Thanks Kivuva, Barrack, Alex, Gideon and Ali for such a vibrant debate on this topic. Please feel free to still debate if you have more concerns. And other Listers are encouraged to contribute. Points gleaned from the debate: Kivuva suggests that there is need to safeguard personal freedom and space even as the safety of the nation is important. Barrack notes that leadership and freedom come with responsibility! Further, he recommendsthat the Police Inspector General (not in office yet) collaborates with stakeholders to ensure cyber security of the citizenry is guaranteed whilst respecting privacy, and for CCK to conduct a survey on issue of surveillance. Gideon supports the development of the means to curtail any irresponsibility online at an early stage. Alex raises the costs monitoring of hate speech would impose on cybercafés, which would then be transferred to the consumers. This would be a barrier to access and cybercafés would be forced to either increasetheir prices, or simply stop operating because of the costs. Important to note is that crime and hate speech are a big problem, that cannot be solved without a vast array of negative consequences by requiring intermediaries to act as policeman. The idea of having online community policing was expressed. However an online community comprises a community of multiple and overlapping communities. These communities are a lot less tight knit and it is hard to identify whether one is a member of a community or not. Given the multiple layers of anonymity inherent on the internet afforded to all: offenders, infringers, policers and vigilantes any attempt at community policing online is fraught with many problems. Ali noted that the principles of privacy and freedom of expression cuts both ways, and cautioned that the Internet is not a unique place where people can get away with things that they probably wouldn't in the 'real' world. Barrack, unfortunately the CJ is not on the list but we would welcome him here. RgdsGG