Welcome to KICTANet – Monthly Participation Guide & Netiquette

Just seeing your feedback on my concern. Thanks for taking the time to
explain the engagement nature of a forum such as KICTANet. Now I am
thinking I may not have been very clear on which public I had concerns
with. Within this forum, I have absolutely no issue with my email
address or any other PII being available to the subscribers. It was the
general public outside of this subscription which my concerns were based
on. Sometime back I Googled myself and saw my email address displayed from
a contribution I made here in this forum. I attach the screenshot of this,
from a discussion back in January 2020.

You’ll see on the same screenshot my contribution from 26th April 2025
which I can see only mentions my name which is fine, and no email address
shown so I suppose you made changes on not displaying our email addresses?

@Washington, the masking of the email addresses even in the archives is
well executed, so thanks for implementing that.

Much gratitude once again for indulging me on this, and here’s to building
a most impactful KICTANet community!

On Tue, 27 May 2025 at 08:48, Benson Muite via KICTANet <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 26, 2025, at 7:17 PM, Odhiambo Washington via KICTANet wrote:
> > 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
>