- KICTANet - KICTANet

short, basic ICT training courses
by Adam Lane 08 Aug '18

08 Aug '18

Hi all Last year Huawei sponsored a short 1-month basic IT training course for disadvantaged form 4 leavers, known as Digital Skills for Life, which was 50% soft/life skills along with the IT course (and also mentors, study trips etc). It is more than "how to use a computer/internet" and must give some skills that could lead to employment (from secretarial/office jobs to self-employment, hardware repair/sales etc). More info: https://techmoran.com/30-students-graduate-huaweis-digital-skills-life-prog…, https://thefounder.co.ke/huawei-ict-authoritys-digital-skills/. This year, before we start the next phase of the project, we're trying to better understand the general issue and market, i.e. barriers holding back such students from attending such courses, what kind of courses are out there, whether they meet identified job needs, and whether such graduates can get jobs/be entrepreneurs or not etc. As part of this research we are talking to various training institutes/centers (initially around Nairobi), including government-backed ones. We're not right now selecting any partners, just trying to better understand the issues, challenges and possible interventions. Can anyone recommend any others (beyond the below list) that we should talk to?.. criteria is fairly simple: should offer short courses (1-3 months) and should be open to those without any ICT skills at all, and without any/very limited academic qualifications. Thanks Adam 1. Kenya Institute of project management and Technology 2. Institute of Advanced Technology 3. Nairobi Institute of Business Studies 4. IIHT 5. Computers for Schools Kenya 6. Kenya Institute of management 7. Zetech University (certificate courses last 2 semesters ) 8. Intel college (ICDL) 9. Nairobi Aviation college 10. Kenya Technical Trainers College 11. Tunapanda 12. Slumcode 13. Karen School for the Blind 14. Kabete Technical Training Institute 15. Craft Silicon Foundation 16. Inable 17. Africa Center Women in Technology 18. Internet Society 19. Akirachix

5 4

Fwd: Blockchain Policy Conference (Paris, 4-5 September)
by Jessica Musila 08 Aug '18

08 Aug '18

FYI - Blockchain conference at the OECD ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Holly.RICHARDS(a)oecd.org> Date: Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:25 AM Subject: Blockchain Policy Conference (Paris, 4-5 September) To: tictecbymysociety(a)googlegroups.com Happy summer TICTeC-ies! I’m sharing information on an upcoming blockchain conference at the OECD <http://www.oecd.org/finance/oecd-blockchain-policy-forum-2018.htm> in case you or someone working on blockchain in your sphere would be interested to join. We’re encouraging civil society/non-governmental participation as this will lead into a whole stream of research and analysis going forward. The organizers are still looking for projects with experience in transport applications, health, agriculture and migration. Here’s a short description with link to registration (and feel free to let me know if you’re planning to come): The *OECD Blockchain Policy Forum <http://www.oecd.org/finance/oecd-blockchain-policy-forum-2018.htm> *will explore the impact blockchain is set to have across a wide range of sectors and on many of the policy areas at the heart of the OECD’s work. The discussions will focus on blockchain’s potential in addressing current and future policy challenges, its limitations, as well as risks that could arise and ways to mitigate them. Experts will lead an in-depth exchange on how blockchain can enhance inclusiveness in various sectors of the economy, boost sustainability and green growth, and strengthen governance and enforcement practices. High-level government officials, international experts and industry representatives will take part in the panel discussions, and we expect well over 400 attendees. Cheers, Holly [image: logo_mail_uk] *Holly Richards *Public Affairs Manager Civil Society and Parliamentary Liaison Public Affairs and Communications Directorate 2, rue André <https://maps.google.com/?q=2,+rue+Andr%C3%A9&entry=gmail&source=g> Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 Tel: +33 1 45 24 9161 - Fax: +33 1 44 30 63 46 holly.richards(a)oecd.org || www.oecd.org [image: FORUM2018_SignatureMail_02_EN] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TICTeC" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tictecbymysociety+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/tictecbymysociety/6d9ad400bd5645e3a72ab5ed71552728%40oecd.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tictecbymysociety/6d9ad400bd5645e3a72ab5e…> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

1 0

CALL FOR ENTRIES : SHOWCASE OF OUR HOMEGROWN ICT INNOVATIONS TO THE WORLD
by Alwala, Rachel 07 Aug '18

07 Aug '18

Dear listers, Communications Authority of Kenya intends to sponsor four local ICT innovators to showcase their innovations in Durban, South Africa, at the 2018 ITU Telecom World. This initiative aims at promoting local entrepreneurs offering innovative products and services to address societal needs, to an international audience. It gives them the chance to showcase themselves and earn recognition on an international platform. ENTRY CATEGORIES Selection will be made for one ICT innovation in each of the following four Categories: · SME Innovation: Innovations tailored for solutions to Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) · Corporate Innovation: Innovations tailored for solutions to mature Corporate organizations · Public Sector Innovation: Innovations tailored for solutions to Public service delivery · Community Innovation: Innovations tailored to serve specific communities Please help share this advertisement calling for entries for our young people to showcase their innovations. See attached. Regards, Rachel

2 1

Telkom Kenya sells its Towers to American Towers
by Ali Hussein 05 Aug '18

05 Aug '18

Listers This is the sort of development that free markets should encourage. Infrastructure sharing through divestiture by Telcos. Airtel has already offloaded it’s tower infrastructure across Africa t9 Helios Towers. It creates room for MVNOs to sprout up and challenge the status quo. Kudos to Telkom Kenya for unshackling itself from Real Estate and deploying the capital to delighting tos customers. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6431766310480416768 Ali Hussein Principal AHK & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit." ~ Aristotle Sent from my iPad

1 0

Biometric IDs listing set for this year after secret tender
by kanini mutemi 04 Aug '18

04 Aug '18

https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/economy/Biometric-IDs-listing-set-for-t… Dear Listers, Business Daily reports of a ‘secret tender’ to undertake a fresh ID registration based on biometrics. I am concerned for two reasons– (a) Transparency (b) Public participation. There is no denying the place of technology and how far we could go if we adapted the most recent tech in governance. However, the very sensitive nature of this type of data places a bigger responsibility on GoK. First to develop a data protection framework but beyond that get the public buy in. To add, our current governance framework calls for transparency and public participation. There is no going around those two prerequisites. Have we not learnt anything from Communication Authority and DMS woes?

2 1

County ICT budgets
by Adam Lane 03 Aug '18

03 Aug '18

Hi Does anyone know where the County budgets can be found? My understanding is there is not one place, and each county is supposed to put on their own website, but that most do not... https://www.internationalbudget.org/budget-work-by-country/ibps-work-in-cou… shows that for last year's budget almost none did. Thanks Adam

3 3

Special Call: Digital Rights Advancement Grants | Media Legal Defence Initiative
by Du Toit, Jaco 31 Jul '18

31 Jul '18

Dear colleagues, You may be interested in this call for grants, see Media Legal Defence Initiative https://www.mediadefence.org/news/special-call-digital-rights-advancement-g… Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Fwd: CyberSpeak|LC Session 4
by tobby bunde 30 Jul '18

30 Jul '18

Hi Listers, Check out the CyberSpeak Session below, It might be of interest to someone. Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Collins Bunde <c.bunde(a)cyberspeaklc.com> Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:41 PM Subject: CyberSpeak|LC Session 4 To: bundetobby(a)gmail.com You are invited to our CyberSpeak|LC Session 4, on Thursday at the Bazaar Plaza, American spaces. *Click the link below to register, only 50 seats.* https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1NGDAXrhYTdbNrGn7LKQ8NvvD4Rj7N yzHunANipCHDfc/edit?ts=5b531018. CyberSPEAK | L & C -- is the independent, go-to event for – cybersecurity talks and networking in Kenya, whose goal is to provide an opportunity to learn from the experts, network with professionals and connect within the cyber industry. *Collins Bunde* Technical Support Associate *Mob:* +254-713175471 *Email:* c.bunde(a)cyberspeaklc.com *Web:* www.cyberspeaklc.com [image: CyberSpeakLC] <https://www.cyberspeaklc.com> <https://www.facebook.com/CyberSpeakLC> <https://twitter.com/CyberSpeakLC> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cyberspeaklc> <https://www.instagram.com/cyberspeaklc/> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5ni03i3QwOB9WngmPk970w> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipients. If you are not an intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify us immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] The age of cyberwar is here
by Barrack Otieno 30 Jul '18

30 Jul '18

Listers, Might be of Interest to some. Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Hill <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:58 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] The age of cyberwar is here To: ISOC INTERNETPOLICY <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> The article below is worth considering in light of Microsoft’s proposals for a Digital Geneva Convention, see: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/microsoft-right-need-digital- geneva-convention/ Best, Richard ========== The age of cyberwar is here. We can't keep citizens out of the debate *theguardian.com*/commentisfree/2018/jul/28/cyberwar-age- citizens-need-to-have-a-say <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/28/cyberwar-age-citizens…> David E SangerJuly 28, 2018 In almost every classified Pentagon scenario for how a future confrontation with Russia and China, even Iran and North Korea, might play out, the adversary’s first strike against the United States would include a cyber barrage aimed at civilians. It would fry power grids, stop trains, silence cellphones and overwhelm the internet. In the worst-case scenarios, food and water would begin to run out; hospitals would turn people away. Separated from their electronics, and thus their connections, Americans would panic, or turn against one another. The Pentagon is planning for this scenario because it knows many of its own war plans open with similarly paralyzing cyber-attacks against our adversaries, reflecting new strategies to try to win wars before a shot is fired. Glimpses of what this would look like have leaked out in recent years, partly thanks to Edward JSnowden, partly because a mysterious group called the Shadow Brokers – suspected of close links to Russian intelligence – obtained terabytes of data containing many of the “tools” that the National Security Agency used to breach foreign computer networks. It didn’t take long for some of those stolen cyberweapons to be shot back at America and its allies, in attacks whose bizarre-sounding names, like WannaCry, suddenly appeared in the headlines every week. Yet the secrecy surrounding these programs obscures most public debate about the wisdom of using them, or the risks inherent in losing control of them. The government’s silence about America’s new arsenal, and its implications, poses a sharp contrast to the first decades of the nuclear era. Sign up to receive the latest US opinion pieces every weekday The horrific scenes of destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only seared the national psyche, but they made America’s destructive capabilities – and soon Russia’s and China’s – obvious and undeniable. Yet even while the government kept the details classified – how to build atomic weapons, where they are stored, and who has the authority to order their launch – America engaged in a decades-long political debate about when to threaten to use the bomb and whether to ban it. Those arguments ended up in a very different place from where they began: in the 1950s the United States talked casually about dropping atomic weapons to end the Korean war; by the 80s there was a national consensus that the US would reach for nuclear weapons only if our national survival was at stake. So far, there has been no equivalent debate about using cyberweapons, even as their destructive power becomes more evident each year. The weapons remain invisible, the attacks deniable, the results uncertain. Naturally secretive, intelligence officials and their military counterparts refuse to discuss the scope of America’s cyber capabilities for fear of diminishing whatever narrow advantage the country retains over its adversaries. The result is that the United States makes use of this incredibly powerful new weapon largely in secret, on a case-by-case basis, before we fully understand its consequences. Acts that the United States calls “cyber network exploitations” when conducted by American forces are often called “cyber-attacks” when American citizens are the target. That word has come to encompass everything from disabling the grid, to manipulating an election, to worrying about that letter arriving in the mail warning that someone – maybe criminals, maybe the Chinese – just grabbed our credit cards, social security numbers and medical histories, for the second or third time. During the cold war, national leaders understood that nuclear weapons had fundamentally changed the dynamics of national security, even if they disagreed on how to respond to the threat. Yet in the age of digital conflict, few have a handle on how this new revolution is reshaping global power. During his raucous 2016 presidential campaign, Trump told me in an interview that America was “so obsolete in cyber”, ignoring, if he was aware of it, that the United States and Israel had deployed the most sophisticated cyberweapon in history against Iran. More concerning was the fact that he showed little understanding of the dynamics of the grinding, daily cyber conflict now under way – the short-of-war attacks that have become the new normal. His refusal to acknowledge Russia’s pernicious role in the 2016 election, for fear it would undercut his political legitimacy, only exacerbates the problem of formulating a national strategy. But the problem goes far beyond the Trump White House. After a decade of hearings in Congress, there is still little agreement on whether and when cyberstrikes constitute an act of war, an act of terrorism, mere espionage or cyber-enabled vandalism. Technological change wildly outpaces the ability of politicians – and the citizens who have become the collateral damage in the daily combat of cyberspace – to understand what was happening, much less to devise a national response. Making matters worse, when Russia used social media to increase America’s polarization in the 2016 election, the animus between tech companies and the US government – ignited by Snowden’s disclosures four years earlier – only deepened. Silicon Valley and Washington are now the equivalent of a divorced couple living on opposite coasts, exchanging snippy text messages. Great powers and once-great powers, like China and Russia, are already thinking forward to a new era in which cyber is used to win conflicts before they appear to start. They look at quantum computers and see a technology that could break any form of encryption and perhaps get into the command-and-control systems of America’s nuclear arsenal. They look at bots that could not only replicate real people on Twitter but paralyze early-warning satellites. >From the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade to the national laboratories that once created the atomic bomb, American scientists and engineers are struggling to maintain a lead. The challenge is to think about how to defend a civilian infrastructure that the United States government does not control, and private networks where companies and American citizens often don’t want their government lurking – even for the purpose of defending them. What’s missing in these debates, at least so far, is any serious effort to design a geopolitical solution in addition to a technological one. In my national security reporting for the New York Times, I’ve often been struck by the absence of the kind of grand strategic debates surrounding cyber that dominated the first nuclear age. Partly that is because there are so many more players than there were during the cold war. Partly it is because the United States is so politically divided. Partly it is because cyberweapons were created by the US intelligence apparatus, instinctively secretive institutions that always err on the side of overclassification and often argue that public discussion of how we might want to use or control these weapons imperils their utility. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/28/cyberwar-age-citizens…> Some of that secrecy is understandable. Vulnerabilities in computers and networks – the kind that allowed the United States to slow Iran’s nuclear progress, peer inside North Korea, and trace Russia’s role in the 2016 election – are fleeting. But there is a price for secrecy, and the United States has begun to pay that price. It is impossible to begin to negotiate norms of behavior in cyberspace until we too are willing to declare our capabilities and live within some limits. The United States, for example, would never support rules that banned cyber espionage. But it has also resisted rules prohibiting the placement of “implants” in foreign computer networks, which we also use in case the United States needs a way to bring those networks down. Yet we are horrified when we find Russian or Chinese implants in our power grid or our cellphone systems. “The key issue, in my opinion,” says Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who served in George W Bush’s justice department, “is the US government’s failure to look in the mirror.” - *David E Sanger is the chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times. He is the author of The Perfect Weapon <https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780451497895?aff=penguinrandom>* - *Reprinted from THE PERFECT WEAPON: War, Sabotage, and Fear in the Cyber Age. Copyright © 2018 by David E Sanger. Published by Crown Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC* _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] Global Cryptocurrency Benchmarking Study
by Barrack Otieno 30 Jul '18

30 Jul '18

Listers, Might be of interest to some. Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Filip Vukovinski <filip.vukovinski(a)net.hr> Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 8:27 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] Global Cryptocurrency Benchmarking Study To: ISOC Internet Policy List <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> Cambridge Judge Business School published a global cryptocurrencies study by Hileman and Rauchs. https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-finance/ publications/global-cryptocurrency/#.W13zkvaxXcv "This is the first study to systematically investigate key cryptocurrency industry sectors by collecting empirical, non-public data. The study gathered survey data from nearly 150 cryptocurrency companies and individuals, and it covers 38 countries from five world regions. The study details the key industry sectors that have emerged and the different entities that inhabit them." Some of the key findings include the following: - The current number of unique active users of cryptocurrency wallets is estimated to be between 2.9 million and 5.8 million. - The lines between the different cryptocurrency industry sectors are increasingly blurred: 31 per cent of cryptocurrency companies surveyed are operating across two cryptocurrency industry sectors or more, giving rise to an increasing number of universal cryptocurrency companies. - At least 1,876 people are working full- time in the cryptocurrency industry, and the actual total figure is likely well above two thousand when large mining organisations and other organisations that did not provide headcount figures are added. - Average security headcount and costs for payment companies and exchanges as a percentage of total headcount/operating expenses are similar, but significantly higher for wallets. Filip _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

2 1