Hi Ish,
At 22:57 08-03-2016, Ish Sookun wrote:
>I read
>http://www.businessinsider.com/an-emerging-vacation-destination-has-a-troubling-human-rights-record-2015-9.
>While the professor wrote serious concerns about the practice of
>"provisional charge" by the Mauritius Police Force, I share the same
>opinion. I quote:
>
> "By ignoring persistent recommendations from the UK to
> scrap the practice of provisional arrest, by ensuring that security
> forces may continue to arbitrarily detain citizens with impunity,
> Mauritius has shown an utter disregard for established principles
> of due process."
>
>The above does not portray Mauritius in a good way.
I found
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-business-risk-mauritius/overseas-business-risk-mauritius
after reading your email. The following is under "Business Environment":
"The UK government has raised its concerns about the use of the provisional
charge including at the UN International Human Rights Council in 2014."
>I don't get this question. Can you please elaborate?
A large company stands to lose more if does not assess the security
implications carefully. It might be viewed as negligent if the
company based its decision on the assumption that there isn't any
problem as everyone else is doing it.
I'll use free WiFi as a service to customers as an example. Is a
license required to offer such a service? Which security measures
does the company have to implement?
As another example, my company provides me with a computer and asks
me to use it for sensitive work while I am at home. The computer is
seized in the course of an investigation about something which I am
suspected of posting on Facebook. Is the sensitive information
safe? What if the company needs that sensitive information to
perform its work?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Wed Mar 09 2016 - 08:28:04 PST