Archive < Local & Global < Global Fellowship Program <

Moving beyond technological quick fixes: a people-centric approach to digital urban security in African cities

Urban security issues in African cities have led governments to make significant investments in digital surveillance technologies. This post calls for a shift towards public engagement and community participation in the deployment and implementation of these technologies.

The current approach

Governments across the African continent have often presented the acquisition of digital surveillance technologies as a solution to long-standing structural problems in urban security, portraying them as essential to ensuring public safety. Currently, most of these governments have launched crime prevention programmes that include the deployment of surveillance technologies. A study of some of these programmes estimates that African governments collectively spend over a billion dollars a year on digital surveillance. The study highlights the reliance on foreign actors to supply these technologies: China dominates the supply of public space surveillance technologies; the United States and the United Kingdom lead in the control of social media; Germany, Italy and Israel lead in the export of malicious software for hacking mobile phones; and the United Kingdom is a leader in fake mobile phone masts (IMSI-catchers) designed to spy on mobile phone users.

An examination of the prevailing integration of public security systems in African cities highlights a striking lack of consideration for the population. Instead, geopolitical interests, foreign influence and local political dynamics play a key role, given that most of these projects are funded through bilateral agreements and loans involving the purchase of surveillance technology packages. This often results in a situation where crucial aspects of people’s needs and interests are neglected, leaving the final cost to be borne by the very people whom these systems are meant to protect.

The pitfalls of the current approach

The current approach has led to many African cities becoming testing grounds for new, untested and sometimes unregulated technologies, as governments strive to constantly ‘catch up’ with current technological trends. Consequently, most African governments tend to make significant compromises, prioritising progress in the form of technological advancement at the expense of public opinion and public safety. Ultimately, the deployment of these surveillance technologies is not based on the real needs of the population, but prioritises other considerations that may not align with the general well-being of the communities involved.

• In Zimbabwe, in the absence of robust public engagement and accountability measures, the state entered into a strategic partnership with Cloudwalk, an artificial intelligence start-up based in Guangdong, to create a mass facial recognition programme intended for law enforcement and digital forensic operations. The initiative, funded through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), was presented as a mutually beneficial agreement. However, closer scrutiny revealed that Cloudwalk would provide high-end mass surveillance technologies in exchange for the facial data of Zimbabweans, which would be used for training to improve the system’s accuracy. This agreement raised concerns regarding digital colonialism and the risk to the privacy rights of Zimbabweans, as well as posing ethical issues, as the facial data of Zimbabwean citizens was essentially being used as a commodity without their consent to put China at the forefront of the race for facial recognition technologies. The inability of citizens to have a say in the deployment of these technologies allows for unchecked exploitation by private companies in the field of facial recognition, without adequate legal protection for the population.
• In Uganda, $126 million was invested in procuring AI-powered public safety platforms to tackle the rising incidence of violent crime in the country’s capital, Kampala. Despite the seemingly legitimate motivations behind the acquisition of these surveillance technologies, their implementation lacked accountability mechanisms and public participation, resulting in the erosion of freedoms, with local civil rights organisations and opposition leaders in Uganda arguing that the adoption of these systems led to extrajudicial surveillance and the interception of opposition leaders’ communications.

Although these technologies have the potential to improve service delivery, law enforcement and administrative efficiency, their deployment often reveals a worrying lack of public awareness and clear guidelines on their use. Furthermore, there are insufficient measures to address transparency and accountability in the procurement of these surveillance technologies, nor are there policies to ensure that government bodies take into account the impact of these technologies on civil liberties and public trust, alongside their financial cost and potential benefits for public safety.

An alternative approach

An alternative perspective is to view digital transformation as a human-led process, facilitated by technology and centred on the needs of the community. From this viewpoint, African governments can adopt a strategic and proactive stance that actively engages their citizens whilst safeguarding human rights in the deployment of surveillance technologies. This people-centred approach is vital to ensuring that the adoption of these technologies focuses on improving quality of life whilst prioritising sustainability, inclusion, prosperity and human rights for the collective benefit of all.

In the city of Seattle, the public has the opportunity to weigh up the costs and benefits of surveillance technologies – including equipment, hardware and software – before they are deployed. The current by-law requires municipal departments to prepare a surveillance impact report, which must include an in-depth examination of the implications for privacy and the impact on civil liberties, focusing on equity and the impact on the community, for all new surveillance technologies. Furthermore, it mandates community meetings and outreach activities prior to approval by the City Council, requires the detailed publication of surveillance impact reports and equity impact assessments, and outlines a systematic process that includes an inventory of existing surveillance technologies. The by-law also establishes a cause of action, allowing the public to enforce the law in the courts, if necessary, thereby reinforcing the commitment to accountability and legal oversight.

The city of Oakland takes a similar approach to Seattle when it comes to impact assessments and public and community engagement. Furthermore, municipal departments are required to submit a comprehensive report detailing their plans for the use of new surveillance technology, specifying the data collected, its retention period and the entities with access to the data. In particular, a supervisory body known as the Privacy Advisory Commission is established to assist the city in managing this policy, and to provide advice and technical assistance to city staff on how to protect citizens’ privacy rights in relation to the city’s purchase and use of surveillance equipment and other technologies.

Conclusion

There is a need to reassess digital surveillance programmes in African cities. Drawing inspiration from policies implemented in cities such as Seattle and Oakland, African cities should adopt a people-centred approach to ensure more accountable, responsible and effective public security systems that prioritise people’s needs and guarantee that technological advances serve the common good whilst upholding fundamental rights and freedoms.