- ISPA has released a position paper calling for any internet blocking measures to be introduced only through a clear legislative framework.
- The organisation says common internet blocking methods are technically flawed, costly and often produce unintended consequences.
- ISPA has outlined five key principles to guide internet blocking laws and protect the constitutional rights of South Africans.
The Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) has called for any internet blocking measures in South Africa to be introduced only through a clear legislative framework that protects constitutional rights and places decisions under judicial oversight.
Its position paper was released following news that the National Gambling Board has formally requested the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies to implement internet blocking to help combat offshore illegal online gambling platforms targeting South Africans.
As South Africa’s recognised Internet Industry Representative Body, ISPA said it accepts there are limited circumstances where internet service providers may be required to block access to illegal online content. However, it said any such obligations must be carefully balanced against the constitutional rights of citizens and the practical realities faced by internet service providers.
ISPA chair Sasha Booth-Beharilal said, “ISPA’s position is that any disruption of internet services to South Africans should be done only as part of a clear legislative framework that balances the right to communicate against the potential harm of problematic content.”
The organisation said South Africa’s Constitution guarantees rights including freedom of expression, access to information and the privacy of communications. It argues that any limitation of those rights should be reasonable, proportionate and authorised through the courts rather than by administrative or regulatory bodies.
Technical challenges of internet blocking
The position paper outlines three common methods used to block internet content and explains why each presents significant technical limitations.
The first is domain name blocking, which interferes with requests made through the Domain Name System (DNS). ISPA said this is the simplest and least disruptive option for internet service providers, but it is also one of the easiest for users to bypass by changing DNS settings or using a virtual private network (VPN).
The second method is IP address blocking, which prevents users from connecting to particular internet addresses. ISPA warned that this can unintentionally block unrelated websites hosted on the same server.
The paper points to a recent report by the Open Observatory of Network Interference, which found that a court-ordered block in Europe affecting only a handful of shared IP addresses inadvertently made more than 500,000 unrelated websites inaccessible.
The third method is packet inspection, which requires internet service providers to inspect data packets travelling across their networks to identify and block specific online content.
According to ISPA, packet inspection requires specialised and expensive equipment, reduces network performance and is typically associated with countries where governments exercise extensive control over internet access. Even then, determined users can often bypass the restrictions through VPN technology.
Five principles for internet blocking in South Africa
ISPA has proposed five principles that it believes should underpin any future internet blocking framework in South Africa.
The first is that all blocking orders should be issued by a court or judge rather than by a regulator or administrative body. The organisation says blocking measures should also be subject to judicial oversight and review.
Secondly, ISPA says all blocking obligations should be publicly disclosed so that citizens know when and why their access to online content has been restricted.
Thirdly, all blocking measures should be temporary and reviewed regularly to ensure they remain necessary, relevant and proportionate.
Fourthly, ISPA argues that blocking orders should not dictate how internet service providers implement restrictions or require them to modify their networks or install additional equipment. Providers should instead be allowed to implement orders using methods suited to their existing infrastructure.
Finally, the organisation says the costs of mandatory internet blocking should be allocated fairly. Internet service providers should be entitled to recover only the actual costs of implementing legally required blocking measures.
Booth-Beharilal said, “Regulators are often quick to conclude that requiring ISPs to disrupt the services they provide to their customers will be a silver bullet to solve their problems. International experiences indicate otherwise.
“While there are some limited circumstances where there may be a need for specific content to be blocked, such steps often have unintended consequences. ISPA looks forward to working with policymakers and other stakeholders on the development of a legal framework that respects the rights of South African citizens.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
