So there is this dude in SA that has a youtube channel and a friend sent me this saying hes doing things and provoking people but i watched a few videos and find it kinda hard to see major laws this dude might be breaking
https://www.youtube.com/@mcg_rsa
I trying to be neutral here and i feel that someone that knows public or civil law might know more.
would be intersting to see what others think
As someone who has myself gone through something similar at our complex, the VAST majority of people seem to love quoting the POPI act…it simply does not apply here. In no way am I sharing PRIVATE information about you by RECORDING things happening in a public space. The RICA act is what applies here, and people get very uncomfortable when they realise that someone could be hiding in the bushes recording the 2 of us and that too would be fine (provided at least ONE of the party to the conversation consents to the convo…ie you cant record 2 strangers having a conversation if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy…like in their backyard or not publicly accessible area).
I too had to stand my ground when I video recorded myself for legal purposes informing someone they were squatting on my property, to only be verbally assaulted by the misguided woman who had TOLD the dude to rent there, because she mistakingly thought she owned that storage unit when it was in fact mine.
Later on she demanded via the property management that I take down the video that I had provided to them out of transparency, citing the POPI act…sadly to my disappointment the property management ppl relayed this info to me instead of schooling her on how we had a conversation on common grounds on complex.
So yea, while i’ve only watched a small bit of the 1 “bull” video, and its possible these guys are sorta maybe being antagonistic…they’re not wrong with regards to law…And my eyes ROLL when the guy says “POPI” act.
TLDR: POPI act is PRIVATE information that you share with companies/business/private individuals…recording you on the street has sweet blou FOKKOL to do with that. RICA applies, and we have a 1 party consent law. end of story
Its why Leon Schuster movies don’t have to blur out random peoples faces in the sketches they do, why prank phone calls can just happen on radio…and Jackass is a good example…remember how weird it is SOMETIMES when faces ARE blurred…but other stuff they do ISNT? Welcome to America, where every state has different party consent laws. Some states require both parties consent, therefore they blur faces if they dont get consent…
He needs to watch out because at one point he’s looking INTO the car and recording what he sees on the backseat and the floor. That could be argued as invading privacy right there, as you have a reasonable expectation of SOME privacy inside your vehicle (flimsy but still).
And yea sure he’s technically not breaking laws or committing crimes…but he’s definitely being an asshole and deliberately antagonizing ignorant people.
How would YOU guys act if you own a business and stranger just comes and stands in front of your shop and records the “going ons” of it…that WOULD appear suspicious.
so ja…not a law breaker, but when someone punches them in the face for this they’ll likely be justified 
(not legal advise)
So yes the people are wrong for citing the POPI act…they should cite this instead.
You can’t record two strangers having a conversation period. If the recording party is PARTY to the conversation, one-party consent comes in. If I’m having a convo with John in the street, and Pietie records us while walking by, he is breaking the law.
But agreed 100% on RICA vs POPI acts, it’s hilarious how people don’t have any idea what POPI is about but try invoking it at every opportunity.
Sorry yes I mispoke, you are correct. The reasonable expectation of privacy is unrelated to the conversation party. It basically means i can record you walking down the street, but not through your bathroom window
I need to proofread my ramblings before i post
I also didn’t fully flesh out my thoughts with regards to “hiding in the bushes”. thats meant to be because its the example I used with the aggressive lady, I said my wife could be hiding in the bushes recording us (she was visibly standing next to me) and it would still be ok because IM aware and would consent. So yea, mispoke 
There was something though, and my very limited knowledge is dropping me here, about informing all parties to a conversation that it is being recorded. I know on a phone call you are required to inform people that they’re being recorded. Not sure about an in person conversation, though.
Its generally regarded as lawful lubrication…while you technically don’t have to, it makes any potential legal proceedings MUCH smoother if you can prove you informed. so yea a lawyer will tell you its def a good idea, and not doing so might give you a hard time of it, but its not a slam dunk against you. That’s what I’ve heard (we have lawyers as clients hehe)
As someone who has a passion for street and journalistic photography, I don’t see any problem here.
I just watched a bit of Ms. Entitled.
Years ago a guy in America (?) did this. I think he was called Surveillance Camera Guy. His point was that there was always surveillance, and that he was making people aware of it.
They reacted in much the same way. He also spawned a bunch of copycats and this seems to be in that mould too.
I don’t think he’s breaking any laws but he might be deliberately provocative, which is also not illegal
I’ve walked around my town with a camera and nobody felt very comfortable. I’d love to be able to actually (unobtrusively) take some candid shots.
You are well within your right to do so. As long as the picture is taken in a public space. You can take a photo of people in their house while they’re bumping uglies and there is nothing anyone can do about it. People can always stop and ask you what you’re doing and why you’re taking pictures of them, as long as you are not soliciting the pictures or using them to make the subject look bad in any way shape or form, but you are NOT obligated to delete it.
This is also what i thought apart from this dude maybe being antagonizing i cant see anything that this dude might be doing anything illigal. as said by @LazyDemoni this dude is a spin off of the “surveilance camera guy” I think the in the context of SA and the way crime is i can see that people might be on edge but hes is kinda well in his right to do and make this content how ever so cringe is might be to some
thanks for the insight
Not quite right. Where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, ie. in your own home, being video’s without your consent is illegal. If you’ve got a wall around your house, and someone climbs a ladder on the sidewalk (public property), it’s illegal for them to video inside the wall - you have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. I’ve got palisades in front of my house, so I’ve got no idea what that would mean…
Yeah sorry, you are right. I of course was not trying to imply being intentional in invading privacy or being a voyeur. Climbing a wall to intentionally take a picture of someone in their private residence I agree would be illegal or questionable at best. Taking a pic from the sidewalk that you can see through someone’s fence, such as a palisade, may be permissible.
After all, “I was just taking a picture of an interesting bird that I saw in the tree which happened to be in their property, your honour.”