Who watches the Watchmen?

Introduction

“We are living in an age of surveillance. The same digital technologies that have revolutionized our daily lives over the past three decades have also created ever more detailed records about those lives”.[1] This article emphasizes the dangers of mass surveillance as a bridge of privacy by the government, and how things will only get worse if balance is not achieved through transparency and accountability.

Mass Surveillance

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” -Juvenal, Satire. “Who will guard the guard themselves” or “Who will watch the Watchmen?”.

This is the question posed today against the government on the issue of the accountability of political power in their use of mass surveillance.

“Mass surveillance involves the acquisition, processing, generation, analysis, use, retention, or storage of information about large numbers of people, without any regard to whether they are suspected of wrongdoing”.[2] And this is often done with little or no consent from these masses. This causes what is known as ‘the chilling effect,’ a situation where the awareness of being non-restrictively watched by the government chills expressive and associational freedom. In essence, mass surveillance is a violation of the right to privacy, and no safeguard guarantees that it won't be used for other purposes in the future.

Adoption, Installation, and integration of mass surveillance have swept the nations of the world. It is widely embraced and implemented under the umbrella of ‘National Security’, but the citizens assert how this indiscriminate surveillance violates laws of civil liberties such as the rights to privacy, free speech, freedom of association or assembly, freedom of the press, voting rights, and freedom of religion, as it is without contemplation that such unrestrained power and information is susceptible to abuse. “A special harm that surveillance poses is its effect on the power dynamic between the watcher and the watched. This disparity creates the risk of a variety of harms, such as discrimination, coercion, and the threat of selective enforcement, where critics of the government can be prosecuted or blackmailed for wrongdoing unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance.”[3] Mass surveillance is regarded as undemocratic as it violates the very principles of democracy.

Telecommunications Surveillance

Narrowing the concerns of mass surveillance to telecommunication surveillance as it pertains to cybersecurity.

“Interception and monitoring of individuals' communications is becoming more widespread, more indiscriminate, and more invasive, just as our reliance on electronic communications increases.”[4] This autonomous invasion, disregard for privacy, and the lack of transparency on the part of the government on telecommunications surveillance have sparked significant contention.

Encryption of electronic data (at rest and in transit) is seen as inherently linked with civil liberties mostly the rights to privacy, speech, and belief, and the law enforcers are expected to protect and regard these rights while providing security.

Government officials are concerned that encryption will disable the government from acting in circumstances where it would be in the ‘public interest’ to do so, they desire that backdoors be created on networks for ‘national security’. But, giving the government full reigns of the wires not only jeopardizes privacy rights but also creates a successful path for these bad actors to kill, steal, and destroy. With such a great disadvantage, the question is, is this really in the public interest? Let’s not forget cybersecurity attacks and privacy violations are national security issues too.

There are situations where law enforcers obtain a warrant to access people’s information, and there are times when they claim the legal right not to obtain a warrant. This is because, in most countries, the government’s rights to electronic data interception and surveillance laws are often vague, needing that individuals encrypt their information to protect themselves against “government intrusion”.

Therefore, solutions must be made to balance the need to protect citizens' privacy and civil liberties from intrusive government surveillance with the necessity of safeguarding against criminal activity and threats to national security.

Surveillance in Nigeria

Institute of Development Studies, publishes that Nigeria has been revealed as Africa’s largest customer of surveillance technology contracts, spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and at least US$2.7bn on known contracts between 2013–2022, which is just a fraction of what the real cost could be[5].

They deduced that these surveillance technologies are used to spy on peaceful activists, opposition politicians, and journalists, singling them out for harassment, arrest, and torture, in violation of international human rights law.

The researchers also revealed that Nigeria is a leading customer of every major surveillance technology they studied, including mobile and internet interception, social media monitoring, biometric ID data, and the so-called ‘safe city’ monitoring of citizens in public spaces. They also found that the Nigerian state permits far more government agencies to conduct surveillance than the other countries studied and has contracts with each of the leading surveillance technology suppliers based in the US, China, EU, UK, and Israel.[5]

There are so many alleged reports and instances of the abuse of mass surveillance by the Nigerian government. They include:

• Solomon Akuma, a pharmacist, was arrested and detained for 3 months without trial for allegedly making a social media post critical of President Buhari and his late Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari. He was eventually charged with terrorism, sedition, criminal intimidation of the president, and threat to the life of the president.[5]
• Samuel Ogundipe and Azeezat Adedigba, Premium Times reporters, claimed their conversations were intercepted by the Police and were called in for investigation on criminal conspiracy, cyber crime, attempted kidnapping, and fraud. They were asked to reveal the source of their story and because they didn’t, Mr. Ogundipe was detained and released on bail.[6]
• Omoyele Sowore, a human rights activist and former presidential candidate found that his biometric identification was deactivated by the Nigerian government in January 2022, which meant that his national identification card, permanent voter card, foreign passport, and driver’s license were deactivated, preventing him from traveling, driving or voting.[5]

True, there are Nigerian laws that protect against violation of privacy rights and indiscriminate communication surveillance such as: Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, Cybercrimes Act 2015, Nigerian Communications Commission Act 2003, and so on. Most of these Laws are ambiguously written with no definitive guidelines on what actions are permissible or impermissible by the government.

It is clear that Nigeria’s surveillance laws still suffer some shortcomings that make the privacy rights of citizens open to abuse by government agencies. It is therefore necessary that these laws be reformed to properly strike a balance between national security concerns and the protection of privacy rights and the freedom of expression.[7]

Conclusion

As surveillance technologies and capabilities increase, so do the threats to fundamental rights.

“States are using surveillance technologies to create a chilling effect to suppress civil society and freedom of expression. To combat this, we urgently need action to establish robust legal frameworks to protect the human rights of citizens, and restrict the export of surveillance products.”[8]

The Nigerian government needs to ensure that the country’s surveillance laws are unambiguous to prevent any misinterpretation or misuse by state agencies. Additionally, current surveillance laws must be revised to include provisions for transparency and accountability. This will ensure that surveillance is conducted for legitimate purposes and in line with international human rights standards.[8]

#facetsofcybersecurity_2

REFERENCES

1. Neil M. Richards. Dangers of Surveillance. 2023, 1936.
2. Privacy International ‘Mass Surveillance’ https://privacyinternational.org/learn/mass-surveillance#:~:text=Itcreatesanenvironmentofsuspicionandthreat%2Cwhichcan,chillingeffectofmasssurveillance
3. Neil M. Richards. Dangers of Surveillance. 2023, 1935.
4. Privacy International ‘Communications Surveillance’ https://privacyinternational.org/learn/communications-surveillance
5. Institute Development Studies, press release, ‘Nigeria spending billions of dollars on harmful surveillance of citizens’. 27 September 2023.
6. Yusuf Kabir. ‘SPECIAL REPORT: Heightened surveillance by security operatives puts Nigerian journalists under climate of fear’ Premium Times. 2018.https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/591048-special-report-heightened-surveillance-by-security-operatives-puts-nigerian-journalists-under-climate-of-fear.html?tztc=1
7. Oyeleke Morenike. The State of Communication Surveillance Law in Nigeria: Fit for Purpose or Need for Reform? 2024, 5.
8. Roberts Tony. Press Release, ‘Nigeria spending billions of dollars on harmful surveillance of citizens’, Institute Development Studies. 27 September 2023.