[kictanet] Digital privacy discussions: Day one,

Wed Apr 6 17:40:56 EAT 2016

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 at 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.
>
> On 4/6/16, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet
> <kictanet at 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 at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20160406/7684b9b2/attachment.htm>