MADLANGA J [45] Because of its likely outcomes, post-surveillance notification will go a long way towards eradicating the sense of impunity which certainly exists. The concomitant will be a reduction in the numbers of unmeritorious intrusions into the privacy of individuals. I explain this presently. In a sense, post-surveillance notification functions as less restrictive – or should I say less intrusive – means and serves at least two purposes. First, the subject of surveillance is afforded an opportunity to assess whether the interception direction was applied for and issued in accordance with the Constitution and RICA. If need be, she or he may seek an effective remedy for the unlawful violation of privacy. Second, because there will be challenges to illegally sought and obtained interception directions, that will help disincentivise abuse of the process and reduce violations of the privacy of individuals. I am not addressing myself to the possibility that surveillance may, in any event, take place outside of the law, i.e. not even under colour of compliance with RICA. That issue is not before us. [46] While internationally there is no consensus on when and how post-surveillance notification is an absolutely necessary safeguard of the right to privacy, considerable comparative practice supports the conclusion that some form of notice is crucial to minimising abuse. Subject to varying exceptions and qualifications, the default position in the United States of America and Canada is to give notice 90 days after surveillance, if safe to do so.74 Likewise in Denmark, there is a general requirement to inform the 74 High Court judgment above n 8 at para 47. At fn 10 the High Court details the provisions of the relevant legislative provisions in the United States of America and Canada. The Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications in the United States (18 U.S. Code§ 2518) provides, in section 8(d): “Within a reasonable time but not later than ninety days after the filing of an application for an order of approval under section 2518 (7)(b) which is denied or the termination of the period of an order or extensions thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served, on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion that is in the interest of justice, an inventory which shall include notice of— (1) the fact of the entry of the order or the application; (2) the date of the entry and the period of authorized, approved or disapproved interception, or the denial of the application; and (3) the fact that during the period wire, oral, or electronic communications were or were not intercepted. The judge, upon the filing of a motion, may in his discretion make available to such person or his counsel for inspection such portions of the intercepted communications, applications and 31