Hello,
I tend to think that the question was not well answered (whether or not
we are well-equipped to deal with cybercrime). The representatives tried
to give assurance - as Mike says, “trust us we know what we are doing”;
but they failed to transparently show that this is the case.
The problematic is two-fold:
- Like SM said, it is difficult balance between clarity and accuracy
when dealing with general (non-technical) public
- The current context (Ish Sookun / Sooklall case) – made the cybercrime
uneasy (for whatever reasons) when responding to genuine concerns about
law (SM's question on air)
On 1/29/16 9:46 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Is up to this group to organize such campaigns?
I do not believe so. The cybercrime unit, National Computer Board, and
ICTA are government bodies, entrusted with a mission, and paid for by
citizens of the Republic of Mauritius.
They claim they have things under control. Rather than distrusting them
at face value, I think it would be wiser if we, as citizens of the
Republic, were help them in their mission, by:
- Validating their claims - to which extent they are true to what they
say, through probes and promotion of transparency
- Encouraging citizens to communicate issues to them, as necessary, and
getting feedback with respect to the processing of issues
- Decoding complex terminology communicated by them to non-technical
users (through the mailing list and more importantly through our blogs
using not-too-technical language)
As simple as this may sound, in truth it is far more complicated.
The Mauritian Governmental culture about responding to public complaint
is dysfunctional as we have experienced in the past (so many emails
unreplied).
The current court case has brought the issue into the limelight but I am
afraid as public interest wanes, the issue will slowly fade into an
obfuscated silence.
Regards,
❱ Muhammad Yusuf ABDOOL SATAR
– ❝Vitae Non Scholae Discendum❞
✉ fx_at_fluxy.net
☕ Web Developer, Free Thinker
✍
https://www.fluxy.net
On 1/29/16 9:46 PM, 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/
>
Received on Fri Jan 29 2016 - 19:05:36 PST