Well, I think that UG law may have been a sequel to the fight against
terrorism, remember they modified "The Computer 'Misuse'(the correct word
is Fraud) and Abuse Act 1984" to get the "PATRIOT Act 2001 (PATRIOT as in
....Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism)" which was again modified to Identity Theft Enforcement and
Restitution Act 2008 all of which though make searches and interceptions a
little easier, yet require sophisticated evidence gathering tools before
you can convince the prosecutor to ........

Then as in many fields of computer science, it follows a similar trend (so
and so launches a client process that contacts the server process to
request access, it authenticates usually by providing a secret key or
token or biometric, or ssl cert, etc and a session is granted; after which
so and so goes to attend to something, clicks on remember my password,
forgets to enable some security settings, etc, thus leaving behind an open
session..)

You usually need to collect enough evidence to prove that it was actually
so and so in that session and that the legislation in the location at the
time of the incident allows the prosecution you desire (civil filings as
in due care/ due diligence or criminal filings, or, etc): If you were able
to capture the image, the keyboard/keypad dynamics, the voice, the
location, etc used in the contested session, then you could pin down so
and so by matching the real patterns with those used in the session, and
of course if you think you then have enough evidence for the prosecution
to begin, you start the hunt for the rogue so he appears in court, the
court process begins and continues till the jury reaches a verdict and the
judge does the....

But in the case of UG, while communication interception act may do, how
about privacy and data protection acts that could be the equivalency of
acts like:
The Privacy Act 1974
The EU Data Directive
HIPAA
Gramm Leach Bliley
Copyright Laws, etc
Anyone with a link to those ones?


Thanks.

> On 5 June 2012 15:19, Benjamin Tayehanpour
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Iwhile ownership of the SIM card was proven, there was no way to prove
>> that it was the owner who actually used it for the offences.
>>
>> in the advent of bluetooth hacking, for those careless enough to not
>> turn
> off bluetooth when not needed or having the know to not pair with all
> devices or advertise its ID to all devices, one can connect to your phone
> and actually make calls through your phone without your knowledge...
>
> not to mention GSM hacks that can have a hacker clone your phone and use
> it
> to make calls....Osmocom have proven this over and over again.
>
> I wonder how Uganda intends to use this to actually prove that you made
> the
> call
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mike
>
> Of course, you might discount this possibility, but remember that one in a
> million chances happen 99% of the time.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> The Uganda Linux User Group: http://linux.or.ug
>
> Send messages to this mailing list by addressing e-mails to:
> [email protected]
> Mailing list archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> Mailing list settings: http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug
> To unsubscribe: http://kym.net/mailman/options/lug
>
> The Uganda LUG mailing list is generously hosted by INFOCOM:
> http://www.infocom.co.ug/
>
> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
> attachments if any). The mailing list host is not responsible for them in
> any way.


_______________________________________________
The Uganda Linux User Group: http://linux.or.ug

Send messages to this mailing list by addressing e-mails to: [email protected]
Mailing list archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Mailing list settings: http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug
To unsubscribe: http://kym.net/mailman/options/lug

The Uganda LUG mailing list is generously hosted by INFOCOM: 
http://www.infocom.co.ug/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The mailing list host is not responsible for them in any 
way.

Reply via email to