MADLANGA J [100] In sum, RICA is unconstitutional to the extent that it lacks sufficient safeguards to address the fact that interception directions are sought and obtained ex parte. Management of information issue [101] Once a person’s communications are intercepted and obtained, does RICA contain safeguards relating to how that information is handled, stored, and eventually destroyed? The applicants contend that RICA lacks procedures for examining, copying, sharing, sorting through, using, storing or destroying surveillance data. RICA is thus unconstitutional to the extent of this shortcoming. The applicants’ concern is that the lack of regulation in this regard exposes subjects of interceptions to even more aggravated intrusions into their privacy. The Minister of State Security argues that section 35(1)(f) and (g), read with section 37 of RICA, provides the necessary procedures and that, in any event, section 42 provides for a general prohibition of the disclosure of intercepted communications. The High Court upheld the applicants’ contention. [102] Section 35(1)(f) does no more than to enjoin the Director of the Office for Interception Centres (director) to prescribe what information must be kept in terms of section 37 by the heads of information centres.142 Such information must include particulars relating to: applications for the issuing of directions; the directions themselves; and the results obtained pursuant to the execution of each direction. As the applicants correctly argued, reference to “particulars” means all that the director need prescribe must be kept is an identification of both the application for directions and the directions issued, and an indication of the nature of the result obtained pursuant to the 142 The section provides: “(1) In order to achieve the objects of the Act, the Director— ... (f) must prescribe the information to be kept by the head of an interception centre in terms of section 37, which must include particulars relating to— (i) applications for the issuing of directions and the directions issued upon such applications which is relevant to the interception centre of which he or she is the head; and (ii) the results obtained from every direction executed at that interception centre.” 56