in-line responses,,, On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Vitalis Olunga <[email protected]> wrote:
Let us not assume that Sec. 88 affects only the media. Not at all. This bad law has effect across the board. Th whole Communication Act or the whole ICT for that matter is affected, including telecommunications or communications apparatus or equipment. I would wish to remind some of us who have been in this industry for over a decade, not to not forget that, it was illegal to own a fax machine in this country at one time, unless with express approval from state house. The ownership of mobile phone was illegal unless approved by a battalion of state security agents, and only those authorized were to have it in their possessions. The computer terminals were not spared either. It was illegal to have a VSAT TV -Receive Only terminal on top of your roof. Etc. Etc. It is therefore only right to fight to remove the draconian clause from this law, given the chance. I fully support the Media Group in their fight.
A true historical account and you re-emphasize how inter-connected all information and communications industries are. Come Digital Broadcasting, that line will get more greyed out (read: already CCK Unified Licensing Framework). Oppositely, there are instances of genuine structural Public Interest threat in related to consuming harmful information, expressing, or facilitating its flow different from the "general" National State of Emergency - because we all know what SMS and broadcasts did to us in the recent past... There must a very tough legal provision that deters powerful information handlers from the temptation of using national frequencies assets to achieve private interests harmful to Public Interest. The minister should invoke this clause implementation upon an agreed decision by a committee - lessens possibility of abuse by the powers-that-be of the day. Oh no! I also find invading premises and confiscating private equipment rather crude where there are technological ways to achieve structural harmful information flow. If not deleted, Section 88 could be "upgraded" (phrased or worded better), for example, allow minister on committee decision to jam specific broadcast frequencies, jam mobile phone frequencies (like they did when Bill Clinton visited Tanzania) etc,, for the duration of the emergency. What would be the problem with that?
The regulations of cause need to be there, because the rules of the game have to be there, and a referee must be there in the field. There are quite a number of positive contributions and suggestions which have come up that, such as making the media council effective to be the referee of some kind.
Content regulation and professionalism, benefits journalists, and promote local content quality. Having it regulated by a strengthened Media Council is perfect. Always supported self-regulation when it does not mean private entities establishing "a basement corner desk" and says there you are, regulating ourselves but at the basement:) thus I urge you, all to support our proposal for the attached.It's essentially meant to make CCK's successful "Chukua Hatua" a permanent self-regulation legal function for the benefit of all information and communications consumers thus pro-Public Interest. Thank you. Alex