Surveillance, privacy concerns and beliefs about the utility of ICT4D in Africa – A hybrid approach to empirical Investigation (Submitted to Surveillance & Society journal) Egwuchukwu Ani Renaissance University, Ugbawka P.M.B. 01183 Enugu, Nigeria [email protected] Abstract: Numerous international development literatures perceives the use of ICT4D in Africa as having a revolutionary impact on development. While such literatures draw our attention to important attributes of ICT4D and the transformational effects hitherto, they also miss to highlight the inevitable possibilities ensuing from its utilities. This work analyses the possible adverse effect of ICT4D, through the lens of surveillance and privacy concerns, and by the use of rigorous and multiple empirical investigations. The authors first developed and tested a theoretical model using second generation multivariate statistics (LISREL). Data were generated through online questionnaires and interviews. The authors then employed a novel computational approach to content analysis – by scraping Twitter data of key influencers on surveillance, privacy, and ICT4D in Africa. Generally, we found that surveillance and privacy have growing apprehensions over ICT usefulness for development initiatives. We further discussed the possible reason for our findings and implications. Introduction The use of information and communication technology (ICT) in Africa for development interventions, has been widely established in literatures in terms of ICT for development (ICT4D1 - benefit and opportunities for development). Some ICT4D scholars have maintained the usual implicit assumption of communication technology as accelerating socio-economic development, eradicating poverty, digital gap and spurring inclusive innovations (Brown and Grant 2010; Madon et al. 2009; Walsham 2005, 2012; World Bank 2012)2. This is, of course, with some good cause; new technologies present countless opportunities for expression, connectivity and empowerment (Graham 2016, 2017). However, such establishments ignore the contradictory impacts and adverse effects of such technologies, which can reduce communication gap, in the same proportion with freedom of communication (Carmody 2012). The result of this dichotomy of transformation has, by itself, dually vast. On the one hand, it has facilitated the deployment of development initiatives, such as education, health, politics, economic development and national security. But it has also, on the other hand, adversely effected these aforementioned impacts as well as privacy of communication – on the aspect of surveillance and civil liberties. These efforts to advance development in African through communication technologies fail to engage issues of users digital privacy or the appropriateness of how information is shared and flows (Nissenbaum 2010), or neglect topics of surveillance as the collection and monitoring of personal information for the purpose of social control (Lyon 2002). 1 ICT4D is interchangeably used in this work with just ICT, referring to Information and communication technology. Also ICT4D is Information and communication technology for development. 2 See also the work of the Center for Global Development, http://international.cgdev.org/ (accessed 12 October 2017) 1 Beginning with the premise on the critical roles both ICT corporations and international aid agencies plays in shaping individuals and communities expectation of ICT for rapid development (Dailey et al. 2010), the current study focuses on ICT users’ perception to the actual use of communication technologies for development interventions in Africa, and the associated privacy-surveillance risks. It questions the impact of such technologies on transformation, and also possible abuse of the capabilities of communication technologies to collect and process citizens and consumers data, couched primarily as surveillance (Lyon 2007). While citizens and consumers of ICT benefit from the Internet: convenience, vast amount of information sharing, and time saving. This information sharing has become extremely valuable because it allow marginal ICT users to tap knowledge from the free economy of global users (Graham 2013). But there are risks associated with these benefits, as citizens are affected by shifts in the meaning and nature of surveillance, from credible indications, particularly the case of Snowden’s revelations (Anderson 2014, 2). This risk might be proportionately greater in resources-constrained setting e.g. the economically impoverished population of Africa. This is particularly true of inequity and information inequality that results from isolation (Graham 2014). Data profiling of marginalized groups, corporations and the state can exacerbate existing condition of inequity. From data collection, analysis and storage, members of the dependent or marginal Internet users are at risk of been stereotyped, exploited, and isolated. Furthermore, such risk reinforces the ways dependent, as opposed to independent, poverty, has been systematically and historically produced through colonialism and other exploitative forms of international interconnection (Carmody 2011). In an attempt to deliver on development, corporations, agencies and states can use and reuse these profiled information, creating a feedback loop of injustice. Yet Africans reflects a society in which privacy is highly treasured but often violated with the aid of communication technologies. They view privacy as an expression and safeguard of personal dignity (Neethling 2005). Privacy is among the highest of individual rights (Etzioni 1999; Westin 2001). There are several good illustrations to prove this. In Nigeria for example, there was an alarming public concerns especially among the Igbo ethnic group when a taped conversations between two political officials from the other major two tribes revealed them scheming on how to tame the Igbo tribe. When asked, 60% of Igbo respondents, contrary to expectations, condemned such bridge on privacy, notwithstanding the advantageous impact of such revelation. 3 In a recent survey by Human Right Watch on the development effect of mobile phone and Internet-related technologies in Ethiopia, 90% of ordinary citizens said; yes, there are improvements in communication cost and ease, but it is nothing compared with perceived fear of being monitored by government, and this fear has driven them to self-censor and greatly limited their freedom of communication.4 South African government came under fire by its citizens when it announced a development programme that would wreck people’s privacy. The proposed ID verification technology is capable of simulating human cognition using neural networks.5 In a highly sensitive setting of health care, the African governments together with World Health Organization (WHO) have made some efforts in introducing disease surveillance and e-health technology to a certain extent in Sub-Sahara African countries. A notable example is the Integrated Disease Surveillance System (IDSR); a regional framework for strengthening national public health surveillance capabilities at all levels in Africa.6 However, little improvement have been made 3 Technopoint, ‘Nigerian’s Big Brother is watching you’ (23 June 2017) https://techpoint.ng/2017/06/23/nigeria-big-brother-watching/ (accessed 12 October 2017) 4 News from Africa, ‘Privacy and Surveillance in Africa’ (daily publications) https://privacyinafrica.com/category/news-from-africa/ (accessed 12 October 2017) 5 University of Johannesburg ‘New SA technology will verify your identity by simulating how you think’ (28 June 2017) https://privacyinafrica.com/2017/06/28/new-sa-technology-will-verify-your-identity-by-simulating-how- you-think/ (accessed 12 October 2017) 6 Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Global Health—Health Protection. What is Integrated 2 on the WHO’s IDSR since its establishment in 1998, with an expectation that it will ultimately drive significant advancement in disease surveillance system in Africa where mobile penetration is growing at an unprecedented rate. The introduction of Rapid Diagnosis Test (RDT) for malaria (Chihanga 2012), which is used to provide instant diagnosis of infection (via SMS-based, App-Based, VRS-based and telephony-Based) services. The identified surveillance system followed usual standard flow of information such as (푖) routine data collection at health care facilities, powered by mobile devices, (푖푖)forwarded to a district server located at national centres, (푖푖푖) analysed and shared with different national and international aid agencies (Brinkel 2014) in case of disease defined by WHO (Pascoe 2012). Consequently, the extent for which these aggregated data can be shared is crucial to allow a precise and complete assessment of their impacts. However, little empirical research has been carried out on the adverse implication of data collected for health purposes. While investments are going into the development of functional e-Health, clearance, as well as confidentiality of data, data sharing and security were not even raised. The risk of weak privacy protection for marginal Internet users, is often combined with poor direct protection for freedom of expression, leading to underdevelopment (Andrew et al 2012). It should be noted that the lone notion of closing communication gap, in many ways, have been unhelpful. Consequently, emphasis on technology alone draws attention away from other divides and inequalities that hampers development (Heeks 2002, 7). There have been some