The rationale for the proposed law in my opinion fails both legal and
practical tests and I will pick up from where my learned colleague Gertrude
1. There is no serious mischief that can be clearly identified and the
reasons given so far are adequately catered for by exiting laws and
proposed laws like the Computer and Cybercrimes Bill of 2017. The cure to
the mischief contemplated requires the basic understanding tha crime and
other social conflicts have not changed but simply moved to tech
If one fails to deliver on a contract ,the courts are an open avenue to
solve the dispute maybe what we need is improved capacity for the bar and
the bench to handle the tech matters, fraud is fraud whether perpetrated on
paper or a computer, theft is still theft whether physical or virtual
2. In regards to who is best suited to cure the above mischief, I have
explained above that we just need improve the capacity of all stakeholders
right from law enforcement to every other professional interacting with ICT
systems and as a result of the diversity of ICT is impractical to purport
to create an entity that will handle this, tech is multidisciplinary as Tim
has explained so the proposed approach makes no sense.
3. The proposed cure will definitely create a myriad of mischiefs and the
most obvious is stifling innovation and blocking the indipendent
development of talent, the world’s leading tech gurus are self taught.
4. It is without a doubt that this proposed cure will have more detrimental
side effects than the mischief we intend to cure.
5. Let’s build the capacity of all the available institutions as ICT is
constantly morphing there is no need to create entities that may be
rendered redundant in the blink of an eye.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Timothy- Coach- Oriedo via kictanet <
> Thank you Ngigi for breaking it down so realistically.
> As a Data Scientist i was dumbfounded on the call to regulate ICT
> practioneers coz its even more complex Data Science where the profession
> entry point is multi faceted ranging from liberal arts like
> Anthropologists, Evolutionary Psychologists, Philosophers, Mathematics to
> Tech like Developers, Network and software engineers etcetra….
> The value of a technology is realised at the confluence of its usage.
> Hence the most lasting, impacful technology careers will be those that
> shape the application of technology to the last mile consumption of it…
> any attempt to regulate it will be rendered irrelevant by consumers of the
> technology who reward for mediocrity and superiority as they deem fit.
> On 18 Dec 2017 18:00, “Ngigi Waithaka via kictanet” <
> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> My take,
>> Some things are just ridiculous..
>> You have a HR Administrator, A Programmer, Office Administrator, an IP
>> Lawyer, a sweeper, a Cyber Security expert all five working for:
>> a)A banks IT department
>> b) An insurance firms IT department
>> c) A manufacturing firm IT department
>> d) An IT consulting business
>> e)A software engineering firm
>> Give me one set of laws regulating them?
>> You regulate individuals in *professions* not in an industry. Thats why
>> in a bank, the HR Administrator gets regulated by HR association etc,
>> Lawyer gets regulated by ISK, the Programmer (based on whatever courses
>> he’s taken and/or experience etc) by their respective bodies and/or
>> experience etc
>> In an industry, you regulate final products and/or final services
>> Now, what are some of the professions we have in the software industry?
>> 1. Programmers / developers
>> 2. System Administrators
>> 3. Database Administrators
>> 4. Enterprise Architects
>> 5. UX Designers
>> Now, try making a common regulation for those 5 out of a possible
>> Finally, for those us in software, you will agree its more art at some
>> point than science, so how do you regulate art?
>> Do you tell Picasso he can’t paint because he wasn’t certified as an
>> painter? Do you tell Franco he can’t sing because he wasn’t certified as a
>> singer? Do you tell a young Bill Gates he can’t write software because he
>> wasn’t certified in computer science?
>> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Watila Alex via kictanet <
>> email@example.com> wrote:
>>> EricKigada: Kenya’s controversial ICT Practitioners Bill 2016 to be tabled in parliament againtechmoran.com/kenyas-controv…https://twitter.com/EricKigada/status/937309893954031616
>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>> kictanet mailing list
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
>>> Facebook: www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at lists.kictanet.or.ke/m
>>> 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.