I think the best model out there is the one run by Estonia. There all your information is available to the Government. You however have access to your info and who in the govt has access to it. So say somebody accesses your tax info yet you are not under investigation then you will know who has accessed it and you can confront them. In our case if somebody runs your plates you get a notification and unless it is part of an active investigation then you can rightfully demand to know why. I don't think access is the problem it is the transparency thats important. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva via skunkworks < skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
A friend gave me this analogy some years back.
The sister was going through a rough relationship that was leading to a terrible divorce. The sister only confided to her, and did not want that information to spread. She is not doing anything wrong, but she would not like her privacy infringed.
Consider also, would Safaricom want Orange or Airtel to get hold of their strategy?
Would you want the whole world to know the disease you are suffering from?
Imagine you are a politician seeking high office. Would you want you opponents get hold of your campaign strategy, your supporters, who you are meeting, where you are meeting them and what you are discussing?
We should always fight for our privacy. In the security amendment act of 2014, the government of Kenya diluted many personal freedoms through surveillance and search without warrant, but luckily, the high court reversed some because they violated the Bill of Rights.
Regards On Jan 8, 2016 12:19 PM, "Mark Kipyegon via skunkworks" < skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
Preach!
On 8 Jan 2016, at 12:09, "MotoBaridi" <motobaridi@gmail.com> wrote:
"1984" should be compulsory reading...
--
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Mark Kipyegon via skunkworks < skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
Is there evidence to support your response? It could be argued that advances in technology have made it even easier for big brother.
If history is anything to go by then we know that 1) mass surveillance is open to abuse and 2) it doesn't protect the law abiding public
On 8 Jan 2016, at 11:39, "Alex Watila" <awatila@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
My understanding is that the amount of data been generated by the internet of things has outstripped governments capacity to process. Government focus has then shifted to only processing data related to people of interest. Laws and conventions also exist to guide how this data can be accessed and processed.
_______________________________________________ skunkworks mailing list skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
_______________________________________________ skunkworks mailing list skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke ------------ List info, subscribe/unsubscribe http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------
Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- Regards, Mark Mwangi markmwangi.me.ke