time to regulate

Notably, there has been activities in drafting model laws to regulate cyber activities alongside Kenya "electronic Transactions Bill 2007" and other east african states (http://africa.bizcommunity.com/Article/111/23/18306.html)......Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania are in the process of adopting harmonized cyber laws to enable the establishment of e-government and e-commerce programs, according to the East African Community, the intergovernmental organization representing these three countries with a population totaling 82 million people. The cyber laws will cover data security, network security, cyber crime, information systems and electronic transactions (http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1539)

in short the process of the legislature passing the laws in Tanzania needs to be fast-tracked in order for the country to reap out the benefits of e-commerce especially due to the fact that the first question asked by a foreign company, wanting to operate a website targeted at the Tanzanian audience, is about the laws dealing with online content.

i read an interesting article a few days ago, based on the Indian Information Technology Act whereby the author omits that in the absence of specific laws governing online content regulation, laws which have not specifically made for online content regulation will still apply to it. This is the principle of functional equivalence with statutes such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860 will be made applicable to online act’s and omissions. read more.....http://www.livemint.com/2008/01/14001653/Management--A-legal-framework.html


another interesting bit of info...in addition to one of my first articles on e-defamtion..

Civil Procedure Code + the Internet!

The Delhi High Court in the case of Frank Finn Management Consultants v. Subhash Motwani and Another (CS(OS) 367/2002) determined the scope of its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while making refrence to the availibility of the publication on the internet. The case concerned a suit for damages publishing libelous information. The defendant’s argument was that since the publication of the libelous material did not occur in the forum hence it did not have jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 19. The court intepreting section 19 held that, “publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of communication of the libelous article”. In reaching the conclusion that it had jurisdiction it held that, “…growing number of readers prefer to read newspapers and magazines via internet rather than in hard form. By putting the magazine on the internet, the magazine cannot be said to be for circulation within Mumbai only and is concluded to be having circulation all over India.” (available at: http://iltb.apargupta.com/?p=76)