Re: 2015 SCJ 177

From: Dhiruj Rambaran <dhiruj_at_shoponline.mu>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 23:56:46 +0400

Hi Daniel

My answers are in italics....

On 07/06/2015 17:05, Daniel Laeng wrote:
> Hi Dhiruj,
>
>> It's the facts that count.
> Yes, but facts are difficult to get hold of in Mauritius. Your
> arguments are not exactly overflowing with facts (neither are mine),
> so opinion is all we have.
>
> I think we agree on on the base concept: *Data is useful, and has
> large economic potential*. I think we disagree on two things:
> 1. I doubt the government's ability to control the collection and
> management of personal data in a responsible way.
/And this is what I have said from my first posting. That the government
(through corruption etc) should not be doing this unless it is a
'responsible government'./

> 2. I think the economic value of collecting personal data is fairly
> low (and the cost high) compared to other IT data initiatives
> /
> //You are wrong. There are many initiatives (even something as simple
> as taking a remote computerised driving test from your home) needs
> correct personal data. There are hundreds more initiatives that
> require correct, undisputable proof of ID./
>> It has to be done by professional companies, with experience,
>> knowledge and integrity.
> I agree, it also has to be covered by privacy legislation, and
> supervised by the government. I'm not convinced those companies exist
> currently in Mauritius, and I don't think that privacy laws or
> controls are in place yet either. Until they are implemented, and
> somewhat proven, I'll be arguing against most forms of personal data
> collection.

///I was referring to foreign companies//. As for existing privacy laws,
I wouldn't even trust any future privacy laws, however robust it may
seen, because of the elements I spoke in the very first posting I did on
this subject... that this government is not ready for 'other reasons'./
>
>
>> though we can compare to Europe, Asia etc, or quote this case or that
>> case.. or we can say "according to so-and-so", I do not find it
>> advantageous to make such comparisons.
> I think it's useful to learn from the successes and failures of other
> countries, and we're being negligent if we don't take them into
> consideration before jumping into expensive and invasive data
> collection projects.
>
/ I would say that is pretty obvious and adheres to common sense and
logic. However what I won't concede to is the pinpointing of specific
cases, suited to win a specific argument, whereas there are, quite
possible, dozens of other cases out there demonstrating the opposite./
>
>> In a nutshell what I'm trying to say is quite simply we have
>> everything at our disposal to take whatever we need to, head-on, with
>> an approach suited to the size of our island and the minimal physical
>> resources we have.
> I agree. But I don't understand why you think collection of personal
> data is a magic solution to propel Mauritius into the future. I think
> there are lots of other IT initiatives which would be more beneficial.

/ Well I think the contrary. I believe it is a "magic solution", a
precursor to propelling all sorts of initiatives.. as well as
initiatives relying on other initiatives. The need to assess if an
individual is, indeed, the correct individual, is the basis of
everything (future of healthcare, education, trading etc) or any other
good that may come from it./
>
> I would much rather see effort being put into the government opening
> up some of the masses of data it already collected. This can be done
> at relatively low costs, and the potential benefits are quite large.
> (See all the previous emails about Open Government Data)

/ Frankly, though yes their may be benefits in some data being open,
even huge benefits, I think other so called "benefits" is largely
overrated for the cost involved. It will benefit too few people, in some
cases, probably even just one person. Though I do see curious academics
and journalists thriving on such info.. just for the sake of 'thriving'./
>
>
>> I understand a lot of what I say may sound controversial, stupid or
>> what have you, but I'm not in the business of delving in the
>> academics of things. That's for useless university professors who
>> will tell you we'll all die in year 5000.
> Are you sure it's university professors you are talking to?

/ Nope. I'm just saying University professors love being academic./
>
> I'm not talking about academic things. You are trying to force me
> into providing my biometric data, but I do not feel that (a) there is
> a clear need for my data, or (b) that my data will be adequately
> protected.
>
      In regards to point (b), I already pointed out I agreed with this
(in my first posting). As for (a), these are things you can discuss with
any authorities demanding such data from you. I don't mind providing my
driving licence details to an officer (for example).. but that's just me.

/As for "forcing you". I'm not forcing you to do anything at all. You
have a constitutional right to protest, demonstrate and vote against it.
This issue is between you and the ruling govt. And if I was an advisor
(i'm not by the way) to any government on it. I would strongly advise to
collect fingerprint data.. and maybe even DNA... but that's just me and,
again, only if I was convinced the government was 'straight' and held
moral values dear./
>
>> ps: And to specifically answer a question. Yes, bodily functions can
>> be monitored, with the results sent from one's home to a hospital....
>> and yes... the idea was patented and held by.a mauritian doctor now
>> living in the UK.
> I'm not debating that this technology exists. I also have no problem
> with technology being implemented when it solves a problem, but do
> want to have control over my personal data. In this case it means I'm
> fine with being monitored by technology, and the data being shared
> with the hospital. I would not be happy if that data was shared with
> anybody else. My right to this level of privacy needs to be agreed to
> by the hospital, and covered by privacy laws.

/ Again, that's so painfully obvious. No rocket science involved in
that assumption _at_ ie.data shared with hospital and not the world./
>
> Question for you. You indicated this is a Mauritian technology, and I
> assume that it is not implemented in Mauritius. Do you think that
> it's not implemented because:
> a) Crazy privacy people (like me) blocked it
> or b) It didn't make sense in a Mauritian context (e.g. price,
> availability, cultural fit, technical expertise)
>
> My money is on option b).

/ Actually there is a (c). I won't elaborate what that is but think
in the lines of "corruption"./
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Laeng
> Software Developer
> +230 5775 1037
Received on Sun Jun 07 2015 - 19:57:08 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Jun 07 2015 - 20:00:01 PST