Connect with us

Featured

SA’s new cybercrimes law explained

Published

on

A new Cybersecurity Bill is coming into effect later this year which aims to stop cybercrime and improve security for South Africans. SEAN DUFFY, Security Executive at Dimension Data Middle East & Africa, explains the basics of the bill.

A proposed new Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill (Cybercrimes Bill) aims to stop cybercrime and to improve security for South African citizens. A draft of the Cybercrimes Bill was first released for public comment in August 2015, and submissions closed in December. The Bill is due to be presented to Parliament later this year.

Who is affected?

The Cybercrimes Bill affects everyone using a computer or the Internet, or anyone who owns an information infrastructure that could be declared critical. Among others, the following individuals and organisations should take note: ordinary South African citizens or employees using the Internet, network service providers, providers of software and hardware tools, financial services providers (the Bill includes prohibited financial transactions), representatives from government departments, those involved with IT regulatory compliance, as well as information security experts.

What are the offences and penalties?

The Cybercrimes Bill consolidates South Africa’s cybercrime laws, which makes successful prosecution of criminals more likely. Up until now, cyber offences were charged under various acts, among others the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, and the Electronic Communications and Transactions (ECT) Act of 2002. The ECT Act seemed to govern most online crime, but only included three cybercrime offences.

The Cybercrimes Bill defines over 50 new offences, and imposes penalties. Some of the offences detailed in the Cybercrimes Bill relate to the following:

·         accessing personal data or interception or interference of data

·         use of hardware, software and computer systems to commit offences

·         acquisition, possession and provision, or receipt or use of passwords, access codes or similar data or devices

·         prohibited financial transactions

·         dissemination of data or messages which advocate, promote or incite hate, discrimination or violence

·         copyright infringement

·         computer-related offences pertaining to terrorist activity such as espionage, unlawful access to restricted data, as well as extortion (which includes unlawful acts in respect of malware pirates, fraud and forgery)

Penalties on conviction are quite severe. Penalties include fines of R 1 – R 10 million and imprisonment of one to ten years, depending on the severity of the offence. The nature of the crime determines the penalty.

The law also imposes obligations on electronic communications service providers, such as mobile networks, Internet service providers, and financial institutions, regarding aspects which may impact on cybersecurity. The Cybercrimes Bill is very specific in obligating these institutions to take steps in preventing cybercrime to protect consumers. It also imposes a fine of R 10 000 a day on organisations that fail to comply with the stipulations in the Cybercrimes Bill.

Structures

The Cybercrimes Bill regulates the powers to investigate, as well as aspects of international cooperation. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a 24/7 point of contact and various structures to deal with cyber security.

Gear up for the final law

Incidents will happen, but it’s how an organisation responds that matters. Government is working on establishing a legal mechanism for anyone to defend themselves against cybercrime. However, organisations need to be more proactive in their security through the use of services such incident response plans, real-time threat management, vulnerability management and managed security services.

unnamed

“The Cybercrimes Bill provides legal backing for anyone to defend themselves in law against cybercrime.”

Arts and Entertainment

VoD cuts the cord in SA

Some 20% of South Africans who sign up for a subscription video on demand (SVOD) service such as Netflix or Showmax do so with the intention of cancelling their pay television subscription.

Published

on

That’s according to GfK’s international ViewScape survey*, which this year covers Africa (South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria) for the first time.

The study—which surveyed 1,250 people representative of urban South African adults with Internet access—shows that 90% of the country’s online adults today use at least one online video service and that just over half are paying to view digital online content. The average user spends around 7 hours and two minutes a day consuming video content, with broadcast television accounting for just 42% of the time South Africans spend in front of a screen.

Consumers in South Africa spend nearly as much of their daily viewing time – 39% of the total – watching free digital video sources such as YouTube and Facebook as they do on linear television. People aged 18 to 24 years spend more than eight hours a day watching video content as they tend to spend more time with free digital video than people above their age.

Says Benjamin Ballensiefen, managing director for Sub Sahara Africa at GfK: “The media industry is experiencing a revolution as digital platforms transform viewers’ video consumption behaviour. The GfK ViewScape study is one of the first to not only examine broadcast television consumption in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa, but also to quantify how linear and online forms of content distribution fit together in the dynamic world of video consumption.”

The study finds that just over a third of South African adults are using streaming video on demand (SVOD) services, with only 16% of SVOD users subscribing to multiple services. Around 23% use per-pay-view platforms such as DSTV Box Office, while about 10% download pirated content from the Internet. Around 82% still sometimes watch content on disc-based media.

“Linear and non-linear television both play significant roles in South Africa’s video landscape, though disruption from digital players poses a growing threat to the incumbents,” says Molemo Moahloli, general manager for media research & regional business development at GfK Sub Sahara Africa. “Among most demographics, usage of paid online content is incremental to consumption of linear television, but there are signs that younger consumers are beginning to substitute SVOD for pay-television subscriptions.”

Continue Reading

Featured

New data rules raise business trust challenges

When the General Data Protection Regulation comes into effect on May 25th, financial services firms will face a new potential threat to their on-going challenges with building strong customer relationships, writes DARREL ORSMOND, Financial Services Industry Head at SAP Africa.

Published

on

The regulation – dubbed GDPR for short – is aimed at giving European citizens control back over their personal data. Any firm that creates, stores, manages or transfers personal information of an EU citizen can be held liable under the new regulation. Non-compliance is not an option: the fines are steep, with a maximum penalty of €20-million – or nearly R300-million – for transgressors.

GDPR marks a step toward improved individual rights over large corporates and states that prevents the latter from using and abusing personal information at their discretion. Considering the prevailing trust deficit – one global EY survey found that 60% of global consumers worry about hacking of bank accounts or bank cards, and 58% worry about the amount of personal and private data organisations have about them – the new regulation comes at an opportune time. But it is almost certain to cause disruption to normal business practices when implemented, and therein lies both a threat and an opportunity.

The fundamentals of trust

GDPR is set to tamper with two fundamental factors that can have a detrimental effect on the implicit trust between financial services providers and their customers: firstly, customers will suddenly be challenged to validate that what they thought companies were already doing – storing and managing their personal data in a manner that is respectful of their privacy – is actually happening. Secondly, the outbreak of stories relating to companies mistreating customer data or exposing customers due to security breaches will increase the chances that customers now seek tangible reassurance from their providers that their data is stored correctly.

The recent news of Facebook’s indiscriminate sharing of 50 million of its members’ personal data to an outside firm has not only led to public outcry but could cost the company $2-trillion in fines should the Federal Trade Commission choose to pursue the matter to its fullest extent. The matter of trust also extends beyond personal data: in EY’s 2016 Global Consumer Banking Survey, less than a third of respondents had complete trust that their banks were being transparent about fees and charges.

This is forcing companies to reconsider their role in building and maintaining trust with its customers. In any customer relationship, much is done based on implicit trust. A personal banking customer will enjoy a measure of familiarity that often provides them with some latitude – for example when applying for access to a new service or an overdraft facility – that can save them a lot of time and energy. Under GDPR and South Africa’s POPI act, this process is drastically complicated: banks may now be obliged to obtain permission to share customer data between different business units (for example because they are part of different legal entities and have not expressly received permission). A customer may now allow banks to use their personal data in risk scoring models, but prevent them from determining whether they qualify for private banking services.

What used to happen naturally within standard banking processes may be suddenly constrained by regulation, directly affecting the bank’s relationship with its customers, as well as its ability to upsell to existing customers.

The risk of compliance

Are we moving to an overly bureaucratic world where even the simplest action is subject to a string of onerous processes? Compliance officers are already embedded within every function in a typical financial services institution, as well as at management level. Often the reporting of risk processes sits outside formal line functions and end up going straight to the board. This can have a stifling effect on innovation, with potentially negative consequences for customer service.

A typical banking environment is already creaking under the weight of close to 100 acts, which makes it difficult to take the calculated risks needed to develop and launch innovative new banking products. Entire new industries could now emerge, focusing purely on the matter of compliance and associated litigation. GDPR already requires the services of Data Protection Officers, but the growing complexity of regulatory compliance could add a swathe of new job functions and disciplines. None of this points to the type of innovation that the modern titans of business are renowned for.

A three-step plan of action

So how must banks and other financial services firms respond? I would argue there are three main elements to successfully navigating the immediate impact of the new regulations:

Firstly, ensuring that the technologies you use to secure, manage and store personal data is sufficiently robust. Modern financial services providers have a wealth of customer data at their disposal, including unstructured data from non-traditional sources such as social media. The tools they use to process and safeguard this data needs to be able to withstand the threats posed by potential data breaches and malicious attacks.

Secondly, rethinking the core organisational processes governing their interactions with customers. This includes the internal measures for setting terms and conditions, how customers are informed of their intention to use their data, and how risk is assessed. A customer applying for medical insurance will disclose deeply personal information about themselves to the insurance provider: it is imperative the insurer provides reassurance that the customer’s data will be treated respectfully and with discretion and with their express permission.

Thirdly, financial services firms need to define a core set of principles for how they treat customers and what constitutes fair treatment. This should be an extension of a broader organisational focus on treating customers fairly, and can go some way to repairing the trust deficit between the financial services industry and the customers they serve.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2018 World Wide Worx