MADLANGA J parties; and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed”.145 (Emphasis added.) [108] In this regard, RICA thus fails to provide for means that guarantee lesser invasions of privacy. As a result, the extent of the limitation of the privacy right becomes more egregious. And there is no relation between the purpose of state surveillance and the absence of procedures to safeguard private intercepted communications. RICA is, therefore, unconstitutional to the extent that it fails adequately to prescribe procedures to ensure that data obtained pursuant to the interception of communications is managed lawfully and not used or interfered with unlawfully, including prescribing procedures to be followed for examining, copying, sharing, sorting through, using, storing or destroying the data. [109] The third amicus, Privacy International, contends that the High Court order is too narrow. It notes that, although the applicants’ challenge before the High Court also related to communication data in the hands of private telecommunication service providers, the High Court order is limited to information intercepted and retained by the state. It submits that there is no difference – from the perspective of intrusions into privacy – between data retained by the state, on the one hand, and that retained by private entities, on the other. It urges us to amend the order to add that RICA is unconstitutional also to the extent that it fails to prescribe proper procedures to be followed when a telecommunication service provider is examining, copying, sharing, sorting through, using, storing or destroying archived communications-related data. [110] Essentially, the third amicus is lodging its own appeal. Ordinarily (and I use this word guardedly), an amicus participates in proceedings to raise “new contentions which may be useful to the Court”.146 This same idea was captured by this Court in In re Certain Amicus Curiae Applications where it held that “the special duty” of an amicus 145 Weber v Germany (2008) 46 EHRR 5, [2006] ECHR 1173 at para 95. 146 Rule 10 of the Rules of this Court. 59