS Tactical was among the first companies to take a “proactive” approach to neighborhood security, rather than a “reactive” one that responds to incidents after they occur.

2016: A start-up called Vumatel begins pitching fibre internet for household use and “smart” CCTV surveillance in Johannesburg suburbs, beginning with Parkhurst in early 2014. That August, Vumatel started laying down the fibre optic cables for use by ISPs and private security companies.

2016: Vumatel acquires its Fibrehoods competitor and shortly thereafter, Croock and Vumatel formed a company called Vumacam, which would be jointly owned by Vumatel and Imfezeko Investment Holdings. Vumatel would now handle FTTH rollouts, whereas Vumacam would take up the CCTV component.

2017: Vumacam announces plans to bring fibre connectivity to the townships, starting with Alexandra – which is adjacent to the current rollout – then extending into the Diepsloot, Soweto, and Tembisa.

– siphom@citizen.co.za.

• This article has been updated: A previous version had incorrectly quoted Troy Martens, of Vuma Reputation Management – Vumacam’s public relations company – in connection with Vumacam’s responses to questions. The information should have been attributed to Ricky Croock, chief executive officer of Vumacam. The Citizen apologises for the error.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.