Part II of the C.Security and Protection Bill will set up the National Cyber Security Threat Response Unit which O think should be the designate unit to execute functions and procedures in Part III of the Computer & Cybercrimes Bill 2016. No one wants random police checking in their premises to confiscate computers or phones in the name of section 22.
The C.Security and Protection Bill does not have extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions which would enable extradition. We all know the nature of cyber crimes and the recent arrest of Kick Ass Torrents owner Artem Vaulin is a testimony of how effective extraterritorial jurisdiction can be.
The C.Security and Protection Bill does not also have provisions on online hate which is a big problem in Kenya. The issue of forfeiture of proceeds and profits of cybercrimes is not also in the bill. All these were provided for in the Computer and Cybercrimes Bill 2016.
The right to privacy, is 'under threat' in section 9. The drafters of this law have tried to mitigate the extent of breach in Section 10 and 11 where they give limitations to the information sharing between entities. However, I still wonder why it is taking forever for the Data Protection Bill to made law.
Section 22 outlaws phishing while section 24 criminalises identity theft which has become rampant in this age of Facebook and Instagram. Section 25 illegalises pornography. In the Computer and Cybercrimes Bill, only child pornography was expressly outlawed. Cases of children being sexually exploited by persons they met online are on the rise and section 26 outlaws it.
Sharing of intimate photos of another person will also be a crime. The other thing that this bill covers is cyber squatting which we had discussed some time back. However, I think this provision should be thoroughly debated so as to avoid ambiguity during interpretation.
I think the Cybersecurity and Protection Bill is much better drafted when compared to the Computer and Cybercrimes Bill. I however join those who call for these two draft laws to be amalgamated.
I understand that this is a Bill emanating from the work of the Senate ICT Committee. After visiting the counties, they saw a gap in cybersecurity and protection of infrastructure.
The issue of whether Senate can legislate on this- the Bill will affect Counties and their governments if you read the memorandum.
One thing we have learnt from the process of the ICT Practitioners Bill is that legislators/committees appreciate their role under a presidential system. We, wananchi also need to appreciate our role and entry points if our input is to be meaningful…
Regards,On 3 Aug 2016 11:20 p.m., "Barrack Otieno via kictanet" <firstname.lastname@example.org
Looking forwad to the output of the Map excercise @ Nanjira,
On 8/3/16, Nanjira Sambuli <email@example.com> wrote:
> Well, there is the matter of whether this is a Senate-level element of
> legislation, as Alex pointed out.
> This cybersecurity space runs a big risk of being over-legislated, without
> coherence. This is a key finding from the mapping exercise we have been
> conducting. There is a serious need, not only for harmonisation of bills,
> but also of efforts to introduce legislative frameworks.
> Will share more on our findings at the IGF next week.
>> On 3 Aug 2016, at 20:57, Barrack Otieno <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hi Nanjira, Alex and Listers,
>> I have perused the bill and have the following observations:
>> 1. This bill is Sponsored by Hon Mutahi Kagwe Chairman of the Senate
>> ICT Commitee whereas the Computer and Cybercrimes bill is Sponsored by
>> Leader of the Majority Hon Duale
>> 2. Both bills share the same objective, i have observed that Hon
>> Duale's bill which was discussed on KICTANET last week is more
>> punitive (Fines in Millions) while Hon Kagwe's is lenient (Fines are
>> in hundreds of thousands.
>> 3. I have observed that the Cyber Security and Protection Bill leans a
>> lot towards critical Internet Infrastructure whereas the Computer and
>> Cyber Crimes Bill focuses on Cyber crime and Child Online Protection,
>> however both bills have strong emphasis on Cyber Security.
>> 4. The Cyber Security and Protection Bill justifies the need for Cyber
>> Security laws within the county government framework.
>> 5. Overall both are good attempts but there is need for harmonization.
>> Best Regards
>> On 8/3/16, Alex Watila via kictanet <email@example.com
>>> Dear all,
>>> Please note that senate only needs to be involved on laws touching on
>>> functions listed in schedule 4 of cok 2010
distribution-of-functions- between-national-and-the- county
>>> My understanding is that cyber security is a national function
Bugging issues as yet : inline posting gets stripped, dealing with old emails, associating user identities with mailing list names so users can post as themselves...
- How to Fight “Fake News” JoashAsante. Much appreciated. Wish we could have access to that ...
- How to Fight “Fake News” Dear Listeners,Researchers have spent decades trying to understand how such misinformation (fake ...
- Facebook Faces a New World as Officials Rein In a Wild Web – The New York Times ListersAs a follow up to my post last night here's ...
- Fwd: Why Facebook is the ‘greater devil’ of the moment " the legislation of the transfer of ownership all user-generated data ...