Regulatory Responses to the Spread of Surveillance Tools in Africa
By Bulelani Jili, EPIC Scholar-in-Residence
Digital surveillance technologies are often presented as a solution to longstanding structural problems like crime. However, there is no robust empirical evidence that the adoption of Chinese surveillance tools results in the reduction of crime. The continual procurement of these tools despite lack of evidence of efficacy raises a series of questions: why are local elites interested in procuring these tools? To what extent do these tools empower new forms of governmentality? What are the hidden costs of adopting digital surveillance tools for Kenya and other African states?
Fetish
Procuring digital surveillance tools in Kenya, and across the continent, tends to be justified by governments as a means to deliver development and public security. The establishment of the National Security Surveillance, Communication and Control System, which utilizes CCTV surveillance to detect, prevent, and respond to crime in Nairobi and Mombasa, demonstrates the Kenyan state’s belief that facial recognition capabilities are the answer to public security goals. The system also includes a vehicle registration plate recognition platform that identifies the number plate of vehicles. Yet, there is no evidence that these systems actually achieve the stated goal of increasing public security.
This fetish for digital solutions arises when it is presumed that crime reduction simply relies on applying surveillance technologies. However, monitoring tools like AI CCTV cameras are not smooth-functioning systems that automatically provide efficacious public security. Rather, they are complex platforms that are embedded in a broader social context. Indeed, elites are often blinded by their parochial commitment to surveillance tools as de facto solutions, despite continued lack of evidence that these tools actually deliver better social conditions or solutions to crime. More to the point, the lacuna between the use of digital surveillance technologies and robust legal protections for those surveilled fuels concern. Adoption of surveillance technologies is rarely accompanied by robust regulatory measures.
Currently, there is no Kenyan national policy regulating the installment and use of CCTV cameras. Despite the assumed benefits of these digital tools, the worry is that the system was introduced without the necessary data protection laws in Kenya.
Data Protection Act
Only half of the countries on the continent of Africa have laws on data protection. About two years ago, the Kenyan state produced the Data Protection Act (DPA) of 2019. It gives effect to Article 31 (c) and (d) of the constitution, which speaks to the right to privacy. It also establishes the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, which outlines the rights of data subjects and seeks to manage and protect data once it is acquired, processed, and stored. The DPA commissioner and the ICT Cabinet Secretary published three draft regulations under the DPA. Notwithstanding these changes, multiple advocates have identified inadequacies in the regulations. Thus far, the DPA has been insufficient in protecting the data of citizens and their right to privacy. Crucially, it also remains unclear how regulations or…