Hello Anyega,
*If kids in their campus hostels and parent’s basements are disrupting
> industries, don’t you think ICT is one place where gatekeepers are not
> required? *
How many are able to create disruptive technologies? I have been in the
industry for some time and I personally haven’t been able to. This is why I
said for every success story that you hear, there are many more who are
wallowing in obscurity.
*As AI, Blockchain etc are new things, who has proved themselves so much to
> deem themselves gatekeepers to determine if others can do it or not? *
AI and especially Blockchain are to me the most perfect reasons why
regulation (that is done in good faith and through broad consultation) in
ICT will become a matter of great significance.
I will start with Blockchain. It will not take anyone more than 30 minutes
of research to see how this technology that was developed with very
innovative and honourable intentions has gone off the rails.
Specifically, Bitcoin. This crypto has been hijacked by a core developer
team whose knowing actions or incompetence will cause significant financial
loses and grief as never before witnessed to very many people here in Kenya
and around the world. After this bubble crashes, very few of them will be
held accountable if any. PS: I am not saying that cryptos are a bad thing
and in fact am involved with a few that seem to be well designed for their
niche purpose, such as Monero
But all the other promising cryptos could also self-collapse if the
relevant developer teams do not work with experts from other fields who
will bring in the needed foundation for scaling into the realities of the
global economy.
Unlike the uncertainties around cryptos, AI is certainly very much central
to the future world. As such, it would be ideal that its development is
regulated so as to avoid situations where no controls are put in place
resulting in untamable technology that could be catastrophic. We now have
self-driving cars. Take a moment to think about that. And yes, am talking
about formerly Sci-Fi related stuff like HAL 9000
ICT can’t work as the law profession because here experience may be good
> in terms of compliance with market, business models, but certainly not with
> what someone creates. If my small sister, barely in her teenagehood creates
> an app, who would have the right to tell her that she ins’t qualified to do
> so? If its an app on say, Blockchain or A.I, who would even have the
> expertise to tell her she can’t?
If you want ICT to remain as one of the key but fringe sectors of the
world, then feel free to maintain this opinion. I personally see that the
one thing holding our industry back is a lack of trust by the general
public. And this is for good reason because there are some that use up a
lot of the good faith that they give to us. This will even get worse when,
and I will not tire of repeating this, the Bitcoin fraud hits hard.
Expecting that we all have the individual capacity to self regulate is not
only naive but dangerous, that is unless you WannaCry 🙂
With all due respect, i believe gatekeepers stifle innovation, And if Bill
> Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, did not have to go through a gatekeeper no one
> else should have to,
True.
Also please note that this is what is called cherry picking. How many Bill
Gates and Mark Zuckerbergs do you know? (AND IF YOU WOULD please TAKE SOME
TIME TO READ ABOUT THESE TWO GUYS AND HOW HARD THEY HAVE WORKED SO HARD IN
THE PAST(?) TO STIFLE COMPETITION) But I digress.
All the same this is why I said for every success story there are many more
wallowing in pain.
In short what I am saying is that we cannot have our cake and eat it. Let
us at least have an unprejudiced discussion on this matter.
Regards,
Kevin
On 18 December 2017 at 15:41, anyega jefferson via kictanet <
[email protected]> wrote:
> “Because they are very sharp people who have taken the time to understand
> what it takes to get things done, within the current environment. While the
> *ideal* situation would be for them to lobby for the rest of us while we
> go about our keyboard warrior campaigns, I would not hold it against them
> if they served their own interests first”
>
>
> Chief,
>
>
> If kids in their campus hostels and parent’s basements are disrupting
> industries, don’t you think ICT is one place where gatekeepers are not
> required?
>
> As AI, Blockchain etc are new things, who has proved themselves so much to
> deem themselves gatekeepers to determine if others can do it or not?
>
> ICT can’t work as the law profession because here experience may be good
> in terms of compliance with market, business models, but certainly not with
> what someone creates. If my small sister, barely in her teenagehood creates
> an app, who would have the right to tell her that she ins’t qualified to do
> so? If its an app on say, Blockchain or A.I, who would even have the
> expertise to tell her she can’t?
>
>
> With all due respect, i believe gatekeepers stifle innovation, And if Bill
> Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, did not have to go through a gatekeeper no one
> else should have to,
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Kevin Kamonye via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Collins,
>>
>> I will direct my response to the community(myself included) through your
>> email, but I assure you that I hold no grudge to you or anyone else
>> individually.
>>
>> *I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having a
>>> membership based organization (who’s membership is open to all) regulating
>>> policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and review*
>>> *..*..
>>>
>>
>> This is the idealistic mentality that plagues this and every other geek
>> association that was ever formed on the planet Earth. We think we know the
>> easy path to solving every other problem.
>>
>> *Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive
>>> committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT
>>> professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from
>>> exploiting their creativity. *
>>
>>
>> Because they are very sharp people who have taken the time to understand
>> what it takes to get things done, within the current environment. While the
>> *ideal* situation would be for them to lobby for the rest of us while we
>> go about our keyboard warrior campaigns, I would not hold it against them
>> if they served their own interests first.
>>
>> I personally recall notifying this community as regards the peaceful
>> awareness march some time last year about a colleague of mine who died in
>> Ethiopia, and more so about the others that are still rotting in remand
>> (not even jail), and how many of you showed up?
>>
>> More importantly, having a unified framework that details how to seek
>> opportunities and from where would have avoided many such unfortunate
>> incidents.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *Bwana PS: I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The
>>> only point of reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it
>>> suspiciously, especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced,
>>> period! Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling
>>> the gaps. *
>>
>>
>> We have direct access to the CS. And he is not just any other guy but
>> someone who has proven himself at all levels in the industry. And he is
>> taking his time to engage with us and almost begging us to organise
>> ourselves in such a manner that our opinions can be of some meaningful use
>> to both the industry at large and to ourselves individually.
>>
>> The best that we can offer him is vague responses and maybe even some
>> hostility.
>>
>> Let me break this one down, because this is what we need to “accept” to
>> understand. I say accept because I know we all have the capacity to do so
>> but we are applying some kind of myopia so that we can continue to vent hot
>> air from the cool shade of our comfort zones.
>>
>> Mucheru has given us a very crucial pointer of the who is who to him as
>> the holder of the office of CS ICT in the Republic of Kenya. KEPSA is the
>> body that the three arms of the GoK would work with as the legitimate
>> representatives of the private sector in Kenya.
>>
>> As important as ICT is to the present and future of +254, we are not any
>> more special than the other sectors so as to warrant every other grouping
>> within the industry a direct vote when it comes to public participation. It
>> is therefore wise for us to be in very good books with KEPSA and especially
>> with our current
>> I will point out is that it is important for us to take note that Mr.
>> Macharia comes from the umbrella of KITOS and here is there vision
>>
>> familiar to us so maybe we really really need to be nice to this man if we
>> are to remain relevant as KICTAnet.
>>
>> The way I see it, it was actually a good show of faith by KEPSA to
>> accommodate KICTAnet into their submissions because they really didn’t have
>> and in any case there would have been no significant repercussions for them
>> in ignoring this toothless [insert whatever you imagine we are].
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *The one thing that differentiated how Britain’s Industrial revolution
>>> was by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one had an open
>>> policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the default challenge
>>> was always “Prove it”, In the other, Before you showed up before schooled
>>> men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set foot on
>>> stage. Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and Stephenson
>>> would not exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle innovation. *
>>
>>
>> This is a very good insight. To this I will respond as follows.
>>
>> The people who hold sway in our economy and therefore policy are people
>> who got there by being cautious to things they do not understand. I think
>> this is where the issue both is and also therein lies our opportunity to
>> get the change we want. For instance, many of you here might be the IT
>> person of someone who would never listen to anyone else about anything to
>> do with “computer” without consulting with you. I don’t think I will need
>> to hammer this point any further..
>>
>> For my part I will support this bill. I am one of those with tonnes of
>> experience but with little formal education. I have tried to go to Uni and
>> it was always painful to sit in those classes. What I will tell you is that
>> for every other success story you hear of drop outs that you hear, there
>> are 1000x more who are suffering the pain of being filtered out of many
>> opportunities even before they can get a chance of presenting these skills
>> that they hold.
>>
>> It will be hard to get the exact right framework in place, but I am
>> willing to put in the work of starting this journey and hopefully create a
>> better future for many others that I can tell you will benefit from some
>> kind of recognition of the work they have put into developing their careers.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> On 18 December 2017 at 13:45, Collins Areba via kictanet <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having a
>>> membership based organization (who’s membership is open to all) regulating
>>> policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and review :
>>>
>>> a) What strengths we have as a nation on the ICT front,
>>> b) What opportunities exist and how we can leverage this for the greater
>>> good and
>>> c) How we should behave so our status professionally keeps rising.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive
>>> committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT
>>> professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from
>>> exploiting their creativity.
>>>
>>> *Bwana PS:*
>>>
>>> I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The only point of
>>> reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it suspiciously,
>>> especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced, period!
>>>
>>> Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling the
>>> gaps.
>>>
>>> The one thing that differentiated how Britain’s Industrial revolution
>>> was by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one had an open
>>> policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the default challenge
>>> was always “Prove it”, In the other, Before you showed up before schooled
>>> men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set foot on stage.
>>>
>>> Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and Stephenson would
>>> not exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle innovation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Collins Areba,
>>> Kilifi, Kenya.
>>> Tel: +*254 707 750 788 */ *0731750788*
>>> Twitter: @arebacollins.
>>> Skype: arebacollins
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Victor Kapiyo via kictanet <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jambo,
>>>>
>>>> As we mull over this discussion, let us also consider how we engage.
>>>> Attached is a Kictanet brief for discussion that identifies some key
>>>> characteristics for inclusive cyber policy making that would be useful
>>>> moving forward.
>>>>
>>>> Victor
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Dec 2017 10:16, “gertrude matata via kictanet” <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In support of self regulation, there are at least some traditional
>>>>> guidelines when coming up with new legislation:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Is there serious mischief clearly identified that the law should
>>>>> address.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Who is best suited to cure the mischief
>>>>> 3.In prescribing a cure, consider whether the proposed cure is likely
>>>>> to create some other mischief ,if so
>>>>> 4. Consider which is the worse mischief , the current ill or the side
>>>>> effects of the cure.
>>>>> 5.Who would be qualified to cure is the authority or institution that
>>>>> is to be given the mandate to deal with the mischief.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the pros and Cons of the Bill should be subjected to the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gertrude Matata
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> GERTRUDE MATATA CO. ADVOCATES
>>>>> COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS NOTARY PUBLIC
>>>>> HILLSIDE APARTMENTS
>>>>> 4TH FLOOR, Apartments 11
>>>>> RAGATI ROAD,Opposite N.H.I.F
>>>>> NEAR CAPITOL HILL POLICE STATION
>>>>> P.O. Box 517-00517
>>>>> Nairobi
>>>>> Mobile:0722-374109/0729-556523,
>>>>> Wireless 020-2159837
>>>>> DISCLAIMER
>>>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
>>>>> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any
>>>>> views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
>>>>> necessarily represent those of GERTRUDE MATATA & CO. ADVOCATES.
>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither
>>>>> take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone.
>>>>> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email
>>>>> in error.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Call
>>>>> Send SMS
>>>>> Call from mobile
>>>>> Add to Skype
>>>>> You’ll need Skype CreditFree
