I know I may be stating something obvious here, but isn't this bad (aka tell me what the advantages of doing this by the people who passed the law) and how did a law like this get passed?
EDIT: I mean that Kenya is a democracy and there has to be some kind of rationale behind a move by the people pushing the move that "justifies" to the Kenyan people, its not like Kenyans suddenly decided to vote in a dictator, this new law is more restrictive than China.
>I know I may be stating something obvious here, but isn't this bad
Yes.
>(aka tell me what the advantages of doing this by the people who passed the law)
Control, the same reason any Country (such as China) wants to control publications - control the media, control the people. Given how well small viral media is able to influence people, they are just covering themselves by insisting all media require a license.
>how did a law like this get passed?
How any "crazy" law gets passed - there's a massive disconnect between the people and their government. It could have been made with good intentions (stopping fake news, etc) or bad intentions (controlling the people). The ultimate outcome will be that it's used to control anti-government sentiment - because it always is.
EDIT: I mean that Kenya is a democracy and there has to be some kind of rationale behind a move, its not like Kenyans suddenly decided to vote in a dictator
In what country are laws are voted by the populace and not representatives or administrators?
When one thinks of Kenya, or indeed any other African country, such regulation is probably the last to cross the mind. This is certainly quite bizarre.
"Democracy" does not automatically guarantee liberties in most of the world. In some countries, "democracy" has reduced to a system to vote in their next authoritarian strongman who then dismantles all checks and balances by appointing toadies to all institutions. Their citizens are not consulted about their opinions. Russia, Turkey, Venezuela have already crossed over. Kenya and India are on the way. Hungary too.
So it's all on the end user to go to extra steps to avoid browser hijackers, and the company allowing the garbage ads is completely absolved of blame?
>Complaining about it here won't help anyone.
Unnecessarily douchey thing to post. A nonzero amount of people will read the comments and decide against opening the article/open it in an archival service instead and bypass the malicious ads.
I’ll save everyone the trouble of looking it up on google: 100,000 Kenyan Shillings is $985 USD. Pretty hefty fine for sharing a video you recorded with your cell phone.
The worst outcome of this is other so-called democracies exploit incidents like this to follow suit and take away more rights from their citizens. If one looks at the fall of Rome, the first autocratic emperor was Augustus followed by the rest of the sinister characters of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. America and other countries could go that way if corrupt senators bestow emperor status on their leader. Russia is already this way, Turkey to an extent and China definitely.
But as the government body implied that "public viewing" included posting on social media, it is effectively a de facto ban on uploading videos on social media without a license. Sometimes it's not what the law specifically says that matters; it's the law's effect.
It might cause a drop in the number of people intending their footage be for public release, but one might expect a rise in those who intend for it to be private and then conveniently change their plan at a later point. But maybe in due course cunning Dr Ezekiel would get wise and require a licence to change intentions...
One possible hole based on interpretation is that the language refers to the "creation of a film meant for public exhibition". You could argue that uploading to Facebook with some restriction on privacy settings is not for 'public' exhibition, even if the group that it is meant for exhibition to is very large.
The document shown also doesn't specify that the actual exhibition is a problem. So, if I create a film intended for private exhibition and then later exhibit it publicly, is that okay?
>The punishment, likewise, is also harsh. However, it will be near impossible for the KFCB to enforce and monitor this in a scalable way.
great! now there's a crime that everyone have probably committed some time in their life which carries a stiff prison sentence. any time there's an opposition candidate that you don't like, just bring that up and they won't bother you anymore :)
Every country has laws that are broad and vague and pretty much everybody is guilty of having broken them at some point. They are very practical for getting rid of dissenters. No need for the :).
Interesting that it's written with a seeming intent of discouraging filmmakers from making films that (perhaps) disparage or provide a distorted view of Kenyan culture, which I can sort of understand them pushing for.
But no international filmmaker is going to give a shit about such a small fine, and the KFCB is clear that this applies to individuals posting personal videos on social media.
Honestly as a Kenyan American, its scary to see my country move in manners wholly authoritative. It seems the government is consolidating its power. As we get closer ties to China, our government gets stronger without fixong existing corruption that is rampant and widespread.
Apparently the proposer, (Mutua) seems to have already proposed similar legislation.
I just wonder how they crack down on people with pseudonyms. They can't arrest 'joblo31'; unless they track down people's IPs and heavily sleuth around. Likely will be a tool to wield against companies to fork over data over compliance.
There's some upheaval in Kenya's democracy. Based on very limited reading: A leading opposition figure was detained and, after delaying judicial review the his detention, the government deported him before he could get a hearing in court. The government claimed he lacked citizenship; he's Kenyan by birth but has dual citizenship.
Tangential but important: That's the third government I've seen (I expect there are more) use its immigration enforcement powers to avoid judicial review and due process. The others are the US and UK.
A few months ago Kenya shut down some TV stations [0] that were planning on broadcasting a 'swearing in' of the opposition leader. There was some argy-bargy about it including the supreme court ruling the shutdown illegal, but it went ahead anyway [1]
I was in Kenya just after this, when Miguna Miguna went missing for a few days (people feared he had been disappeared,but he "just" got deported). As chance would have it, I was in his home town. Quite heavy demonstrations - makeshift roadblocks with burning tires, and they raided a beer truck, and the police did crowd control by shooting into the air.
I was in Kenya in 2007 as well when the same opposition candidate also lost the election. That was much, much uglier. While I do sympathise somewhat with his followers (the region he is from is much poorer than central Kenya, and this follows tribal lines - they feel they are not being heard, and there is some truth to that), I do think that this candidate is a quite dangerous man to have in power. Any influence he has now is coming from the fact that his followers will tear the country up if he says so - and he did say so back in 2007.
Is this a test case? Kenya is a global pioneer in mobile money (Vodaphone M-Pesa). German publishers are seeking upload filters in the EU, with a scope that far exceeds video, e.g. Github has objected to source code upload filtering.
32 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 79.4 ms ] threadEDIT: I mean that Kenya is a democracy and there has to be some kind of rationale behind a move by the people pushing the move that "justifies" to the Kenyan people, its not like Kenyans suddenly decided to vote in a dictator, this new law is more restrictive than China.
Yes.
>(aka tell me what the advantages of doing this by the people who passed the law)
Control, the same reason any Country (such as China) wants to control publications - control the media, control the people. Given how well small viral media is able to influence people, they are just covering themselves by insisting all media require a license.
>how did a law like this get passed?
How any "crazy" law gets passed - there's a massive disconnect between the people and their government. It could have been made with good intentions (stopping fake news, etc) or bad intentions (controlling the people). The ultimate outcome will be that it's used to control anti-government sentiment - because it always is.
In what country are laws are voted by the populace and not representatives or administrators?
>Complaining about it here won't help anyone.
Unnecessarily douchey thing to post. A nonzero amount of people will read the comments and decide against opening the article/open it in an archival service instead and bypass the malicious ads.
It might cause a drop in the number of people intending their footage be for public release, but one might expect a rise in those who intend for it to be private and then conveniently change their plan at a later point. But maybe in due course cunning Dr Ezekiel would get wise and require a licence to change intentions...
The document shown also doesn't specify that the actual exhibition is a problem. So, if I create a film intended for private exhibition and then later exhibit it publicly, is that okay?
great! now there's a crime that everyone have probably committed some time in their life which carries a stiff prison sentence. any time there's an opposition candidate that you don't like, just bring that up and they won't bother you anymore :)
But no international filmmaker is going to give a shit about such a small fine, and the KFCB is clear that this applies to individuals posting personal videos on social media.
I can't tell which of those was their real aim.
Tangential but important: That's the third government I've seen (I expect there are more) use its immigration enforcement powers to avoid judicial review and due process. The others are the US and UK.
This was back in Jan/Fab
[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/30/kenyan-governmen... [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/03/africa/kenya-tv-stations-...
I was in Kenya in 2007 as well when the same opposition candidate also lost the election. That was much, much uglier. While I do sympathise somewhat with his followers (the region he is from is much poorer than central Kenya, and this follows tribal lines - they feel they are not being heard, and there is some truth to that), I do think that this candidate is a quite dangerous man to have in power. Any influence he has now is coming from the fact that his followers will tear the country up if he says so - and he did say so back in 2007.
Kenyan politics is a bit of a mess I'm afraid..
Upload filters may soon become EU law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164244