Welcome to KICTANet – Monthly Participation Guide & Netiquette
> Hello Alloys,
>
> For KICTANet, the email addresses are NOT available to the general public.
> The “public” we meant is the list subscribers.
> The archives (see here:
> mm3-lists.kictanet.or.ke/archives/list/[email protected]/)
> are publicly available to ANYONE, even non-subscribers to the mailing list,
> but the subscribers email addresses are not.
> For list subscribers though, you have the ability to login (with your
> subscribed address) to the archives section and that will enable you to
> access the email address of the members who contributed to the thread(s)
> you are viewing, but even so, not to the extent that you can be able to
> contact them unless you look at the email address show and go write it
> down. Copy/paste will not work because those emails are already masked. If
> you actually examine the email address in the archives, you will see it
> does not contain @, but rather ＠, i.e. \uff20 Fullwidth Commercial At.
> Thus, what appears to be an email address is actually not a valid address.
> A bit of technicality, but it does the protection, no?
>
>
There are measures that can make it more difficult to harvest email addresses
en-masse. Fortunately, it is possible but can be inconvenient to change your
email address.
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 4:11 PM Alloys Siaya via KICTANet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Twahir, listers,
>>
>> One way to promote openness while safeguarding privacy is to blank out
>> (with *) some middle letters/numbers of our email addresses and phone
>> numbers. “Directly addressing” a lister would easily be by mentioning the
>> name in the salutation of email sent to KICTANET address. Can the admins
>> consider if this is implementable?
The mailing list is run as a communication service. A forum could also be used,
for an example see:
www.jamiiforums.com/help/privacy-policy/
The above privacy policy should make it clear being transparent and having
most information available is a more cost efficient way to run the list over a long
time period. Data breaches may happen. Government and other actors may infiltrate
the database where email addresses are stored. Were Kictanet to be able to provide
any guarantees of exposure on your email address, it would likely need to
become a service that requires direct payment or find some other way to monetize
on participation to pay for the additional extra security guarantees. The content
that we create is valuable to the mission of Kictanet and as such it supports
running the mailing list locally which is to be applauded – we desperately need
such expertise. It would be nice if we had more open forums at local levels, for
example within community networks. Making it as easy as possible to run such
things, but also making participants aware of the expectations and technical
requirements and tools that are available or could be built is probably a better
approach.
>>
>> Rgds,
>> Alloys
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 26, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Twahir Hussein Kassim via KICTANet <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Listers,
>>
>> It’s been AGES since my last post here…
>>
>> Despite the fact that I also DIDN’T read the Privacy Policy, on a personal
>> level I applaud this. I had shared concerns akin to this in a LinkedIn
>> post that I posted during KeIGF 2025
>> <www.linkedin.com/posts/thkm_goodconduct-eaigf2025-digitalgovernance-activity-7329013219442741248-YovH?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAEd1-8B3lJ_Qoicf-oGMYUURyb8_OygqF4>
>> .
>>
>> This discussion has raised critical questions about privacy, transparency,
>> and digital accountability. While KICTANET operates on an *opt-in basis*,
>> where members knowingly participate in a public forum, concerns have been
>> voiced about the visibility of email addresses and personal contributions
>> in online spaces.
>>
>> This leads us to a fundamental question: *Is the public nature of
>> KICTANET subtly reinforcing “good conduct” in online interactions, or are
>> we unknowingly (or is it consciously) heading towards a model resembling a
>> Digital Certificate of Good Conduct?*
This is quite broad. The physical certificate of good conduct is a colonial
instrument that should be removed. People offering services
and goods often have sector specific norms and regulations that enable
evaluation of reputation. Online interaction gives rise to an online
reputation.
>>
>> A Certificate of Good Conduct in Kenya serves as a trust marker in
>> physical interactions, ensuring individuals meet basic accountability
>> standards. Online, however, accountability is shaped by different factors.
>> KICTANET’s commitment to transparency ensures that discussions remain
>> authentic, but does this *public exposure* also encourage better online
>> behavior by fostering accountability?
>>
The largest concern is about exposing other peoples information such that they
are harmed. Even in closed forums, significant effort is made to remove
inappropriate content. The main problem is that we do not all agree on what
is inappropriate content or are know about all possible things that we could post
that would harm others. In Kenya, there are laws that regulate public broadcasting.
If you are on the internet and have 100,000 or more followers are you a public
broadcaster?
>> Some key reflections emerge:
>>
>> –
>>
>> *Public Contributions:* Does knowing that our posts and email
>> addresses are visible affect how we engage in discussions?
>> –
This will certainly affect how one engages if one is aware of this. This
is not necessarily bad, one just needs to be made aware.
>>
>> *Privacy vs. Transparency:* Should concerns about email exposure
>> prompt a review of how digital privacy is handled within KICTANET? Can
>> adjustments be made while preserving openness? Are we compliant with
>> matters Data Privacy Act 2019?
>> –
>>
Many email addresses are available for harvesting. As email is based on open
standards, it is possible to control what one chooses to read and to try and
improve the standards to make it better for such uses. Spam is of course still an
issue, but it seems if one is online, then anyone can try and reach out to you.
Kictanet is not selling you a product, and the only information required is an
email address for which as indicated it is possible to use one specifically created
for this email list to obtain pseudo anonymity. The aim is however to have discussion,
so single posts or off topic posts get less attention and may be flagged as
spam.
>> *Digital Trust Frameworks:* If KICTANET sets a precedent for open
>> engagement, could such models be adopted in broader digital governance
>> discussions?
>> –
Hopefully there will be more use of the internet for open communication within
Kenya. A mailing list can probably not scale to the whole country, but it has
enabled an appreciation for concerns people have on engaging in public
discussion.
>>
>> *Voluntary Participation:* Does the opt-in nature of KICTANET ensure
>> fairness, or does it limit participation for those hesitant about public
>> exposure?
This is a fair point. We need more public parks and fewer gilded prisons for
online discourse. What you may do in a public park does however have
behavioral expectations that need to be communicated. There may also be
hesitancy to communicating some things in public, but this should not prevent
having spaces for such communication.
>>
>> At a time when digital trust is becoming an essential component of online
>> interactions, these conversations are crucial. Is KICTANET organically
>> fostering a version of *”good conduct” online* through transparency, or
>> should we rethink aspects of our engagement model to safeguard privacy
>> while preserving accountability?
Many online spaces have codes of conduct. These are sometimes not in
alignment with local laws. The internet does not have borders per se, and
social norms vary even within a country. KICTANET is doing well in
fostering such a conversation, and it maybe good to advance it further.
>>
>> Looking forward to your insights!
>>
>> Best,
>> Twahir