- KICTANet - KICTANet

Kenya Government mandates DNA-linked national ID, without data protection law
by Alice Munyua 15 Feb '19

15 Feb '19

https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2019/02/08/kenya-government-mandates-dna… Last month, the Kenya Parliament passed a seriously concerning amendment to the country’s national ID law, making Kenya home to the most privacy-invasive national ID system in the world. The rebranded, National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS) now requires all Kenyans, immigrants, and refugees to turn over their DNA, GPS coordinates of their residential address, retina scans, iris pattern, voice waves, and earlobe geometry before being issued critical identification documents. NIIMS will consolidate information contained in other government agency databases and generate a unique identification number known as Huduma Namba. It is hard to see how this system comports with the right to privacy articulated in Article 31 of the Kenyan Constitution. It is deeply troubling that these amendments passed without public debate, and were approved even as a data protection bill which would designate DNA and biometrics as sensitive data is pending. Before these amendments, in order to issue the National ID Card (ID), the government only required name, date and place of birth, place of residence, and postal address. The ID card is a critical document that impacts everyday life, without it, an individual cannot vote, purchase property, access higher education, obtain employment, access credit, or public health, among other fundamental rights. Mozilla strongly believes that that no digital ID system should be implemented without strong privacy and data protection legislation. The proposed Data Protection Bill of 2018 which Parliament is likely to consider next month, is a strong and thorough framework that contains provisions relating to data minimization as well as collection and purpose limitation. If NIIMS is implemented, it will be in conflict with these provisions, and more importantly in conflict with Article 31 of the Constitution, which specifically protects the right to privacy. Proponents of NIIMS claim that the system provides a number of benefits, such as accurate delivery of government services. These arguments also seem to conflate legal and digital identity. Legal ID used to certify one’s identity through basic data about one’s personhood (such as your name and the date and place of your birth) is a commendable goal. It is one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 16.9 that aims “to provide legal identity for all, including birth registration by 2030”. However, it is important to remember this objective can be met in several ways. “Digital ID” systems, and especially those that involve sensitive biometrics or DNA, are not a necessary means of verifying identity, and in practice raise significant privacy and security concerns. The choice of whether to opt for a digital ID let alone a biometric ID therefore should be closely scrutinized by governments in light of these risks, rather than uncritically accepted as beneficial. Security Concerns: The centralized nature of NIIMS creates massive security vulnerabilities. It could become a honeypot for malicious actors and identity thieves who can exploit other identifying information linked to stolen biometric data. The amendment is unclear on how the government will establish and institute strong security measures required for the protection of such a sensitive database. If there’s a breach, it’s not as if your DNA or retina can be reset like a password or token. Surveillance Concerns: By centralizing a tremendous amount of sensitive data in a government database, NIIMS creates an opportunity for mass surveillance by the State. Not only is the collection of biometrics incredibly invasive, but gathering this data combined with transaction logs of where ID is used could substantially reduce anonymity. This is all the more worrying considering Kenya’s history of extralegal surveillance and intelligence sharing. Ethnic Discrimination Concerns: The collection of DNA is particularly concerning as this information can be used to identify an individual’s ethnic identity. Given Kenya’s history of politicization of ethnic identity, collecting this data in a centralized database like NIIMS could reproduce and exacerbate patterns of discrimination. The process was not constitutional Kenya’s constitution requires public input before any new law can be adopted. No public discussions were conducted for this amendment. It was offered for parliamentary debate under “Miscellaneous” amendments, which exempted it from procedures and scrutiny that would have required introduction as a substantive bill and corresponding public debate. The Kenyan government must not implement this system without sufficient public debate and meaningful engagement to determine how such a system should be implemented if at all. The proposed law does not provide people with the opportunity to opt in or out of giving their sensitive and precise data. The Constitution requires that all Kenyans be granted identification. However, if an individual were to refuse to turn over their DNA or other sensitive information to the State, as they should have the right to do, they could risk not being issued their identity or citizenship documents. Such a denial would contravene Articles 12, 13, and 14 of the Constitution. Opting out of this system should not be used to discriminate or exclude any individual from accessing essential public services and exercising their fundamental rights. Individuals must be in full control of their digital identities with the right to object to processing and use and withdraw consent. These aspects of control and choice are essential to empowering individuals in the deployment of their digital identities. Therefore policy and technical decisions must take into account systems that allow individuals to identify themselves rather than the system identifying them. Mozilla urges the government of Kenya to suspend the implementation of NIIMS and we hope Kenyan members of parliament will act swiftly to pass the Data Protection Bill of 2018.

8 8

[spin v/s reality]: Facebook (automated ad system) ALLOWS fake news ads before Nigerian vote (Al Jazeera Exclusive)
by Patrick A. M. Maina 14 Feb '19

14 Feb '19

[Al Jazeera Exclusive] Excerpt: "Facebook's automated ad approval system can be tricked fairly easily, making it possible to buy ads to spread misinformation and fake news in advance of the Nigeria elections, an Al Jazeera investigation has found. Last month, Facebook said it would temporarily disallow political ads targeting Nigeria from being purchased outside the country in an attempt to prevent foreign influence in the February 16 elections. The ads Al Jazeera was able to get Facebook to approve included: * a false claim that armed group Boko Haram would take part in the elections. * US President Donald Trump voicing his support for opposition leader Atiku Abubakar, * the deadline for collection of personal voter cards in Nigeria being extended by a week, and * thousands of Nigerian refugees getting a voting extension after the February 16 election date. All four claims were false - but Facebook [automated system] approved the ads [after some simple trial-error modifications to trick the system]." In the article, a Prof. Herman Wasserman, from the University of Cape Town, told Al Jazeera: "The evidence seems to suggest that their system does not work as effectively as it should." Exclusive: Facebook allows fake news ads before Nigerian vote | | | | | | | | | | | Exclusive: Facebook allows fake news ads before Nigerian vote Facebook's automated system can be tricked to allow ads to show millions of people fake news, Al Jazeera found. | | |

1 0

The death of competition the Telco sector and the future of NOFBI
by Ali Hussein 14 Feb '19

14 Feb '19

Listers How will the merger of Telkom Kenya and Airtel Kenya affect the National Optic Fibre Backbone #NOFBI? According to the ICT Authority Website, #NOFBI aimed at ensuring connectivity in all the 47 counties of Kenya. The objective was to ease communication as well as improve G2C Services. Key players are:- 1. Government of Kenya and the Chinese Government (funding); 2. Ministry of ICT (oversight); 3. ICT Authority (implementing agency); 4. Huawei (building a national fiber optic infrastructure); 5. Telkom Kenya (operations and maintenance) Something else to watch. The telecom industry has now become ether a duopoly or oligopoly in most countries with either two (duopoly) or 3-4 (oligarchy) key players docking it out:- Is competition dead in the Telco sector worldwide? Have governments simply handed over the cost and risk of capital to closely chosen and controlled private entities while holding the regulatory big stick over their heads? https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6501269498602012672 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

2 1

Re: [kictanet] American Broadband Initiative to Expand Connectivity for all Americans
by Delano Kiilu 13 Feb '19

13 Feb '19

American Broadband Initiative to Expand Connectivity for all Americans February 13, 2019 by David Redl, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Expanding America’s broadband connectivity is critical to our nation’s economy, and a top priority for President Trump and the Department of Commerce. Today, we join with our partners in government to announce the American Broadband Initiative (ABI), a comprehensive effort to stimulate increased private sector investment in broadband. NTIA is proud to share leadership of the ABI, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the White House Offices of American Innovation, Management and Budget, Science and Technology Policy, and the National Economic Council. In a report released today <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2019/american-broadband-initiative-mileston…>, over 20 federal agencies set out strategies for streamlining federal permitting, leveraging federal assets, and maximizing the effectiveness of federal funding for broadband. We congratulate the Department of Interior on the launch of the new Joint Overview Established Location Map <https://www.doi.gov/broadband>, which pulls data related to federal lands and assets from multiple agencies into a single map. This map will help the broadband industry more easily identify the location of available assets. It is an important first step in one of the Initiative’s core priorities: making it easier for the private sector to leverage federal assets to promote investment. NTIA also has begun work on a map to update nationwide broadband availability data, initially partnering with eight states – California, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia – to give policymakers a deeper understanding of which parts of the country lack broadband access. Our mapping work complements a number of significant contributions we are providing to the ABI effort. In early 2019, we will update the BroadbandUSA website <https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/> to provide a one-stop shop for federal permitting information. We will also update and expand the federal funding information provided on the site. And our new mapping tool will make it easier to ensure that federal funding is directed to the areas of greatest need. We are also working with land management agencies to streamline application siting procedures, as required by the MOBILE NOW Act <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-115hr1625enr/pdf/BILLS-115hr1625e…>. This will make it easier for carriers to use federal resources to expand service in rural areas. The BroadbandUSA program will continue to support industry, state, and local leaders with technical assistance, tools, and programs that help communities plan and build sustainable partnerships. The American Broadband Initiative and our work to create a National Spectrum Strategy <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2018/president-s-national-spectrum-strategy-w…> set the stage for the next wave in the technology revolution – one that encourages more private sector investment in fiber, 5G, and other technologies. Above is an interesting development that perhaps we should emulate. Regards Delano Kiilu *SECRETARY GENERAL* *PROTECTIVE AND SAFETY ASSOCIATION OF KENYA* *www.prosak.or.ke <http://www.prosak.or.ke>* On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 6:02 PM <kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke wrote: > Send kictanet mailing list submissions to > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > You can reach the person managing the list at > kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [hate speech etc] Facebook to hire 100 content reviewers > (Patrick A. M. Maina) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 17:42:11 +0000 (UTC) > From: "Patrick A. M. Maina" <pmaina2000(a)yahoo.com> > To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>, > Ebele Okobi <ebeleokobi(a)fb.com> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [hate speech etc] Facebook to hire 100 content > reviewers > Message-ID: <90947207.5207525.1549561331334(a)mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you Ebele. It's is definitely a positive gesture from FB and > hopefully will be welcomed by stakeholders who are concerned about risks of > platform weaponisation. > Would you be able to share the approximate ratio of moderators to users in > Africa? That will really help in establishing perspective & expectations. > Given the diverse cultures in Africa as well as hundreds of languages and > dialects, how will FB ensure that the moderators are able to correctly > interpret nuance / subtlety e.g. in coded vernacular exchanges - including > locality specific or ethnic specific slang?? > Africa is much more complicated culturally (and much more volatile - due > to various contributing factors which make hate speech / fake news much > more potent here) compared to other diverse regions like India and it would > be good if this complexity is reflected in FB's Africa strategy / measures > taken and the amount of resources committed for Africa should be higher > than anywhere else. > Have a great evening, > Patrick. > ? > On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 7:54:11 PM GMT+3, Ebele Okobi < > ebeleokobi(a)fb.com> wrote: > > It?s important to note that these are not the only content reviewers > covering Africa. We already have reviewers covering the Continent and based > in our other locations. So it is inaccurate to say that there are only 100 > reviewers covering Africa. This is meant to be a further investment in the > Continent, and to allow us to support even more communities and languages. > We also anticipate that it, like every other centre, will grow. > Regarding mental health-excellent question. > - Our partners (Samasource in Nairobi) are required to provide a > comprehensive program of additional benefits that includes health care > support.? > - We absolutely recognize this work can be difficult, and we take very > seriously our responsibility to care for the people that do this job. > - We go to great lengths to look after our reviewers. > > - Psychological support: Every person reviewing FB content is offered > psychological support & a variety of wellness resources. This typically > includes: > > - Extensive training around wellness and stress - to focus on prevention > - 24/7 counselling with trained experts > - Breakout areas if you need to step away from your desk > > - We also have a team of clinical psychologists who are tasked with > designing, delivering and evaluating the resiliency programs we have in > place for everyone who works with graphic and objectionable content. > - Training to ensure they are prepared: We have a comprehensive > training program that includes at least 80 hours of instructor-led > training, as well as hands-on practice for all of our reviewers; and > on-going coaching sessions and learning huddles so they are prepared for > this type of work > > - Anyone that reviews content for Facebook ? whether full-time > employees, or those employed by our partner ? has access to mental health > and wellness resources, including trained professionals onsite for both > individual and group counseling. > > I?m happy to answer any questions from the group! > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2019, at 4:27 PM, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > > Listers, ICYMI.. Facebook will reportedly hire 100 content reviewers.. > finally something concrete in recognition of reality; though certainly not > be an optimal number imo because it's still a 1:2Million moderator-to-user > ratio, and the ideal target is ~1:1000 users meaning if they truly care > about the societal impact, they need to hire at least 200,000 moderators to > cover all of Africa to guarantee a clean and safe experience! > FB will have to eventually establish culture mapped moderation teams > across (or for) different countries in Africa because each unit will only > be as effective as its ability to detect cultural nuances, local slang and > coded hate / mobilisation messages. > > FB will also need to be upfront with potential hires that moderation is > one of the dirtiest and most psychologically stressful jobs in ICT so > hopefully FB will provide full mental health support and insurance? for > them, including post contract counselling cover over several years. They > also need to boost the headcount very quickly so they can rotate them and > minimise repeated exposure to visual trauma i.e. to mitigate the risk of > PTSD. > Their next moves in the coming weeks/months will signal whether their > primary motivator is greed (hence this is just a PR stunt) or socially > responsible profits. My thoughts... > > > https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2019/02/facebook-to-open-sub-saharan-a… > Brgds,Patrick > <https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2019/02/facebook-to-open-sub-saharan-a…> > A. M. Maina[Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.kictanet.or.ke_m… > Twitter: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_kictanet&d=… > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.kictanet.or.ke_m… > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > >

1 0

Sanitized corruption via privatized aid, charities and foundations
by Patrick A. M. Maina 13 Feb '19

13 Feb '19

[links and book suggestions at the bottom] The idea of MNC CSR (whether direct or via special purpose vehicles like charity "foundations" or "initiatives") is increasingly coming under scrutiny because it has been observed to have the net effect of capturing power away from governments and society to private (often majority foreign-owned) corporations, with regard to local social impact issues, social accountability, government priorities and policies. When private sector sets the social impact agenda, they change the narrative from "large multinational corporations should be accountable for their long and short term impact on the indigenous society - at both micro and macro levels - and must not do intentional evil" to something more broad and ambiguous like "do well by doing good". The second phrase might look like a concise version of the same thing, but it isn't. New insights reveal that what MNC CSR really does is: 1. Diverts attention (and more importantly, accountability) away from the much more costly and widely spread out social harm (or undesirable effects) of private sector multinational companies (e.g. pollution, exploitative products / pricing, physically or mentally harmful products/services, poverty-sustaining labor practices, aggressive tax avoidance, resource diversion / extraction, macro-economic destabilization or damage etc.) 2. MNC use CSR to sanitize their harmful activities: "our technology is designed to turn millions of your children to mentally unstable addicts and narcissists but, hey look over there, our foundation is building a school / dispensary in the slums for 100 students, or offering free Wi-Fi in rural areas, so we can't be that bad". It's amazing that policy makers and the public actually fall for this chicanery... which is one reason why our education system needs a closer re-look.. is the core curriculum designed to stifle critical thought? 3. Enables back-door lobbying and rent seeking by allowing corporate entities to indirectly influence policies through their "charitable" foundations (indirect rent seeking). These policies make it easier for their sister MNCs: i. to unfairly take control, win government tenders or dominate the targeted sectors; ii. it dissuades government officials from taking meaningful action against the harmful activities (or responding to public outcry with sustainable solutions); iii. it also helps the MNC's country of origin entrench its geopolitical influence (or activities) over the country - e.g. to facilitate resource extraction; among other undesirable / negative effects. 4. The "charity" cover allows MNCs to mine indigenous data (with minimal government oversight) for numerous commercial purposes (e.g. behavior manipulation to boost product consumption - without regard to long term effects) as well as, in some case, non-commercial (or possibly unethical / illegal) purposes (including industrial / economic espionage or political subversion) with less risk of suspicion from governments and/or society. Because they have global reach, they can steal indigenous intellectual property on one continent and make millions from it in another continent (or their home country) with subdued risks of PR blowback. 5. The charity cover also enables them to unethically brainwash young innovators in poor countries to freely hand over their intellectual property "to charity" (or more accurately, to them / their affiliated entities) - in exchange for "hope" - yet these same companies (and their close affiliates) have *thousands* of patents and other IP which they defend vigorously and consistently. Several reputable authors like Anand Giridharas and Linsey McGoey have robustly challenged the motives behind privatized philanthropy and posited that if the parent companies of these MNC (or MNC founder) owned foundations did less (or no) evil / exploitation /harm to society, they would have less (or no) need for CSR and would achieve a positive net-impact within the societies in which they operate. For example, sector or niche-dominant companies (price setters) could: 1. Deliberately structure the profit margin of their products or services to try match their quarterly gross profits as closely as possible to the median gross profit of a basket of at least ten of the largest indigenous corporations in the country of operation. This is possible with modern-day real-time pricing and analytics technology which many (if not all) of these companies already have. This is how you make ethical profits. 2. Increase wages to stimulate economic growth directly, boost the economic growth headroom (growing a robust middle class) and a have net-positive economic and social impact. The idea that people in poor countries deserve to struggle (or are "used" to low quality lifestyles - so they should not be uplifted) is racist and abhorrent. 3. Pay people according to the job - not according to passport/origin. This is racial nepotism and ought to be called out for what it is. 4. Actively reject technology that is purposely designed to divert public attention in an addictive way from meaningful economic (or learning) activity due to the long term macro-level dangers and exponentially high macro-economic costs which cannot be justified in any way (a great area of research for indigenous policy makers and current graduate students in African Universities). 5. Reject transfer pricing arrangements, incorporate locally to show full commitment, hire local staff for responsible and key roles, avoid tax havens, stop lobbying for rent deals or undeserved concessions when you already have so much financial power and resources at your disposal (instead lobby for indigenous empowerment), and diligently pay taxes in host countries. 6. Practice and promote conscious capitalism as a core philosophy and policy (instead of CSR). There are many more ideas if you think in terms of "doing less evil" because that perspective shifts the power of setting the agenda / policies away from the private corporations and back to the people (society). Have a great day and week, as you hopefully ponder these thoughts! Patrick A. M. Maina.[Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] Further reading: 1. Well-Funded Non-Profits Pave the Way to Privatization - Living in Dialogue | | | | | | | | | | | Well-Funded Non-Profits Pave the Way to Privatization - Living in Dialogue By John Thompson. David Callahan’s The Givers begins with the first politicized think tanks of the 1960s and 197... | | | 2. Lesson 2: Introduction to Conscious Capitalism | | | | Lesson 2: Introduction to Conscious Capitalism WPSU - Penn State Public Media | | | 3. No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy | | | | $16.61 | | | | | | | No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Phil... Philanthro-capitalism: How charity became big business The charitable sector is one of the fastest-growing indus... | | | 4. Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World | | | | $22.91 | | | | | | | Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World An insider's groundbreaking investigation of how the global elite's efforts to "change the world" preserve the s... | | | 5. Facebook says it is committed to Uganda despite social media tax to quash 'gossip' Ever wondered why companies without an official local presence (possibly in contravention of business registration & licensing laws) can have so much power and influence over Africa? Are social media protestors defending their addiction habit or are they defending "human-rights"? Food for thought. | | | | | | | | | | | Facebook says it is committed to Uganda despite social media tax to quas... Justina Crabtree Facebook has confirmed its commitment to Uganda as a row rumbles on over a recently imposed tax on social media ... | | |

1 0

Sanitized corruption via privatized aid, charities and foundations
by Patrick A. M. Maina 13 Feb '19

13 Feb '19

[links and book suggestions at the bottom] The idea of MNC CSR (whether direct or via special purpose vehicles like charity "foundations" or "initiatives") is increasingly coming under scrutiny because it has been observed to have the net effect of capturing power away from governments and society to private (often majority foreign-owned) corporations, with regard to local social impact issues, social accountability, government priorities and policies. When private sector sets the social impact agenda, they change the narrative from "large multinational corporations should be accountable for their long and short term impact on the indigenous society - at both micro and macro levels - and must not do intentional evil" to something more broad and ambiguous like "do well by doing good". The second phrase might look like a concise version of the same thing, but it isn't. New insights reveal that what MNC CSR really does is: 1. Diverts attention (and more importantly, accountability) away from the much more costly and widely spread out social harm (or undesirable effects) of private sector multinational companies (e.g. pollution, exploitative products / pricing, physically or mentally harmful products/services, poverty-sustaining labor practices, aggressive tax avoidance, resource diversion / extraction, macro-economic destabilization or damage etc.) 2. MNC use CSR to sanitize their harmful activities: "our technology is designed to turn millions of your children to mentally unstable addicts and narcissists but, hey look over there, our foundation is building a school / dispensary in the slums for 100 students, or offering free Wi-Fi in rural areas, so we can't be that bad". It's amazing that policy makers and the public actually fall for this chicanery... which is one reason why our education system needs a closer re-look.. is the core curriculum designed to stifle critical thought? 3. Enables back-door lobbying and rent seeking by allowing corporate entities to indirectly influence policies through their "charitable" foundations (indirect rent seeking). These policies make it easier for their sister MNCs: a. to unfairly take control, win government tenders or dominate the targeted sectors; b. it dissuades government officials from taking meaningful action against the harmful activities (or responding to public outcry with sustainable solutions); c. it also helps the MNC's country of origin entrench its geopolitical influence (or activities) over the country - e.g. to facilitate resource extraction; among other undesirable / negative effects. 4. The "charity" cover allows MNCs to mine indigenous data (with minimal government oversight) for numerous commercial purposes (e.g. behavior manipulation to boost product consumption - without regard to long term effects) as well as, in some case, non-commercial (or possibly unethical / illegal) purposes (including industrial / economic espionage or political subversion) with less risk of suspicion from governments and/or society. Because they have global reach, they can steal indigenous intellectual property on one continent and make millions from it in another continent (or their home country) with subdued risks of PR blowback. 5. The charity cover also enables them to unethically brainwash young innovators in poor countries to freely hand over their intellectual property "to charity" (or more accurately, to them / their affiliated entities) - in exchange for "hope" - yet these same companies (and their close affiliates) have *thousands* of patents and other IP which they defend vigorously and consistently. Several reputable authors like Anand Giridharas and Linsey McGoey have robustly challenged the motives behind privatized philanthropy and posited that if the parent companies of these MNC (or MNC founder) owned foundations did less (or no) evil / exploitation /harm to society, they would have less (or no) need for CSR and would achieve a positive net-impact within the societies in which they operate. For example, sector or niche-dominant companies (price setters) could: 1. Deliberately structure the profit margin of their products or services to try match their quarterly gross profits as closely as possible to the median gross profit of a basket of at least ten of the largest indigenous corporations in the country of operation. This is possible with modern-day real-time pricing and analytics technology which many (if not all) of these companies already have. This is how you make ethical profits. 2. Increase wages to stimulate economic growth directly, boost the economic growth headroom (growing a robust middle class) and a have net-positive economic and social impact. The idea that people in poor countries deserve to struggle (or are "used" to low quality lifestyles - so they should not be uplifted) is racist and abhorrent. 3. Pay people according to the job - not according to passport/origin. This is racial nepotism and ought to be called out for what it is. 4. Actively reject technology that is purposely designed to divert public attention in an addictive way from meaningful economic (or learning) activity due to the long term macro-level dangers and exponentially high macro-economic costs which cannot be justified in any way (a great area of research for indigenous policy makers and current graduate students in African Universities). 5. Reject transfer pricing arrangements, incorporate locally to show full commitment, hire local staff for responsible and key roles, avoid tax havens, stop lobbying for rent deals or undeserved concessions when you already have so much financial power and resources at your disposal (instead lobby for indigenous empowerment), and diligently pay taxes in host countries. 6. Practice and promote conscious capitalism as a core philosophy and policy (instead of CSR). There are many more ideas if you think in terms of "doing less evil" because that perspective shifts the power of setting the agenda / policies away from the private corporations and back to the people (society). Have a great day and week, as you hopefully ponder these thoughts! Patrick A. M. Maina.[Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] Further reading: 1. Well-Funded Non-Profits Pave the Way to Privatization - Living in Dialogue | | | | | | | | | | | Well-Funded Non-Profits Pave the Way to Privatization - Living in Dialogue By John Thompson. David Callahan’s The Givers begins with the first politicized think tanks of the 1960s and 197... | | | 2. Lesson 2: Introduction to Conscious Capitalism | | | | Lesson 2: Introduction to Conscious Capitalism WPSU - Penn State Public Media | | | 3. No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy | | | | $16.61 | | | | | | | No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Phil... Philanthro-capitalism: How charity became big business The charitable sector is one of the fastest-growing indus... | | | 4. Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World | | | | $22.91 | | | | | | | Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World An insider's groundbreaking investigation of how the global elite's efforts to "change the world" preserve the s... | | | 5. Facebook says it is committed to Uganda despite social media tax to quash 'gossip' Ever wondered why companies without an official local presence (possibly in contravention of business registration & licensing laws) can have so much power and influence over Africa? Are social media protestors defending their addiction habit or are they defending "human-rights"? Food for thought. | | | | | | | | | | | Facebook says it is committed to Uganda despite social media tax to quas... Justina Crabtree Facebook has confirmed its commitment to Uganda as a row rumbles on over a recently imposed tax on social media ... | | |

1 0

JUST OUTLAWED FACEBOOK'S WHOLE AD BUSINESS
by Mutindi Muema 12 Feb '19

12 Feb '19

Dear listers, I have come across this article in Wired... I would like to hear your thoughts on the same and the viability of such a regulatory approach. The article reads in part : On Thursday, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office, the country’s antitrust regulator, ruled <https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/20…> that Facebook was exploiting consumers by requiring them to agree to this kind of data collection in order to have an account, and has prohibited the practice going forward. “Facebook will no longer be allowed to force its users to agree to the practically unrestricted collection and assigning of non-Facebook data to their Facebook user accounts,” FCO president Andreas Mundt said in a statement announcing the decision. “We disagree with their conclusions and intend to appeal so that people in Germany continue to benefit fully from all our services,” Facebook wrote in a blog post responding <https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/02/bundeskartellamt-order/> to the ruling. The company has one month to appeal. If it fails, Facebook would have to change how it processes data internally for German users, and could only combine the data into a single profile for a Facebook account with that user's explicit consent.... “The FCO’s theory is that Facebook’s dominance is what allows it to impose on users contractual terms that require them to allow Facebook to track them all over,” Khan says. “When there is a lack of competition, users accepting terms of service are often not truly consenting. The consent is a fiction.” As a dominant company Facebook is subject to special obligations under competition law. In the operation of its business model the company must take into account that Facebook users practically cannot switch to other social networks,” said Mundt. “The only choice the user has is either to accept the comprehensive combination of data or to refrain from using the social network. In such a difficult situation the user’s choice cannot be referred to as voluntary consent.” But Facebook says that tracking people makes the services safer and better, and that the FCO misses how much the company has done <https://www.wired.com/story/new-facebook-privacy-settings/> in order to comply with the General Data Protection regulation passed by the European Union in 2018. The FCO’s ruling, however, directly addresses the GDPR, writing that under its principles Facebook has “no effective justification for collecting data from other company-owned services and Facebook Business Tools or for assigning these data to the Facebook user accounts.” (Facebook Business Tools here can be anything from the Like and Share buttons that appear all over the internet, and which allow Facebook to track you on sites it doesn’t own, to analytic tools Facebook provides businesses.) In other words, in addition to being anticompetitive in its view, the FCO believes Facebook hasn’t proven that data collection and bundling is in the best interest of every consumer and that its sites couldn’t function without it..... Facebook is appealing. The full article is accessible at : https://www.wired.com/story/germany-facebook-antitrust-ruling/?CNDID=493573… Kind regards, Mutindi.

1 0

ICT Practitoner's Legislative Proposal 2018
by Ali Hussein 11 Feb '19

11 Feb '19

Listers Please find attached. Regards *Ali Hussein* *Principal* *AHK & Associates* Tel: +254 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing, Chiromo Road, Westlands, Nairobi, Kenya. Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with.

4 4

[Mental Health] Facebook to hire 100 content reviewers
by Collins C 11 Feb '19

11 Feb '19

There are also the psychological effects of reviewing traumatic content that is flagged by users (imagine the worst). They should consider having a counselling services for content reviewers. There is a documentary called The Cleaners of how some even end up committing suicide due to the nature of their jobs. Collins

1 0

[hate speech etc] Facebook to hire 100 content reviewers
by Patrick A. M. Maina 10 Feb '19

10 Feb '19

Listers, ICYMI.. Facebook will reportedly hire 100 content reviewers.. finally something concrete in recognition of reality; though certainly not be an optimal number imo because it's still a 1:2Million moderator-to-user ratio, and the ideal target is ~1:1000 users meaning if they truly care about the societal impact, they need to hire at least 200,000 moderators to cover all of Africa to guarantee a clean and safe experience! FB will have to eventually establish culture mapped moderation teams across (or for) different countries in Africa because each unit will only be as effective as its ability to detect cultural nuances, local slang and coded hate / mobilisation messages. FB will also need to be upfront with potential hires that moderation is one of the dirtiest and most psychologically stressful jobs in ICT so hopefully FB will provide full mental health support and insurance for them, including post contract counselling cover over several years. They also need to boost the headcount very quickly so they can rotate them and minimise repeated exposure to visual trauma i.e. to mitigate the risk of PTSD. Their next moves in the coming weeks/months will signal whether their primary motivator is greed (hence this is just a PR stunt) or socially responsible profits. My thoughts... https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2019/02/facebook-to-open-sub-saharan-a… Brgds,Patrick A. M. Maina[Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]

2 4