[governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)
Grace Githaiga
ggithaiga at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 26 15:18:22 EST 2013
SureshYou raise an important point worth quoting: "When you have a convention you need enabling legislation around it, which if it does not exist, has all to be drafted from scratch, and hopefully drafted so as to be harmonized with the laws drafted in other signatories to the convention".
This is useful info.
Thanks alot.
Subject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)
From: suresh at hserus.net
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 06:48:16 +0530
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.com
I would agree with SM that there are sections on data protection, copyright bolted on, and electronic transaction security / spam are specifically referenced here rather than implied in the Budapest convention (where it is quite possible to have inter agency cooperation across countries to arrest a criminal spammer, and this has happened in the past)
This is more due to the unique needs of africa I would say. When you have a convention you need enabling legislation around it, which if it does not exist, has all to be drafted from scratch, and hopefully drafted so as to be harmonized with the laws drafted in other signatories to the convention. What differences SM pointed out are related to this different maturity level of the laws in various African countries,
--srs (iPad)
On 26-Nov-2013, at 2:17, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear SureshThe points you raise are very useful and I will put them in our
reporting matrix. Further, I copy a message here on the difference between the
Budapest and AU Convention as outlined by one SM. It was a response to Jean
Paul but it never came onto the list.
Lets keep this debate live.
RgdsGrace
From: SM (sm at resistor.net)
To: Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA, Grace Githaiga
Cc:
internetgovtech at iab.org
Hi Jean Paul,
At 21:54 24-11-2013, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote:
>Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the African Union
>Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)
>Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National
>Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi ( I am burundian
>based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the
>issue of cybersecurity.
The (European) Convention on Cybercrime is different from the
(African Union) draft convention on the confidence and security in
cyberspace. The former is somewhat about computer-related offences,
content-related offences and offences related to infringements of
copyright and related rights. As a quick note, it seems that the
draft convention tries to cover consumer protection, intellectual
property rights, personal data and information systems. It is a bit
odd to mix all that with legislation to tackle activities which are
legislated as criminal activities.
The differences between the convention and this draft convention are
that the latter:
- tries to solve the spam problem
- includes electronic transaction
- includes a legal framework for personal data protection
The scope of the draft convention is broad. The draft convention
does not have any text about lawful interception. That can be used
to address the problems the draft convention attempts to solve. The
drawback is that it might entail less personal data protection.
Regards,
-sm
To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
From: suresh at hserus.net
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:58:01 +0530
Subject: Re: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)
Hi Grace
About I8 to I10 as I have worked extensively on spam at a technical and policy level since the late 90s
I8 : This is a convention and not an international law. It provides a criterion that nations in the American will commit to harmonize their current (or more likely proposed, in large parts of Africa) to be uniform on this and other provisions. In this case, it advocates transparency in direct marketing offers which is a best practice
I9 : this is an optin law, which is respectful of user privacy and doesn't allow the sending of unsolicited bulk email, which is the canonical definition of spam. This should not restrict itself to marketing but cover other sorts of bulk mail sent by other organizations or individuals. The law should be content neutral and cover all forms of unsolicited bulk email rather than just marketing mail.
I10 : this is a standard prior business relationship exception to make compliance simpler
The articles also need to additionally cover criminal forms of spam as the 419 scam, phishing etc.
They additionally need to specify penalties both for the organization that commissioned the spam and the marketing agency they contracted with to actually send the spam.
Specific language that would be appropriate is in the Australian spam act of 2003 and in the proposed Canadian antispam law, both of which were drafted after open, consultative and multistakeholder processes in the respective countries, including inputs from respected privacy groups.
Before that, data protection and net anonymity have to be carefully balanced to log data but retain it under strict controls and regulation of how it can be used (in accordance with privacy regulations). If you legislate blanket anonymity then scam artists and cybercriminals will extensively abuse it to remain undetected.
These are a first set of thoughts
--srs (htc one x)
----- Reply message -----
From: "Grace Githaiga" <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: [governance] Kenya/Uganda online debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)
Date: Mon, Nov 25, 2013 3:30 AM
IGC and Bestbits Listers
I write to you to seek your views on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC)http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/AU%20Cybersecurity%20Convention%20ENGLISH_0.pdf
KICTANet has been in discussion with AUC and the drafters have accepted to receive our input despite having gone through this process two years ago with African governments. The Convention will be signed in January 2014.
In light of this, Kenya and Uganda stakeholders will conduct an online debate on multiple lists of KICTANet and
ISOC-KE, and on I-Network list moderated by the Collaboration on International ICT
Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)
and ISOC -Uganda, starting Today Monday 25th to Friday 29th November 2013. Please feel free to send us your contribution. RgdsGrace
Below is the announcement made on the multiple lists.
1. Background to the African Union
Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC)
African Union (AU) convention (52 page document) seeks to
intensify the fight against cybercrime across Africa in light of increase in
cybercrime, and a lack of mastery of security risks by African countries.
Further, that one challenge for African countries is lack of technological
security adequate enough to prevent and effectively control technological
and informational risks. As such “African States are in dire need of innovative
criminal policy strategies that embody States, societal and technical responses
to create a credible legal climate for cyber security”.
The Convention establishes a framework for cybersecurity in
Africa “through organisation of electronic transactions, protection of personal
data, promotion of cyber security, e-governance and combating cybercrime”
(Conceptual framework).
2. Division of the Convention
Part 1
Electronic transactions
Section I:
Definition
of terms
Section II:
Electronic
Commerce (Fields of application of electronic commerce, Contractual
responsibility of the electronic provider of goods and services).
Section III:
Publicity by electronic
means.
Section IV:
Obligations in electronic form
(Electronic contracts, Written matter in electronic form, Ensuring the security
of electronic transactions).
Part II PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION
Section I:
Definition
Section II:
Legal framework
for personal data protection (Objectives of this Convention with respect to
personal data, Scope of application of the Convention, Preliminary formalities
for personal data processing).
Section III:
Institutional framework
for protection of personal data (Status, composition or organization, Functions
of the protection authority).
Section IV:
Obligations relating to the
conditions governing the processing of personal data (basic principles
governing the processing of personal data, Specific principles governing the
processing of sensitive data, Interconnection of
personal data files).
Section V:
The rights of the
person whose personal data are to be processed (Right to information, Right of
access, Right of opposition, Right of correction or suppression).
Section VI:
Obligations of the personal
data processing official (Confidentiality obligations, Security obligations,
Conservation obligations, Sustainability obligations).
PART III – PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AND COMBATING CYBERCRIME
Section 1:
Terminology,
National cyber security framework, Legislative measures, National cyber
security system, National cyber security monitoring structures).
Section II:
Material penal law
(Offenses specific to Information and Communication Technologies [Attack on,
computerized data, Content related offenses], Adapting certain information and
communication technologies offenses).
Section II:
Criminal liability
for corporate persons (Adapting certain sanctions to the Information and
Communication Technologies, Other penal sanctions, Procedural law, Offenses specific to
Information and Communication Technologies).
PART IV: COMMON AND FINAL PROVISIONS
Section I:
Monitoring
mechanism
Section II:
Final responses
The Proposed Discussion
We have picked on articles that need clarity, and would
request listers to kindly discuss them and provide recommendations where
necessary. Also, where
necessary, listers are encouraged to identify and share other articles that
need clarifications that we may have left out.
Day 1 Monday 25/ 11/2013
We begin with Part 1 on Electronic transactions and pick on
four articles which we will discuss on Monday (25/11) and Tuesday (26/11).
Section III: Publicity by electronic means
Article I – 7:
Without prejudice to Article I-4 any advertising
action, irrespective of its form, accessible through online communication service,
shall be clearly identified as such. It shall clearly identify the individual
or corporate body on behalf of whom it is undertaken.
Question: Should net
anonymity be legislated? If
so, what measures need to be or not be considered?
Question: Should
individuals or companies be obliged to reveal their identities and what are the
implications?
Article I – 8:
The conditions governing the possibility of promotional
offers as well as the conditions for participating in promotional
competitions or games where such offers, competitions or games are
electronically disseminated, shall be clearly spelt out and easily accessible.
Question: Should an international (or should we
call it regional) law legislate on promotional offers and competitions
offered locally?
Day 2 Tuesday 26/11/13
Article I – 9:
Direct marketing through any form of
indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message
sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars
of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct
marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states
of the African Union.
Article I – 10:
The provisions of Article I – 9 above
notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be
permissible where:
1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained
directly from him/her,
2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the
prospector partners
3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or
services provided by the same individual or corporate body.
Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam?
Article I – 27
Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not
laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the
parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all
possibl____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131126/6b4fa7ab/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list