Digital privacy discussions: Day one,
Dear listers, Today we begin our online discussions on digital privacy. By electing a government, we give it a responsibility to protect our security and in the course of that, they make policies by which our data is collected and used. Nanjira had shared a CIGI-IPSOS research (here <http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7159>) on digital security and trust done early this year which found out that: - 75% of Kenyans law enforcement agencies should have a right to access the content of their citizens’ online communications for valid national security reasons - 66% agreed that tech companies should not build technologies that prevent the law enforcement agencies from accessing the content of their communication. 1. Are ‘National security’ and ‘terrorism’ being used as a means to justify government breaches of security? 2. Is data collection proportionate and justified? And how secure are our government's’ information systems from other parties 3. How can the tech industry work with the government on security while ensuring people's right to privacy are not infringed? 4. What are your concerns on government collection of data and surveillance? Karibuni. -- Best regards. Liz. PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
Liz, This is a timely discussion coming at a time when the fight against terrorism is a global issue requiring concerted efforts from all. I will attempt to answer the first question. While citizens expect the government to guarantee their other rights (including privacy), they are also guaranteed other rights. It is therefore a question of balancing security and other rights. There have been many discussions on how to achieve this balance. Most agree that there are circumstances when there can be lawful interception of communication or access to communication data because privacy is not an absolute right. However, interception and access must be within a framework. IHRB <http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/reports/2016-1-15_Lawful_Interception_Government_Access_User_Data.pdf> vouches for a human rights approach to lawful interception and access by government and suggests the following guidelines: 1. Prerequisites to Communications Surveillance (surveillance as a last measure, surveillance laws, targeted surveillance, human rights safeguards) 2. Authorisation Processes (judicial/independent (sometimes executive) authority before surveillance) 3. Oversight (by an independent body) 4. Notification of Individuals under surveillance 5. Remedy (linked to notification as one needs to know they have been under surveillance) 6. Transparency (educating public on surveillance and remedies, publishing reports on surveillance) 7. Provision for Framework Review (to review the laws and regulations on surveillance to monitor human rights compliance, efficacy etc) I look forward to Kenya's privacy law so that we can interrogate how far it achieves this balance. Regards, On 6 April 2016 at 09:34, Liz Orembo via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear listers,
Today we begin our online discussions on digital privacy.
By electing a government, we give it a responsibility to protect our security and in the course of that, they make policies by which our data is collected and used.
Nanjira had shared a CIGI-IPSOS research (here <http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7159>) on digital security and trust done early this year which found out that:
- 75% of Kenyans law enforcement agencies should have a right to access the content of their citizens’ online communications for valid national security reasons - 66% agreed that tech companies should not build technologies that prevent the law enforcement agencies from accessing the content of their communication.
1.
Are ‘National security’ and ‘terrorism’ being used as a means to justify government breaches of security? 2. Is data collection proportionate and justified? And how secure are our government's’ information systems from other parties 3. How can the tech industry work with the government on security while ensuring people's right to privacy are not infringed? 4. What are your concerns on government collection of data and surveillance?
Karibuni. --
Best regards. Liz.
PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/nmutungu%40gmail.com
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.
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu> PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
Hi Liz and Grace, Indeed the discussion comes at an interesting time. Furthermore it is my wish that we could have the discussion in a local language due to the fact that majority of us think in mother tongue and speak in English based on the outcome of the Survey. To understand the issues it would be good to have a universal understanding and or definition of privacy which in my humble opinion does not exist. I wish to posit that the word privacy might be alien in most local dialects in the global South based on Social Cultural norms and is part of the goodies that arrived on the Ship. For example whereas our fore fathers were scantily dressed this was not considered indecent exposure since there were cultural systems in place that established the necessary checks and balances. It is this systems that were key in weeding out errant members of the Society (terrorists etc) and assisted Communities to win wars which were largely a contest for resources as it is today. Looked at from another perspective a society that respects systems and procedures and keeps standards is likely to value privacy. Privacy and trust are a product of norms or standards by which people decide to live. In proper English i would refer to the same as value systems. With this 1) Government is a public good and a product based on the value systems of the people within the jurisdictions it controls as such i would not be quick to say that National Security is a means used to justify breaches in National Security. In democratic nations the thinking of the leaders reflects the thinking of the electorate. 2) If a Survey would have done in the US on the Apple versus CIA/FBI issue to break into the terror suspects Cellphone, i wonder what the majority of citizens would have said just to validate point 1 above. I welcome opinions from other listers 3) The tech Industry needs to work closely with government, academia and civil society through the multi stakeholder model. Concepts like Privacy require educating / sensitizing the public on the value or good of embracing the same. As it is a key member of the technical community is now holding a key position in government and by extension helping the masses understand the value of technology in National building. This is my humble opinion for now. On 4/6/16, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Liz, This is a timely discussion coming at a time when the fight against terrorism is a global issue requiring concerted efforts from all. I will attempt to answer the first question. While citizens expect the government to guarantee their other rights (including privacy), they are also guaranteed other rights. It is therefore a question of balancing security and other rights. There have been many discussions on how to achieve this balance. Most agree that there are circumstances when there can be lawful interception of communication or access to communication data because privacy is not an absolute right. However, interception and access must be within a framework.
IHRB <http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/reports/2016-1-15_Lawful_Interception_Government_Access_User_Data.pdf> vouches for a human rights approach to lawful interception and access by government and suggests the following guidelines:
1. Prerequisites to Communications Surveillance (surveillance as a last measure, surveillance laws, targeted surveillance, human rights safeguards) 2. Authorisation Processes (judicial/independent (sometimes executive) authority before surveillance) 3. Oversight (by an independent body) 4. Notification of Individuals under surveillance 5. Remedy (linked to notification as one needs to know they have been under surveillance) 6. Transparency (educating public on surveillance and remedies, publishing reports on surveillance) 7. Provision for Framework Review (to review the laws and regulations on surveillance to monitor human rights compliance, efficacy etc)
I look forward to Kenya's privacy law so that we can interrogate how far it achieves this balance.
Regards,
On 6 April 2016 at 09:34, Liz Orembo via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear listers,
Today we begin our online discussions on digital privacy.
By electing a government, we give it a responsibility to protect our security and in the course of that, they make policies by which our data is collected and used.
Nanjira had shared a CIGI-IPSOS research (here <http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7159>) on digital security and trust done early this year which found out that:
- 75% of Kenyans law enforcement agencies should have a right to access the content of their citizens’ online communications for valid national security reasons - 66% agreed that tech companies should not build technologies that prevent the law enforcement agencies from accessing the content of their communication.
1.
Are ‘National security’ and ‘terrorism’ being used as a means to justify government breaches of security? 2. Is data collection proportionate and justified? And how secure are our government's’ information systems from other parties 3. How can the tech industry work with the government on security while ensuring people's right to privacy are not infringed? 4. What are your concerns on government collection of data and surveillance?
Karibuni. --
Best regards. Liz.
PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/nmutungu%40gmail.com
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.
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno
Barrack, Interesting angle. Is it that the word "privacy" does not exist in most of our cultures or is it the idea of privacy that does not exist? I have always heard my people speak of "mambo ya kindani"....could this point to our ideas on privacy? On 6 April 2016 at 17:10, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Liz and Grace,
Indeed the discussion comes at an interesting time. Furthermore it is my wish that we could have the discussion in a local language due to the fact that majority of us think in mother tongue and speak in English based on the outcome of the Survey.
To understand the issues it would be good to have a universal understanding and or definition of privacy which in my humble opinion does not exist. I wish to posit that the word privacy might be alien in most local dialects in the global South based on Social Cultural norms and is part of the goodies that arrived on the Ship. For example whereas our fore fathers were scantily dressed this was not considered indecent exposure since there were cultural systems in place that established the necessary checks and balances. It is this systems that were key in weeding out errant members of the Society (terrorists etc) and assisted Communities to win wars which were largely a contest for resources as it is today. Looked at from another perspective a society that respects systems and procedures and keeps standards is likely to value privacy. Privacy and trust are a product of norms or standards by which people decide to live. In proper English i would refer to the same as value systems. With this
1) Government is a public good and a product based on the value systems of the people within the jurisdictions it controls as such i would not be quick to say that National Security is a means used to justify breaches in National Security. In democratic nations the thinking of the leaders reflects the thinking of the electorate.
2) If a Survey would have done in the US on the Apple versus CIA/FBI issue to break into the terror suspects Cellphone, i wonder what the majority of citizens would have said just to validate point 1 above. I welcome opinions from other listers
3) The tech Industry needs to work closely with government, academia and civil society through the multi stakeholder model. Concepts like Privacy require educating / sensitizing the public on the value or good of embracing the same. As it is a key member of the technical community is now holding a key position in government and by extension helping the masses understand the value of technology in National building.
This is my humble opinion for now.
Liz, This is a timely discussion coming at a time when the fight against terrorism is a global issue requiring concerted efforts from all. I will attempt to answer the first question. While citizens expect the government to guarantee their other rights (including privacy), they are also guaranteed other rights. It is therefore a question of balancing security and other rights. There have been many discussions on how to achieve this balance. Most agree that there are circumstances when there can be lawful interception of communication or access to communication data because privacy is not an absolute right. However, interception and access must be within a framework.
IHRB < http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/reports/2016-1-15_Lawful_Interception_Government_Acc...
vouches for a human rights approach to lawful interception and access by government and suggests the following guidelines:
1. Prerequisites to Communications Surveillance (surveillance as a last measure, surveillance laws, targeted surveillance, human rights safeguards) 2. Authorisation Processes (judicial/independent (sometimes executive) authority before surveillance) 3. Oversight (by an independent body) 4. Notification of Individuals under surveillance 5. Remedy (linked to notification as one needs to know they have been under surveillance) 6. Transparency (educating public on surveillance and remedies,
On 4/6/16, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: publishing
reports on surveillance) 7. Provision for Framework Review (to review the laws and regulations on surveillance to monitor human rights compliance, efficacy etc)
I look forward to Kenya's privacy law so that we can interrogate how far it achieves this balance.
Regards,
On 6 April 2016 at 09:34, Liz Orembo via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear listers,
Today we begin our online discussions on digital privacy.
By electing a government, we give it a responsibility to protect our security and in the course of that, they make policies by which our data is collected and used.
Nanjira had shared a CIGI-IPSOS research (here <http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7159>) on digital security and trust done early this year which found out that:
- 75% of Kenyans law enforcement agencies should have a right to access the content of their citizens’ online communications for valid national security reasons - 66% agreed that tech companies should not build technologies that prevent the law enforcement agencies from accessing the content of their communication.
1.
Are ‘National security’ and ‘terrorism’ being used as a means to justify government breaches of security? 2. Is data collection proportionate and justified? And how secure are our government's’ information systems from other parties 3. How can the tech industry work with the government on security while ensuring people's right to privacy are not infringed? 4. What are your concerns on government collection of data and surveillance?
Karibuni. --
Best regards. Liz.
PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/nmutungu%40gmail.com
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.
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu> PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
@ Grace "Mambo ya kindani" lol. our high context culture also allows us to use a lot of euphemism in our speech. Barrack, you raise very important points, Indeed all stakeholders should work together but what collaborative approaches should the govts have with the tech companies? especially the global ones ? On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Barrack, Interesting angle. Is it that the word "privacy" does not exist in most of our cultures or is it the idea of privacy that does not exist? I have always heard my people speak of "mambo ya kindani"....could this point to our ideas on privacy?
On 6 April 2016 at 17:10, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Liz and Grace,
Indeed the discussion comes at an interesting time. Furthermore it is my wish that we could have the discussion in a local language due to the fact that majority of us think in mother tongue and speak in English based on the outcome of the Survey.
To understand the issues it would be good to have a universal understanding and or definition of privacy which in my humble opinion does not exist. I wish to posit that the word privacy might be alien in most local dialects in the global South based on Social Cultural norms and is part of the goodies that arrived on the Ship. For example whereas our fore fathers were scantily dressed this was not considered indecent exposure since there were cultural systems in place that established the necessary checks and balances. It is this systems that were key in weeding out errant members of the Society (terrorists etc) and assisted Communities to win wars which were largely a contest for resources as it is today. Looked at from another perspective a society that respects systems and procedures and keeps standards is likely to value privacy. Privacy and trust are a product of norms or standards by which people decide to live. In proper English i would refer to the same as value systems. With this
1) Government is a public good and a product based on the value systems of the people within the jurisdictions it controls as such i would not be quick to say that National Security is a means used to justify breaches in National Security. In democratic nations the thinking of the leaders reflects the thinking of the electorate.
2) If a Survey would have done in the US on the Apple versus CIA/FBI issue to break into the terror suspects Cellphone, i wonder what the majority of citizens would have said just to validate point 1 above. I welcome opinions from other listers
3) The tech Industry needs to work closely with government, academia and civil society through the multi stakeholder model. Concepts like Privacy require educating / sensitizing the public on the value or good of embracing the same. As it is a key member of the technical community is now holding a key position in government and by extension helping the masses understand the value of technology in National building.
This is my humble opinion for now.
Liz, This is a timely discussion coming at a time when the fight against terrorism is a global issue requiring concerted efforts from all. I will attempt to answer the first question. While citizens expect the government to guarantee their other rights (including privacy), they are also guaranteed other rights. It is therefore a question of balancing security and other rights. There have been many discussions on how to achieve this balance. Most agree that there are circumstances when there can be lawful interception of communication or access to communication data because privacy is not an absolute right. However, interception and access must be within a framework.
IHRB < http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/reports/2016-1-15_Lawful_Interception_Government_Acc...
vouches for a human rights approach to lawful interception and access by government and suggests the following guidelines:
1. Prerequisites to Communications Surveillance (surveillance as a last measure, surveillance laws, targeted surveillance, human rights safeguards) 2. Authorisation Processes (judicial/independent (sometimes executive) authority before surveillance) 3. Oversight (by an independent body) 4. Notification of Individuals under surveillance 5. Remedy (linked to notification as one needs to know they have been under surveillance) 6. Transparency (educating public on surveillance and remedies,
On 4/6/16, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: publishing
reports on surveillance) 7. Provision for Framework Review (to review the laws and regulations on surveillance to monitor human rights compliance, efficacy etc)
I look forward to Kenya's privacy law so that we can interrogate how far it achieves this balance.
Regards,
On 6 April 2016 at 09:34, Liz Orembo via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear listers,
Today we begin our online discussions on digital privacy.
By electing a government, we give it a responsibility to protect our security and in the course of that, they make policies by which our
data
is collected and used.
Nanjira had shared a CIGI-IPSOS research (here <http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7159>) on digital security and trust done early this year which found out that:
- 75% of Kenyans law enforcement agencies should have a right to access the content of their citizens’ online communications for valid national security reasons - 66% agreed that tech companies should not build technologies that prevent the law enforcement agencies from accessing the content of their communication.
1.
Are ‘National security’ and ‘terrorism’ being used as a means to justify government breaches of security? 2. Is data collection proportionate and justified? And how secure are our government's’ information systems from other parties 3. How can the tech industry work with the government on security while ensuring people's right to privacy are not infringed? 4. What are your concerns on government collection of data and surveillance?
Karibuni. --
Best regards. Liz.
PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/nmutungu%40gmail.com
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.
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/lizorembo%40gmail.com
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.
-- Best regards. Liz. PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
Listers, I came across this article by Paul Budde that adds value to the discussion: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160401_gvmt_industry_collaboration_better_th... Allow me to copy and Paste for those who done have time to read blogs: Government-Industry Collaboration Is Better than Developing a Surveillance State President Obama, in March 2016, again stressed the need for better collaboration between the tech industry and the government. He referred to his own White House initiative — this has resulted in the newly-formed US Digital Service, which is trying to recruit the tech industry to work with and for government. One of the key reasons it is so difficult to establish trustworthy, good working relationships is the extreme lack of tech understanding among most politicians and government bureaucrats. Because of that they fall back on heavy-handed legislation. We saw this recently in the USA in relation to the Apple vs FBI case (which fortunately has been dropped), where both politicians and the public media showed an enormous lack of understanding of the consequences of such dogmatic approaches. The current relationship between government and industry remains very much a top-down approach. We tell you what to do and you do what you are told. While this relationship is widespread across all sectors, it is particularly evident in telecoms — for example, in telecoms policies, data surveillance and data protection legislation, and innovation policies. Another issue is that for political reasons government prefers to come up with silo-based piecemeal policy announcements and spin them out over long periods, while the country needs a far more holistic approach. Both government and industry do, in general, understand that there are national interest issues as well as commercial issues, but the best way to address such issues is through a better relationship between government and industry — in this case the tech industry. The Obama initiative is a great example of a positive move in that direction. A key issue I would like to highlight here is data surveillance policies. The proposed legislation will boost the government's power to give directions to telcos in relation to infrastructure security, including issues such as vendor choice and network design, as well as forcing carriers to inform government security agencies of significant changes to their networks. Rather than introducing such dogmatic and heavy-handed legislation a close working relationship between the government and the industry would be less intrusive and far more effective. These issues are being across the entire western world. The main reason I am against the heavy-handed approach is that in this way long-standing democratic principles are being eroded by 'the 'state' under the banner of protecting people against terrorism (and other bad things). At the same time I believe that this new level of 'state protection' is the biggest danger to our individual rights and freedoms, or more generally to our democratic systems. Under the influence of ultra-right movements in the USA, Europe and Australia we see national states implementing draconian laws to protect its people. While some of this might be genuine this environment also allows power-hungry politicians, bureaucrats and demagogues to use the atmosphere of uncertainty to increase their own positions and political powers — and they don't shy away from using plain lies, half-truths, racism and other questionable methods. With the assistance of a dumbed down right-wing press this rot is spreading throughout society. However, such policies are failing and will continue to fail in the cat and mouse game between policies and technological developments. This has more to do with political expedience than with addressing the real issues. As we see with Trump and other populist politicians, they don't get a majority but their influence on other politicians, and their consequent political decisions, is significant; and this in turn leads to many people no longer seeing the state as representing them. They see that, by moving in these 'protective' directions, states are using all kinds of new laws, regulations and restrictive measures to undermine the society, culture and traditions that they have helped develop over the last 50 years or so. What this does goes directly against some of our most valued democratic principles — whereby the state becomes more and more involved in all aspects of the daily life of its citizens. Eventually this will backfire, as people become more and more suspicious of the state that no longer truly represents its people. Both Nietzche and Orwell warned against such developments. I believe that the majority of people still prefer a far more centrist political system. I remain positive that we can avoid the most disastrous elements of these current political developments. However it requires those people who are concerned about it to remain vigilant and not allow paranoia and dogma to take over from reason. By Paul Budde, Managing Director of Paul Budde Communication. Paul is also a contributor of the Paul Budde Communication blog located here. On 4/6/16, Liz Orembo via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
@ Grace "Mambo ya kindani" lol. our high context culture also allows us to use a lot of euphemism in our speech.
Barrack, you raise very important points, Indeed all stakeholders should work together but what collaborative approaches should the govts have with the tech companies? especially the global ones ?
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Barrack, Interesting angle. Is it that the word "privacy" does not exist in most of our cultures or is it the idea of privacy that does not exist? I have always heard my people speak of "mambo ya kindani"....could this point to our ideas on privacy?
On 6 April 2016 at 17:10, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Liz and Grace,
Indeed the discussion comes at an interesting time. Furthermore it is my wish that we could have the discussion in a local language due to the fact that majority of us think in mother tongue and speak in English based on the outcome of the Survey.
To understand the issues it would be good to have a universal understanding and or definition of privacy which in my humble opinion does not exist. I wish to posit that the word privacy might be alien in most local dialects in the global South based on Social Cultural norms and is part of the goodies that arrived on the Ship. For example whereas our fore fathers were scantily dressed this was not considered indecent exposure since there were cultural systems in place that established the necessary checks and balances. It is this systems that were key in weeding out errant members of the Society (terrorists etc) and assisted Communities to win wars which were largely a contest for resources as it is today. Looked at from another perspective a society that respects systems and procedures and keeps standards is likely to value privacy. Privacy and trust are a product of norms or standards by which people decide to live. In proper English i would refer to the same as value systems. With this
1) Government is a public good and a product based on the value systems of the people within the jurisdictions it controls as such i would not be quick to say that National Security is a means used to justify breaches in National Security. In democratic nations the thinking of the leaders reflects the thinking of the electorate.
2) If a Survey would have done in the US on the Apple versus CIA/FBI issue to break into the terror suspects Cellphone, i wonder what the majority of citizens would have said just to validate point 1 above. I welcome opinions from other listers
3) The tech Industry needs to work closely with government, academia and civil society through the multi stakeholder model. Concepts like Privacy require educating / sensitizing the public on the value or good of embracing the same. As it is a key member of the technical community is now holding a key position in government and by extension helping the masses understand the value of technology in National building.
This is my humble opinion for now.
Liz, This is a timely discussion coming at a time when the fight against terrorism is a global issue requiring concerted efforts from all. I will attempt to answer the first question. While citizens expect the government to guarantee their other rights (including privacy), they are also guaranteed other rights. It is therefore a question of balancing security and other rights. There have been many discussions on how to achieve this balance. Most agree that there are circumstances when there can be lawful interception of communication or access to communication data because privacy is not an absolute right. However, interception and access must be within a framework.
IHRB < http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/reports/2016-1-15_Lawful_Interception_Government_Acc...
vouches for a human rights approach to lawful interception and access by government and suggests the following guidelines:
1. Prerequisites to Communications Surveillance (surveillance as a last measure, surveillance laws, targeted surveillance, human rights safeguards) 2. Authorisation Processes (judicial/independent (sometimes executive) authority before surveillance) 3. Oversight (by an independent body) 4. Notification of Individuals under surveillance 5. Remedy (linked to notification as one needs to know they have been under surveillance) 6. Transparency (educating public on surveillance and remedies,
On 4/6/16, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: publishing
reports on surveillance) 7. Provision for Framework Review (to review the laws and regulations on surveillance to monitor human rights compliance, efficacy etc)
I look forward to Kenya's privacy law so that we can interrogate how far it achieves this balance.
Regards,
On 6 April 2016 at 09:34, Liz Orembo via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear listers,
Today we begin our online discussions on digital privacy.
By electing a government, we give it a responsibility to protect our security and in the course of that, they make policies by which our
data
is collected and used.
Nanjira had shared a CIGI-IPSOS research (here <http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7159>) on digital security and trust done early this year which found out that:
- 75% of Kenyans law enforcement agencies should have a right to access the content of their citizens’ online communications for valid national security reasons - 66% agreed that tech companies should not build technologies that prevent the law enforcement agencies from accessing the content of their communication.
1.
Are ‘National security’ and ‘terrorism’ being used as a means to justify government breaches of security? 2. Is data collection proportionate and justified? And how secure are our government's’ information systems from other parties 3. How can the tech industry work with the government on security while ensuring people's right to privacy are not infringed? 4. What are your concerns on government collection of data and surveillance?
Karibuni. --
Best regards. Liz.
PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/nmutungu%40gmail.com
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.
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu
<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu>
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/lizorembo%40gmail.com
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.
--
Best regards. Liz.
PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno
participants (3)
-
Barrack Otieno -
Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) -
Liz Orembo