[Singapore] Telcos regulator seeks to monitor WhatsApp

Well noted. Diversity of thought and opinions creates rich perspectives. I\’ll try look at the debate from your perspective when I have some thinking time and see if I get some new insights.

On Thursday, November 8, 2018, 4:44:10 AM GMT+3, Ali Hussein <A.Hussein@fintexx.tech> wrote:

Patrick A. M. Maina Nope. That\’s your interpretation. And by the way, that\’s my opinion. And remember what I said. There were many more start-ups and will be going forward. Infact I share the father of the internet\’s view of regulation.

Ali HusseinCo-Founder & CEOFinteXX Technology Ltd 
+254 713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim

Blog: www.alyhussein.com

\”Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought\”.  ~ Albert Szent-Györgyi
Sent from my iPad
On 7 Nov 2018, at 8:55 PM, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Ali, that means you\’re calling BS on Tim Berners-Lee (*the* www inventor) because he shares very similar views on big tech concentration risks… You are also \”calling out\” the US gov, Chinese Gov, Russian Gov, all of Europe, the UK, Singapore Gov and AU combined… literally the whole world.
WOW! that\’s a pretty HUGE call out boss. You\’d need some really good sources / data to back that up. 
Regulating dominant dinosaurs (even the scary T-Rexes) is beneficial to the overall economy because it is how you open the door to:
– fresh thought
– transformative (rather than sustaining) innovations
– game changing products that might never have seen the light of day (due to blocking moves by dinosaurs)
– new sources of foreign exchange 
– new types of jobs (even entirely new industry sectors); and
– new frontiers of economic growth. 
This virtuous cycle of innovation and new enterprises is what sustains modern economies.
It\’s not even my idea; I\’m just articulating a global debate that is increasingly gaining traction locally. Check out these articles which contain compelling arguments from credible sources:
Tony Blair: we must regulate big tech properly and prepare for China\’s AI threat

| | |


| |
Tony Blair: we must regulate big tech properly and prepare for China\’s A…

Thomas McMullan

The former Labour leader says the government should move to regulate tech, that social media is for loudmouths a…



Have a great evening!Patrick.

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 4:07:51 PM GMT+3, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

Patrick A. M. Maina I\’m calling you out on your BS. Said lovingly of coz! ?. I\’d agree with you if the only start-ups then were Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc. For every Microsoft there are thousands other start-ups that fell by the wayside who enjoyed the same \’Regulatory Privileges\’ you keep on harping about. The same goes to Amazon et al. To impune that they had a monopoly of manipulating regulatory failures is intellectually dishonest. Have you forgotten MySpace? Friendster? These giants of their day were bigger than Facebook way back when Zuckerberg was still wet in the ears and hadn\’t even printed his \’CEO, Bitch!\’ business card.? The question should really be this:-  How do we reign in start-ups from being ecosystem Bulldozers? And how do we control them going forward if by chance they escape and become bad Ecosystem Players. Short of that let\’s all go back to the stone age where we all share what we hunt or gather. My two cents.
Ali Hussein


AHK & Associates


Tel: +254 713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo


13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,

Chiromo Road, Westlands,

Nairobi, Kenya.

Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with.

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Morning Ali,
Today\’s big tech were yesterday\’s startups who benefitted from preferential competition regulations that protected them from being crushed by the giants of that period or at least allowed them to grab a solid marketshare through some limited exclusivity arrangement. 
Research any monopolistic big tech and you will likely find a string of affirmative actions by its Government during its early stages of growth. 
As a young startup, Microsoft reportedly benefitted from regulations that clipped IBM\’s powers; then it grew too powerful and was perceived to be hindering innovation leading to anti-trust regulations against it, that are believed to have paved way for the FANG quintet (among others)… 
Now the FANGs are too powerful (and no longer as innovative) so there is talk of clipping them to pave way for a new wave of innovative technologies.
That is how you maximize innovation ecosystems and technological progress. Darlings evolve from tiny vulnerable babies to giant elephants, then become *dinosaurs* and if they are allowed to maintain status quo, they crush innovators leading to slow down of progress and a steady loss of competitive advantage for the host country (in our case, Kenya).
By creating space for new generations of startups to thrive – governments facilitate the next wave of tech revolution / transformation.

For example, no matter how well Safaricom, a telcomms pipe tech expert, claims to know eCommerce, music, agriculture, or health, or edu, or security, or social, or TV, you can bet there is a laser focused local start-up with *far better* technical ability and insights that has been pushed out of that space due to sheer resource and market power imbalance. This is how innovation is being stifled in Kenya.
Safaricom easily leverages its subscriber/agency/marketing network for example to quickly dominate a space. But this is not a good thing because its a *blocking* move by a dinosaur that fears innovation, rather than a transformation move IMO. 
An established player cannot have the same level of hunger, passion, agility and insights in *multiple* sectors compared to a young startup dedicated to that sector. This argument holds anywhere, including in advanced economies.
Some links:



Enjoy your day.Patrick.

On Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 6:37:51 AM GMT+3, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

Something we agree on! 🙂 
Completely with you on the China, US comparison on Internet Freedoms and subversion. 
On the issue of #BigTech. I\’m conflicted. Here\’s my take:-
1. When these giants were in their infancy we celebrated them. They offered us something that was outside our reach – Internet Tools that we use now – email, search, networking at scale (facebook, Linkedin etc), cloud storage etc literally for free. Did we not think that at some point that the Pied Piper will come calling to collect? 
2. The Global Tech Ecosystem probably won\’t exist as we know it today if it weren\’t for the dirt cheap, Pay As You Go models of cloud computing, pioneered by Amazon and copied by almost all the the big tech companies today. What would the alternative be? I know for a fact that a number of startups I\’m involved in wont be in existence or we at least won\’t be plotting Global Dominance if it weren\’t for this infrastructure.
3. Lastly, why are we abrogating the role of regulators in keeping everyone honest and fair. 
What can we do to ensure we don\’t throw the baby with the bath water? 

Ali Hussein


AHK & Associates


Tel: +254 713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo


13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,

Chiromo Road, Westlands,

Nairobi, Kenya.

Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with.

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 3:33 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Bhaves, that is an obvious propaganda piece because it contains distorted half truths, lopsided PoV pushing, innuendo, exaggerations, unwarranted speculations and so forth. Not worth the time spent reading it.
Not to mention that the US and china are in the middle of a dominance battle (and have been ideological opponents for ages).
Ideologically loaded debates are like debates between different religions on the \”true way\”. Positions are deeply entrenched. Lines between facts and belief are nonexistent. Approach is zero sum. Even intellectuals struggle with ideological arguments (unaware of their own bias blind spots).
Have you heard of the NSA and the chaos that it has brought into global cyberspace over the last 10 years? Google/Bing/Yandex it!
The only difference between US and China in cyberspace is that the former subverts internet freedoms *covertly* (and very effectively) using sophisticated backdoors, trojans etc, because the local laws don\’t allow, whereas the latter (China) operates within a legal framework and acts in the open in the interests of its own people and ideology.
Because no one knows exactly how far/deep the NSA goes, they have a stronger propaganda position, except when they make a mistake.. then people start to wonder (see link).
The US also has a very well coordinated mainstream media that is fiercely committed to its elite\’s ideology and highly propaganda savvy. Its literally an information warfare army that has been accused many times of brainwashing not just the world, but US citizens as well. Very impressive and amazingly effective.

Impossible to debate propaganda. I give up.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, 9:00:56 PM GMT+3, Bhaves Shah <bhaves.shah@jabjabgroup.com> wrote:

Something of interest – https://qz.com/africa/1447015/china-is-helping-african-countries-control-the-internet/

On 6 Nov 2018, at 7:52 PM, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up Bhaves. This is very interesting and confirms that social media misuse is indeed a global problem (even for advanced economies).
Have a great evening!
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, 6:54:37 PM GMT+3, Bhaves Shah <bhaves.shah@jabjabgroup.com> wrote:

Your arguments are good and I do respect them, any maybe even Singapore government is listening to you when thwarting fake news – https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/select-committee-releases-22-proposals-to-combat-fake-news

Bhaves ShahFounder-CEOJabJab Group Ltd+254 707 306639website – www.jabjabgroup.com
twitter – https://twitter.com/jabjabgroupfacebook – https://www.facebook.com/jabjabgroup/

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 6:42 PM Bhaves Shah <bhaves.shah@jabjabgroup.com> wrote:

This is my personal opinion, so when I am referring to your point being moot it is my own opinion, however it does not mean that my opinion is the only out there, everyone is there contribute. As for answering your questions see below:
1. The scope is social media apps like Facebook, Whatsapp and Telegram that have been associated with facilitating crime or chaos due to the way they have been designed. Are these apps irreplaceable (e.g. by local legally compliant copycats)? Why?Firstly, technology is about evolution and these apps have evolved. It is not the apps that are creating the content, these are platforms where people are free to create the content, however as the apps have become large scale the issues related to facilitate crime or chaos has also evolved, but in the same manner the ecosystem will also thrive to safeguard with new innovations from abuse. The biggest culprits of the abuse is always governments itself. There is something called choice, no one has imposed these apps on anyone, each individual has a right to use them as they deem fit. However, everyone should know the risks, and that comes through education not government control. 
2. Do these apps impose a burden on Government when they are abused? Who should pay for that burden? Why? What burden are your referring to, when national security is at stake, there could be case of such instances, however like I have said these apps have been abused by the same governments to control the masses within the ecosystem. There should be mechanisms or safeguards for abuse, however having full control of such apps and denying citizens to use these platforms for dissemination of information should not be constrained. Are we thriving to become a \”police\” state where every conversation is looked as a threat to governments. 
3. Should they cooperate with Gov to eliminate risks of criminal abuse? If not, why not?Like any legal requirement if there is a criminal element to the dissemination of information, then the burden of proof is for the government to furnish the proof for these companies to comply with the law. However, just by saying \”this is a threat\” to a government, that does not hold water, the state must prove it\’s argument, otherwise just as well shut the entire ecosystem, and then deal with the masses and the consequences of free speech.
4. When these apps collect data (resource extraction – just like oil/gold extraction) should a country be compensated? If not, why not?The collection of data happens with every software you use, it is a choice a consumer makes for one to use such an app. The better the informed public is about the data, the better choices one makes. In my opinion parts of GDPR are good for privacy for citizens, and maybe those should be adapted locally if done properly, it should not be a copy and paste exercise. 
5. When these apps manipulate people psychologically to promote repeated engagement (thereby distracting local human resources from engaging in local economic activity or reducing productivity) should they pay for that engagement? If not why not? Keep in mind user engagement is a billion dollar 21st century resource!Like any business everything is being manipulated. Look at consumer goods companies that sell their products, there is a form of manipulation going on. For example look at the way the food and beverage companies manipulate people to believing their products are good for health etc when in actual fact they are not good for health. Manipulation of the mind for any product or service is the end game for one to be a customer for that particular product or service – everyone has a choice to make. Its all about education..
6. Should we mortgage our future by allowing irresponsible apps to use advanced psychology to target juveniles and turn them into screen *addicts* and *narcissists*?  If yes, how do we gain from that?There is no one mortgaging the future, we all know that there are good and bad with every product and service, millions of people are being abused even by not using these apps, but using physical goods made by consumer companies. The issue is that technology revolution, innovation and disruption will remain no matter how we look at it, there is nothing going to stop that, but like I said everyone needs to play their part in educating the people of the good and evil…Controls don\’t achieve anything, it just breeds a behaviour of circumvention especially with the younger generation who are growing up in the era of information and technology. 
I hope my views are accepted, just as a side note, I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone, everyone has a right to choose and decide, I believe in that freedom of choice, I am of less control, but more education.

Bhaves ShahFounder-CEOJabJab Group Ltd+254 707 306639website – www.jabjabgroup.com
twitter – https://twitter.com/jabjabgroupfacebook – https://www.facebook.com/jabjabgroup/

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 6:16 PM Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks for your comment Bhaves, 
Firstly an argument can\’t be moot just because you say so hehe (on a light note). You are not addressing the specific points that I have raised: Can you address them so that the refutation is clear and on point?
1. The scope is social media apps like Facebook, Whatsapp and Telegram that have been associated with facilitating crime or chaos due to the way they have been designed. Are these apps irreplaceable (e.g. by local legally compliant copycats)? Why?
2. Do these apps impose a burden on Government when they are abused? Who should pay for that burden? Why?
3. Should they cooperate with Gov to eliminate risks of criminal abuse? If not, why not?
4. When these apps collect data (resource extraction – just like oil/gold extraction) should a country be compensated? If not, why not?
5. When these apps manipulate people psychologically to promote repeated engagement (thereby distracting local human resources from engaging in local economic activity or reducing productivity) should they pay for that engagement? If not why not? Keep in mind user engagement is a billion dollar 21st century resource!
6. Should we mortgage our future by allowing irresponsible apps to use advanced psychology to target juveniles and turn them into screen *addicts* and *narcissists*?  If yes, how do we gain from that?
I\’d love to read your specific views on each of these points. 
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, 5:44:35 PM GMT+3, Bhaves Shah <bhaves.shah@jabjabgroup.com> wrote:

Your argument is moot..
A very simple analogy when email was introduced and now used by the entire world – are you taxing email platforms..So why hold the same argument for these OTT applications – why pay for services that the government never invented in the first place..
The basic premise is that without technology disruption our society will never advance and governments are the worst culprits of such hindrance to society’s advancement in this world..
Governments love to control and that fact alone is a motivator to circumvent such an ecosystem..The premise of human advancement is adapting to new revolutions and disruptions..
Governments should not hinder progress and when it comes to collecting revenues from so called innovators and disruptors then bring such companies to Kenya to set up base and provide them with incentives and ask them to employ Kenyan citizens etc – drive such an encouragement with finding suitable models for advancement of societies..
Taxation is just a cheap way of protectionism – it does not work..It impedes human progress..

On 6 Nov 2018, at 5:18 PM, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

OK I\’m back (briefly). Thanks for your points Mr. Okobi,
Actually the only difference between \”taxes\” and \”fines\” is the definition. Taxes can be based on anything – not just earnings. Example: What is VAT? A tax on consumption! Why should you pay extra tax on consumption after you have already been taxed on income? Does that make sense? Is that not fining or penalizing people for enjoying their *already taxed* money? 
Another example: why tax food or books? These are essential must-have items. I should not be taxed to eat or educate my kids. Isn\’t that not a form of \”existence tax\”? What about tax on sanitary pads? Is that not discriminating against girls (they end up paying more taxes than boys because its a gender-specific essential purchase). Why tax people for keeping clean babies (diaper tax)? Why tax people for going to work (fuel VAT)? etc etc. I\’d love to hear your views about the rationality of these taxes.
Oh, btw, even the fines one pays in court are a form of compliance/obedience tax. Those who follow the rules pay less taxes (thus encouraging compliance). Anyway, lets not get stuck on definitions but I\’d urge you to read some good books on taxation & economics to get a grip of this.
Okay, who has said anything about taxing \”online services\” or \”all online services\”? That is a strawman argument that diverts attention from the real issue. I am only talking about online apps with high potential for *abuse at scale*, which imposes a heavy cost burden on Governments and/or society (e.g. Facebook, Whatsapp, Telegram etc). These apps (and their problematic architectures) are well known and Governments worldwide are scrambling to find solutions to the problems that they have enabled/amplified by design. 
Why should Kenyan taxpayers *subsidize* the fixing of costly problems caused/facilitated/amplified by these foreign billion dollar apps who don\’t contribute their share of taxes locally or accept their share of responsibility? This is a form of reverse taxation where our Government is effectively \”paying\” taxes to Facebook and Whatsapp!
Tobacco analogy might help elucidate the issue: When tax funds are spent on lung cancer treatment for cigarette smokers, isn\’t that a subsidy paid by taxpayers – includingnon-smokers, to Tobacco companies? Looks like a no-brainer nowadays but it took a while (and similar debates) for Tobacco companies to accept because it takes decades for lung cancer to form. Many even paid for fake scientific studies to disprove claims that Tobacco smoking is harmful. Very similar to what some notorious data aggregating multinationals have been accused of doing.  
Glad that you accept that there is indeed a cost burden for Government (and society) from fake news that is amplified by these social media platforms like Facebook and whatsapp. At least we have a common understanding that there is a real problem.
Is there data? Yes, the data does exist which directly associates these apps (e.g. Whatsapp & facebook) to crime, addiction, subversion, mob violence and deaths. See my earlier post on this with several links.

Why are we so attached to these apps? How many jobs do they create here? How do we benefit from them such that they are not irreplaceable by local clones? Perhaps that is the question that we should be asking.
The 21st Century tax innovations that I am proposing may be difficult to grasp because they does not yet exist and require a non-traditional view of how businesses operate (especially those based on the Silicon Valley VC and Data Mining model). But that is where the world is heading. 
Citizens data is a national product. Should off-shore data aggregation / mining multinationals get it for free? Should they be allowed to manipulate/brainwash us or our children – in order to monetize the ensuing engagement – and then let us bear whatever consequences that ensue downstream? Should they be allowed to facilitate the spread of disinformation by design – even with the risk of causing harm or deaths to innocent victims? Should they impose new/heavier cost burdens on governments. Should they be allowed to facilitate and protect criminals by design?
 These are 21st century issues that didn\’t even exist 10 years ago. They require 21st century thinking and solutions.
Cheers & have a great evening!Patrick.
On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, 3:47:48 PM GMT+3, Ebele Okobi <ebeleokobi@fb.com> wrote:

If your model is not revenue based, then what you are talking about is not a tax, it’s a fine.
 I’m curious as to what data you are using to determine that online services are “net negative”? Is this your assessment for Kenya specifically, or is your contention that globally, all online services provide net negative value to the world? There are multiple studies on the economic and social benefit of online services, so I am quite interested in learning of those which substantiate the net negative claim.
Also, is this specific to Facebook products, or all online services, including those created by Kenyans?
And would this tax regime be a global tax-in other words, should it also apply to Kenyan companies operating globally? For example, for those on this list with Kenyan companies offering online services, should this tax regime apply to them in Kenya? Should, for ex., Uganda apply a similar regime for Kenyan companies offering online services there?
In terms of the metrics you propose-Facebook is a public company, as are many companies offering online services. What is the relevance of funds raised in this context? In addition-valuation for a public company is a completely different metric than funds raised-curious as to how this would be made  predictable, given that a good environment for economic growth depends to a great extent on a rationalized policy and regulatory environment?
As for the security issues-i have acknowledged previously the challenges and there, and there is excellent opportunity for collective thinking on how to deal with platforms that are a mirror of the divisions and risks in societies (which we are doing!) but nothing recommended below addresses or mitigates  any of those risks. I am mindful that the most violent periods politically in Kenya predated Facebook and WhatsApp, so the notion that these platforms cause violence, or that taxing them would remove security risk is unsupported by any data whatsoever.

On Nov 6, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Whatsapp is not monetised and does not derive any revenue from anywhere yet (this will change next year). This should have no bearing at all on whether Whatsapp should be taxed or not. It is a billion dollar multinational company operating on a non-traditional business model. This means that it is our tax regulations which need to be *modernized* to rope in 21st century global business models that add a local cost burden on the government (e.g. increasing costs of security, turning kids into narcissistic screen zombies – with resulting impact on learning and metal health etc) yet do not contribute to the local kitty – which is unfair considering that they are *billion dollar* companies. 
To put it differently, any shilling that Government spends to mitigate the risks of fake news in whatsapp or Facebook (e.g. buying ads to push correct position) is a subsidy paid to Facebook and Whatsapp. This is money that could have gone to health sector to buy medicine, sanitation for clean water or agriculture for food security. Instead it goes to fix a problem created by an entity that has net negative value to the economy. Not all innovation is good or beneficial!
How to tax Silicon valley business models: Use the same metrics investors use:1. Estimated number of users /  downloads2. Risk / benefit factor (e.g. security risks or impact on jobs/wages)3. Valuation (funds raised)
Silicon valley companies are designed to make losses for decades even as they move massive amounts of money (literally avoiding taxes by exploiting obsolete legislation). The real business they are in is the fundraising business but that is under the tax radar.
Signing off. Will check back later for updates.

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, 2:45:18 PM GMT+3, Ebele Okobi via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

This is a fascinating and very timely conversation. As I’m sure all can imagine, I have many thoughts. ?I do have a question, first-how much revenue does WhatsApp derive from Kenya?

On Nov 6, 2018, at 7:45 AM, evelyne wanjiku via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Dear All,
In suppport of Mr. Patrick Mainas Maina\’s input.

The government needs to consider taxing the platforms. This is because they make money from us trade in our data and the revenue genereted benefits their countries and not ours given that they do not pay taxes here. This has been considered in Europe. In africa however, no country can apply this taxes on its own due to our \’economically colonised\’ position our countries find ourselves in. This means that the easiest option for our government becomes the easy route which is taxing the end user. This is counterproductive especially for those who use social media for productive activities. Therefore only a united african front would be succesful in getting these giants to pay up and keep our governments from considering taxing citizens. It is also important to consider that calls made on whatsapp, skype,viber cost less. This means that there is revenue reduction for the companies providing voice services. Considering that these companies are locally based and pay taxes to our government, why should their revenue be reduced by services that do not pay taxes to us? I suppose this is the logic used by countries like the UAE that block the use of whatsapp to make calls whithin their borders. 

As for the ability of whatsapp to cause chaos, this is true and has been proven and whatsapp itself has acknowlegded this fact in countries like India and Pakistan. These are countries where fake news and inflammatory messages delivered mainly through whatsapp have led to chaos that have led to deaths of many people.  Whatsapp has responded by putting in measures to ensure that such spread of hate news can be controlled from their end. Whatsapp also remains open open to suggestions as to how this can be contolled and is actively leading research in this area.

The question therefore should be, should we leave Whatsapp to be in charge of what is transfered on their platform and the consequences that follow?  Should government have a role in monitoring how whatsapp is being used for harmful activities. Overall what is the role of government and the various platforms in ensuring this platform and others are used responsibly?
Good day to all

On Tuesday, November 6, 2018, 3:44:22 AM GMT+3, Francis Monyango via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Morning Mr Patrick Maina,
You mention how messaging apps facilitate fake news, crime and other things. You also lay peace,development on a scale versus human rights such as free speech and privacy. Sir, it is good to be objective and factual. Last year Kenya had 10 months of hot politics. Research shows that the Kenyan authorities did not attempt to control, disrupt or shutdown the internet. Hence this tired line of the country going into flames because of the internet (messaging apps) doesn\’t hold any weight. The number of Kenyan users of these messaging apps and other factors such as social class of users, bots affect the impact of the internet in democratic transitions. The broadcast media shut down in January should tell which communication medium has more impact on the Kenyan society. ? I believe your intention was to state why companies that offer over the top services should pay taxes here. That is a different argument all together with a different set of facts unless you are advocating for a blanket over the top tax to be paid by users to avoid \’spread of gossip and lies\’ just like in Uganda.

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, 13:26 Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet, <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

These messaging apps facilitate fake news, crime, foreign meddling (to subvert democracy), brainwashing and hate speech on a massive scale. We know this for a fact. 
So as citizens and stakeholders in our country, we need to ask: what do we value more, is it things that improve peace, stability, economic development and democracy, OR, is it some utopian, unbounded notion of free speech and privacy that is disconnected from our contextual reality (e.g. protects criminals, malicious defamers and violence mongers in equal proportion as law abiding citizens)?
The companies running these uncontrolled messaging platforms will not be impacted if our country goes up in flames. They cost governments tons of money in maintaining internal security (especially during democratic transitions – sometimes to existential levels) yet they don\’t pay any taxes… and mark you, they are *billion dollar* companies! This also means that funds that ought to have bought, say, medicine to save lives gets diverted to fix an *imported problem* with no path to holding the parent company accountable for damage caused.
Gok needs to modernize our tax laws, which currently are based on the traditional \”for profit\” enterprise model and thus out of touch with Silicon Valley\’s \”make losses by design\” model. The basic assumption that entrepreneurship is a profit oriented endeavour does not hold for Silicon Valley VC subsidized companies. They are designed to operate as loss makers for decades (but still move *massive* amounts of financial resources at massive scale). This has the technical effect of *tax avoidance* because massive profits *are* still being made by the offshore VCs – which denies governments billions in taxes (despite imposing local burdens as illustrated above). 

A smart government would create modernized laws to tax VC funded Silicon Valley companies e.g. on the basis of *funding rounds* and *valuations* because this is their *real* business i.e. its how the investors intend to make money from day one – and the primary reason they push for perpetual losses!
There should also be a turnover tax and VAT on online revenue earned in Kenya by foreign billion dollar internet companies (e.g. advertisement revenue and appstore revenue), to level the tax playing field for local businesses. Similar to what other countries like the UK are working on: 

CA will obviously have a hard time monitoring and enforcing though, under the current traditional framework due to technical barriers (e.g. encryption) and also due to jurisdictional challenges. 
So the other thing that CA really needs to do once the rules are set is to consider blocking non-compliant foreign apps completely at ISP level (especially now that political temperatures are cool and people and thinking clearly). Lets have local startups filling any gaps with copycat apps China-style. 
To be clear, I support free speech and privacy. But I also support peace, stability, safe neighbourhoods, democracy, sovereignty and economic predictability!
A delicate balance is needed to maximise the rights of law abiding citizens while minimising the ability of those with evil intent to exploit basic rights in order to harm the innocent.
Good day.Patrick.

On Thursday, November 1, 2018, 11:00:44 PM GMT+3, Grace Githaiga via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Kenya is considering regulating online services such as WhatsApp and Skype in a radical move that could force the internet-based service providers to share data with the government.

The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) is in search of a consultant to study and determine how the so-called over-the-top services (OTTS) operated by groups such as Facebook, which runs WhatsApp, and Skype owner Microsoft, could be regulated.
Read on:https://www.nation.co.ke/business/Telcos-regulator-seeks-to-monitor-WhatsApp/996-4833020-fn9u7s/index.html

Best regards

Githaiga, Grace

Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet)
Tel: 254722701495
Skype: gracegithaiga
Alternate email: ggithaiga@hotmail.com
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/gracegithaiga

\”Change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged and come together to demand it. I am asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about change – but in yours\”—Barrack Obama.
kictanet mailing list