Hi SM,
Concerning about (a), the general public does not actual need to be
reassured about by the proper officials through some proof that the
necessary training are being given to them and that the techniques they
use are up-to-date. However, this is a personal opinion.
As for (b), a proper revision might be required so as to cater for the
constant evolving computer world. Do we need any new law to deal with
"cybercrime"? I feel it mostly boils down to how the well current law is
understood and enforced.
I felt like apologizing as my frustration was kicking off when I was
listening to the debate online. There was so many dark spots that I had
barely any material to work with. The only question that really struck
and same for you, was the "what would happen if the person using a
public Wi-Fi is a tourist; would it be possible to identify that
person?". That is why I focused a portion of the blog post around making
sure that the reader understood how easy impersonation (includes forging
your own identity) can happen when using a public Wi-Fi. I, for myself,
wonder if ever the sender is to be blamed in that case or the entity
offering the public Wi-Fi service? If I had to guess based on how an
on-going case is being dealt with, the sender will get away clean.
Moreover, we all witnessed a recent case[1] of terrorist threat where a
French national pretended to have an explosive device at the National
Airport and yet, with an apology was released on bail. Honestly, this
re-enforce my statement that a tourist committing a "cybercrime" on a
public Wi-Fi will not even be identified in the first place.
I, frankly, never noticed any of these awareness campaigns. Maybe I'm
not aware enough to spot them. Are we the one supposed to do these
awareness campaigns? I do not object but we must be sure not to fool
ourselves if ever what we are broadcasting to the general public about
the "Cybercrimes" are not what is being understood by the officials
enforcing the segment of law concerning the topic. In my opinion,
whoever enforces a law is responsible to bring awareness to it.
Regards,
Mike
[1]
http://defimedia.info/drunken-passenger-at-centre-of-bomb-scare-16163/
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016, at 09:46 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> At 07:13 29-01-2016, Jules Mike Giovanni wrote:
> >I've created a blog post[1] to share my opinions about the debate held
> >at Radio Plus on the 28th of this January. The main theme was whether we
> >are armed enough to deal with Cybercrimes in Mauritius.
>
> There were two points which was raised:
>
> (a) Does the police have adequate training to solve "cybercrime"?
>
> (b) Are new laws needed to deal with "cybercrime"?
>
> There wasn't any concern about lack of training (a).
>
> There was a comment about Section 4 of the Computer Misuse and
> Cybercrime Act 2003 during the radio programme. I read the Section
> after hearing the comment. I did not comment about (b) as there
> wasn't any discussion about "what is in the law".
>
> I agree that there wasn't adequate information during the radio
> programme for an analysis. I avoided getting into a discussion about
> IP addresses or MAC addresses as it might be viewed as too
> technical. One of the persons on the radio programme was introduced
> as an "expert in digital forensics". There was an interesting
> question from Mr Emile about what would happen if the person using a
> public Wi-Fi is a tourist; would it be possible to identify that person?
>
> You are the second person who mentioned not being aware of "awareness
> campaigns" [1]. Is up to this group to organize such campaigns?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. https://www.raksheeta.me/cybercrimes-debate-on-radio/
>
--
http://www.fastmail.com - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
love email again
Received on Fri Jan 29 2016 - 18:50:20 PST