[kictanet] (Warning: high risk of targeted Social Engineering Virus!) Fwd: [Internet Policy] A summary of the report of the UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation

[McTim]

Hi, Let me help you.


On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

> Listers,
>
> This model of "*don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and
> summarize*" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for
> negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many
> ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and
> should be actively discouraged.
>
>
Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful.




> Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to
> quip in with their thoughts/perspective please):
>
> 1. The idea of *unofficial versions of important policy documents* that
> have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at
> "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this
> day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what
> is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly
> written, in six UN languages*)? If policy practitioners can't understand
> it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem?
>


Yes, it is a competence problem.  I prefer the Sam Dickinson
version....always.

She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy
inside and out.




>
> An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant *should know this*
> and *avoid doing it *because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk
> habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and
> malware.
>


It is part of her business model.




>
> 2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too
> complex or too long.
>

no, not the premise.  The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva
and sits through week long events so I don't have to!



> So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like
> reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read
> important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here?
>


I only see the upside.


> This model gives the site owner(s)* immense power* as an information
> gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy
> (or negligent) individuals.
>


nonsense.


>
> This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities
> like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that
> can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that
> have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating
> incompetence - not enabling it.
>
> 3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What
> methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is
> important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they
> choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools
> do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to
> protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination
> vectors?
>



OH FFS.  If you are paying, you get to ask these questions.  If you aren't
a client of her consulting biz, then you don't get to ask these questions!




>
> 4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be
> subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny?
>

Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO?  Why are non-profit
rules and scrutiny better?


> Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint
> her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or
> an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea?
>

neither



> It doesn't make sense. What's going on?
>

it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports
on them as part of her consulting biz.



>
> 5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea
> originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not
> increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much
> worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea
> by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution.
>


it is not a bad situation.





>
> We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do
> things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in
> policy circles!
>

This does zero to worsen Internet "health"...whatever that means!

>
> What am I missing here?
>


the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point!



> --
Cheers,

McTim
The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates
*where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20190613/ac335cf2/attachment.htm>