[kictanet] Digital privacy discussions: Day one,

Wed Apr 6 22:42:02 EAT 2016

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_than_developing_surveillance/

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 at 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 at 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 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/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