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.
(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.