Experts have warned that the large-scale rollouts of surveillance technologies by governments in a number of African countries are violating citizens’ rights to privacy and are being used to silence political opposition.
While governments conduct surveillance of internet traffic, mobile communications, social media posts, financial transactions and citizens’ movements in public spaces, there are concerns about the impact of surveillance on human rights and freedom.
According to a new report published by the Institute of Development Studies in the UK, 11 African countries have spent about $2bn (about R34bn) on cameras, control centres and other AI technologies in public spaces under the pretence of preventing terrorism or crime. The researchers found “no compelling evidence that the imposing of smart surveillance has led to any reduction in terrorism or serious crime”.
In many cases, the surveillance tools have been deployed to entrench political control and to monitor and silence human rights defenders and the political opposition, the report found.
“The massive expansion of surveillance, especially when unrelated to terrorism threats or to any proportional rise in serious crime, gives rise to concern from human rights organisations that smart surveillance systems are really designed to conduct surveillance on opposition leaders, peaceful dissidents and marginalised groups to repress opposition and reinforce incumbents’ hold on power,” it said.
The report was compiled by researchers from the African Digital Rights Network. It analysed the use of smart city technology in 11 African countries: Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Unregulated surveillance creates a chilling effect that inhibits the right to peaceful protest and reduces the freedom to speak truth to power and hold governments to account.
— Tony Roberts, independent digital rights researcher
They found that the installation of the technologies is done without the robust legal frameworks needed to protect human rights. The report said that while governments claim such technologies are necessary to enhance public safety, counter terrorism and modernise security operations, serious concerns have been raised about their implications for privacy and freedom of expression.
The report warns that this lack of protection, coupled with the increased capacity and scale of the smart city mass surveillance, leaves government critics, such as the political opposition and independent journalists, at risk of being tracked and targeted by the state.
Tony Roberts, independent digital rights researcher and co-author of the report, said the rapid growth of smart city surveillance in Africa was occurring “without adequate legal regulation or oversight”.
“Unregulated surveillance creates a chilling effect that inhibits the right to peaceful protest and reduces the freedom to speak truth to power and hold governments to account,” said Roberts.
The countries studied have each spent an average of $240m on smart city surveillance. Most of the countries studied have now had smart surveillance of public spaces in place for between five and 10 years. However, none have put in place a legal framework able to balance the state’s need to conduct warranted surveillance with their existing commitments to protect and promote fundamental human rights.
“Digital surveillance of terrorists and the most serious criminals can be justified in the public interest, but installing thousands of smart CCTV cameras for the mass surveillance of all citizens — suspected of no crime — violates human rights,” said Roberts.
This is the latest tool used by governments to invade the privacy of citizens and stifle freedom of movement and expression
— Wairagala Wakabi, co-author of the report
Wairagala Wakabi, executive director at Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa and co-author of the report, said: “These so-called ‘smart city’ surveillance products are anything but smart for those at risk of being tracked and targeted by them.
“This large-scale and invasive AI-enabled surveillance of public spaces is not legal, necessary or proportionate to the legitimate aim of providing security. Instead, history shows us that this is the latest tool used by governments to invade the privacy of citizens and stifle freedom of movement and expression.”
Nigeria alone has spent more than $470m on AI-enabled facial recognition and automatic car number plate recognition.
“The recording, analysing and retaining of facial images of individuals in public spaces without their consent interferes with their right to privacy,” Wakabi said.
“We need governments to be fully transparent about their procurement and use of smart city technology and ensure that the impacts on human rights have been fully assessed and shared with the public.”
Among its recommendations, the report stated the need for a dedicated law on smart surveillance of public space that defines and limits which actors are allowed by law to conduct the collection of digital surveillance images, and that requires a prior court warrant so that a judge can test whether the surveillance is legal, necessary and proportionate.
“An adequately resourced oversight body is needed that is genuinely independent of the government, police and judiciary to ensure surveillance is carried out as envisioned in the law, to provide remedy and redress, and to publish transparency reports to support good governance and secure public confidence.”
Business Times
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.