SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The head of Kenya's Communications Authority, Francis Wangusi, announced a new set of regulations on Tuesday aimed at combatting cybercrime in the country. The new rules would require all users of devices with wireless networking capability to register their devices with the Kenya Network Information Centre (KENIC)—much in the same way that some US states require registration of assault rifles and sex offenders.
Yesterday, in a speech before the annual general meeting of the Association of Regulators of Information and Communications for Eastern and Southern Africa (ARICEA), Wangusi said, "We will license KENIC to register device owners using their national identity cards and telephone numbers. The identity of a device will be known when it connects to Wi-Fi." He also said that the Communications Authority would set up a forensics laboratory within three months to "proactively monitor impending cybersecurity attacks, detect reactive cybercrime, and link up with the judiciary in the fight," according to a report from Kenya's Daily Nation.
The registry will enable Kenyan authorities to "be able to trace people using national identity cards that were registered and their phone numbers keyed in during registration" if the devices are associated with criminal activity on the Internet, Wangusi said. The regulation would apply to anyone connecting to a public Wi-Fi network. KENIC would maintain the database of devices; anyone connecting to a public network at a hotel, café, or other business would be required to register before accessing it. If businesses providing Wi-Fi fail to comply with the regulation, they could have their Internet services cut off.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday July 02 2015, @04:43PM
your second point is fine, but i see this fallacy [logicallyfallacious.com] all the time, especially when it comes to stuff like gun control. "It won't be perfect" is not a valid reason not to try something. not that i agree with what they're proposing, but sophistry like this doesn't help with convincing others that it really is a bad idea.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lentilla on Thursday July 02 2015, @05:47PM
That's a fair point - and worth bringing to the discussion. Let's leave the gun topic to one side (that one could be a little loaded, no?)
You said (and quite rightly too) '"It won't be perfect" is not a valid reason not to try something' - so it seems you're making an argument centred on weighing the pre-existing situation with the one after a change is made. That's entirely reasonable. I must; though; point you at what I said later in my post: "that particular proposal [...] leads inexorably to far greater problems than it ever hopes to solve". In short, I do not believe that implementing this particular proposal swings the balance sufficiently to the appropriate side to be judged good. I believe in fact that it would swing the balance further into undesirable territory.
In effect, I'm not just saying "it won't be perfect, so don't try it". I'm saying "not only will it fail to even partially achieve its stated goals, but it will also cause additional - serious - problems". I don't believe that is a fallacious argument. (Maybe it is...?) Certainly could be in the general case ("won't be perfect, so don't try"), but surely not in the specific case ("won't actually work, will cause deeper problems")?
Thank you for pointing out the "Nirvana Fallacy" as your linked article calls it. I've always known it as "perfect is the enemy of good". Those of us who are wired to "think first, then act" are much more prone to falling into that particular trap than "act, then think" kind of people. They have their own special dilemma, aptly called a Politician's Syllogism [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday July 02 2015, @06:44PM
no, i'm just pointing out that your argument that some people will ignore it is fallicious. it may be that it will fail to achieve its stated goals, or it could be that the stated goals aren't the actual goals or that you're misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting the goals.
that it will cause serious additional problems is a valid argument against it, but that it will fail to achieve what you understand to be its goals, or that it won't achieve them perfectly, isn't. usually the goal with measures like this is to reduce whatever it is they're trying to reduce, or to make it easier for officials to accomplish something, not to entirely eliminate or perfectly accomplish.
i too think what they're wanting to do is stupid and oppressive and would oppose similar legislation in my area, and its for that reason that arguments against it must be sound.