{"id":3621,"date":"2025-12-19T04:57:27","date_gmt":"2025-12-19T04:57:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itlawco.com\/?p=3621"},"modified":"2025-12-19T04:59:12","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T04:59:12","slug":"when-security-becomes-surveillance-cctv-privacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itlawco.com\/fr\/when-security-becomes-surveillance-cctv-privacy\/","title":{"rendered":"When security becomes surveillance: CCTV and privacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t

Insight into Phillips and Another v Bradbury (Appeal) (A200\/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 430<\/a> (17 September 2025)<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
\n\t

In September 2025, the Western Cape High Court<\/a> delivered a judgment that brings much-needed clarity to the constitutional limits of private surveillance and domestic security systems in South Africa.<\/p>\n

Although the dispute arose between neighbours, the judgment has far-reaching implications for residential estates, employers, technology providers, bodies corporate and organisations deploying CCTV or other monitoring technologies.<\/p>\n

At its core, the Court affirmed a principle that is becoming increasingly important in a surveillance-heavy world: Systematic, technology-enabled monitoring of another person\u2019s private space can constitute a serious infringement of the constitutional rights to privacy and dignity \u2014 even when framed as \u201csecurity\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n

\n\t

The dispute in brief<\/h2>\n

The case concerned CCTV cameras installed on a residential property that maintained a continuous line of sight into a neighbouring home. The cameras captured areas that are ordinarily regarded as private, including a swimming pool, entertainment areas, a courtyard and a bedroom.<\/p>\n

Despite repeated requests to reposition the cameras so as to eliminate the intrusive line of sight, the homeowners refused, citing heightened crime risk, load shedding and the vulnerability of properties in the area. A court at first instance ordered the cameras to be repositioned to remove the invasion of privacy. That order was taken on appeal to a Full Bench of the High Court.<\/p>\n

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n

\n\t

Privacy is not defeated by security rhetoric<\/h2>\n

The High Court confirmed that the right to privacy protected by section 14 of the Constitution<\/a> extends beyond protection against physical intrusion. Drawing on established Constitutional Court jurisprudence, the Court held that privacy includes protection against unwarranted observation and surveillance, particularly where monitoring is:<\/p>\n