Safaricom, Kenya’s leading telecommunications company, has faced increasing criticism for its alleged role in facilitating government surveillance, particularly in cases where security agencies are implicated in violations against human rights activists.
A recent investigation by the Nation reveals that the British software company Neural Technologies embedded a data management system in Safaricom’s network, providing Kenya’s security agencies with extensive, real-time access to citizens’ call data.
This collaboration has raised serious concerns about privacy and state overreach, particularly for activists and journalists who rely on privacy to perform their work without fear of reprisal.
Through this system, Kenyan authorities are reportedly able to monitor communication and movement with minimal oversight, creating what human rights advocates describe as a “surveillance state.”
While Safaricom asserts that it operates within legal boundaries, its collaboration with Neural Technologies appears to give government bodies access that exceeds typical regulatory requirements.
This access can lead to the unwarranted tracking of calls, messages, and even the physical locations of citizens, with security agencies reportedly using this information in instances of politically motivated intimidation and harassment.
Safaricom’s cooperation with Kenyan security agencies has led to multiple reported abuses, particularly during politically sensitive times.
Human rights defenders and journalists have reported being surveilled, with some facing threats and harassment after engaging in activism or critical reporting.
The ability of authorities to access call logs and personal data in real time has a chilling effect, effectively discouraging free expression and stifling activism.
With Safaricom holding nearly two-thirds of the Kenyan mobile market share, these practices impact millions of users who rely on the network for communication and daily transactions.
Beyond direct surveillance, Safaricom has also come under fire for inadequate data protection protocols, as evidenced by past data breaches.
For instance, a breach reportedly exposed sensitive information about over 11 million subscribers, yet Safaricom failed to promptly inform affected users, raising questions about its commitment to protecting subscriber privacy.
Additionally, in a high-profile 2019 lawsuit, a subscriber sued Safaricom for alleged privacy violations, asserting that the company compromised user information by failing to secure private data effectively.
This case underscored broader concerns about Safaricom’s data handling practices and the limited recourse available to affected citizens under current data protection laws.
These surveillance practices have intensified in recent years, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Kenyan authorities leveraged Safaricom’s data for contact tracing, using location tracking to monitor individuals under quarantine without clear safeguards for data privacy.
Reports indicate that this real-time tracking was employed without adequate independent oversight, suggesting an overreach that could set dangerous precedents.
Despite Kenya’s 2019 Data Protection Act, aimed at ensuring transparency and privacy, its implementation has been weak.
Lack of enforcement mechanisms means that telecommunications companies and state agencies continue to exploit citizen data without substantial accountability.
The alleged involvement of Safaricom in facilitating unchecked surveillance highlights broader issues surrounding data privacy in Kenya.
Activists and privacy advocates argue that the company must prioritize user privacy and establish clear boundaries regarding government requests for data access.
The ongoing collaboration with state agencies, coupled with inadequate transparency, not only undermines the rights of citizens but also signals the potential for continued abuses under the guise of national security.
To address these issues, legal reforms are necessary to impose stricter accountability measures on private telecom providers and ensure that human rights are safeguarded against invasive surveillance practices.
Add Comment