If you missed the interview, the issue was whether there was indeed a violation of privacy or not. The answer is yes. https://twitter.com/Modise_SK/status/1275401829606711296

Unsolicited commercial messages are intrusive. They violate a person's right to be let alone and the desire to control who has access to one's visual and thoughtful attention.

Under common law privacy may be violated through intrusion one's private space or dissemination of private facts. It's not a violation if it's consented to or justified.

Section 38 of the Electronic Communications & Transactions Act codifies the common law position with respect to unsolicited commercial messages.

Section 38(2) of the Act provides that unsolicited commercial communications may only be sent to people where the opt-in requirement is met. One of the opt-in requirements is to provide a functional opt-out facility for the recipient.

In terms of Section 38(5) an originator who fails to provide the recipient with an opt-out facility is liable to a fine not exceeding P10 00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. The originator is who the messages says it's from.

In the case of bulk smsing, the network service provider acts as an intermediary through which transmission is made possible. They don't necessarily sell or share personal data, they just provide a platform, a mere conduit.

Unsolicited messages that are not commercial, i.e those that don't promote any product, may be intrusive but are justified because they relay an important message. Eg. BPC, WUC, Covid19.