Hi Mike, Yusuf,
At 10:50 29-01-2016, Jules Mike Giovanni wrote:
>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 agree that it boils down to how current laws are understood. I
doubt that there is an adequate understanding of current laws related
to technology.
>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
It can be frustrating.
>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 thought about the case of the French citizen when I read the blog
article. I'll comment about the public Wi-Fi part. There are a few
laws and regulations. Are the companies installing those network
familiar with that or are they doing the installation because
everyone else does that? What about the hotels which are providing
access? How will the customer react if a hotel does not provide
internet access [1]?
I would be interested in a technical discussion about "sender". :-)
>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
Please see
http://lists.elandnews.com/archive/mauritius/internet-users/2015/06/2219.html
>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.
Ok.
At 11:05 29-01-2016, Yusuf Satar wrote:
>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
It is difficult to verify some of the claims (unrelated to the radio
programme) as there is very little public information available.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
http://press.hotels.com/en-us/files/2015/05/hcom-amenities-infographic-043015.jpg
Received on Fri Jan 29 2016 - 21:22:16 PST
