By Jerameel Kevins Owuor Odhiambo
Every 60 seconds, 5.6 million Google searches are conducted, 695,000 stories are shared on Instagram, and 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube yet in those same 60 seconds, approximately 2.5 quintillion bytes of personal data are harvested, analyzed, and weaponized by entities ranging from tech corporations to intelligence agencies. In Kenya alone, where 65% of the population uses mobile money services, over 1.2 billion digital transactions occur monthly, each leaving an indelible digital fingerprint that can be traced, tracked, and monetized by both state and corporate actors. The paradox of our hyperconnected age lies not in the surveillance itself, but in the elaborate theater of oversight that has emerged to mask its true scope and implications.
As revealed by recent investigations into Kenyan telecommunications giant Safaricom’s data practices, the line between legitimate security operations and authoritarian surveillance has become so blurred that citizens can no longer distinguish between protection and persecution. The illusion of privacy persists even as every keystroke, location ping, and digital breath is captured, catalogued, and commodified by systems that operate with the blessing of democratic institutions supposedly designed to protect individual freedoms. This digital panopticon, where the watched believe they are merely users and the watchers claim to be guardians, represents perhaps the most sophisticated form of social control ever devised one that operates not through fear, but through the seductive promise of convenience and connectivity. The question is no longer whether we are being watched, but whether those watching the watchers themselves are watched, and by whom.
The Kenyan surveillance ecosystem, as exposed by investigative journalists Namir Shabibi and Claire Lauterbach in their October 2024 revelations, represents a microcosm of global surveillance capitalism where the boundaries between corporate compliance and state surveillance have dissolved entirely. Their investigation revealed that Kenyan police routinely access citizens’ mobile phone data without warrants, utilizing sophisticated tracking systems that can pinpoint individuals’ locations in real-time and reconstruct their movement patterns over extended periods. The Safaricom case demonstrates how telecommunications companies have become willing partners in state surveillance, providing law enforcement with access to call detail records (CDRs), location data, and even the ability to remotely activate phone microphones for eavesdropping purposes. This collaboration operates under the veneer of anti-terrorism legislation and crime prevention, yet the scope of surveillance extends far beyond legitimate security concerns to encompass political dissidents, journalists, and ordinary citizens whose only crime is existing in the digital age. The Kenyan experience is particularly instructive because it reveals how surveillance systems initially designed for specific security purposes inevitably expand to encompass broader social control mechanisms. The country’s 2019 Data Protection Act, hailed as progressive legislation protecting citizens’ privacy rights, has proven inadequate against the sophisticated surveillance apparatus that operates with impunity across multiple government agencies. The illusion of legal protection persists even as enforcement mechanisms remain toothless and oversight bodies lack the technical expertise or political will to challenge surveillance overreach. What makes the Kenyan case particularly alarming is not the existence of surveillance itself, but the systematic normalization of these practices through bureaucratic processes that create the appearance of legitimacy while enabling unprecedented violations of privacy rights.
The global surveillance architecture has evolved into what security researcher Shoshana Zuboff terms “surveillance capitalism” a system where human experience is converted into behavioral data for predictive products that anticipate what individuals will do next. This system operates through what intelligence analysts call the “collect it all” paradigm, where mass data collection occurs first and analysis happens later, violating the fundamental principle of targeted surveillance based on reasonable suspicion. The Five Eyes intelligence alliance comprising the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand has perfected this approach through programs like PRISM, TEMPORA, and XKeyscore, which hoover up vast quantities of global communications data under the pretext of national security.
These programs operate through legal frameworks that create the illusion of oversight while enabling mass surveillance: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in the United States, the Investigatory Powers Act in the United Kingdom, and similar legislation across democratic nations that grant intelligence agencies broad powers while limiting meaningful judicial review. The genius of modern surveillance lies not in its secrecy, but in its transparency theater the elaborate system of congressional hearings, parliamentary committees, and judicial reviews that create the appearance of accountability while enabling the surveillance apparatus to operate with minimal constraints. Intelligence agencies have learned to operate within the letter of the law while violating its spirit, using legal technicalities to justify mass surveillance programs that would have been unthinkable in previous eras. The result is a system where citizens believe they are protected by legal safeguards while intelligence agencies operate with near-total impunity, collecting, analyzing, and acting on personal data with minimal oversight or accountability.
The privatization of surveillance has created a shadow intelligence ecosystem where private corporations conduct surveillance operations that would be illegal if performed directly by government agencies, then sell this information to law enforcement and intelligence services through legal loopholes that circumvent constitutional protections. Data brokers like Acxiom, Epsilon, and LexisNexis collect and aggregate personal information from thousands of sources, creating detailed profiles of individuals that include their shopping habits, political affiliations, religious beliefs, sexual preferences, and psychological profiles. These companies operate with minimal oversight, collecting data through terms of service agreements that few people read and fewer understand, then selling this information to government agencies that use it for everything from targeted surveillance to predictive policing algorithms. The legal fiction that enables this system is the third-party doctrine, which holds that individuals have no expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily share with third parties a principle that transforms every digital interaction into a potential surveillance opportunity.
Intelligence agencies have weaponized this doctrine to justify mass surveillance programs that would be unconstitutional if conducted directly, instead purchasing the same information from private companies that collect it under the guise of providing services. The result is a surveillance ecosystem where the distinction between public and private surveillance has become meaningless, as intelligence agencies gain access to personal data through commercial relationships that circumvent legal protections designed to limit government surveillance powers. This system creates the illusion that surveillance is primarily a private sector activity, while enabling intelligence agencies to access the same information they would obtain through direct surveillance, but without the legal constraints that apply to government operations.
The technological infrastructure that enables modern surveillance operates through what computer scientists call “surveillance by design” systems where data collection and analysis capabilities are embedded into the fundamental architecture of digital technologies. The internet itself has evolved from a decentralized network designed to route around censorship into a centralized system dominated by a handful of technology companies that control vast quantities of personal data. Google processes over 8.5 billion searches daily, Facebook’s family of apps serves 3.96 billion users monthly, and Amazon Web Services hosts 32% of the cloud computing market creating chokepoints where intelligence agencies can access vast quantities of personal data through a small number of corporate partners. These platforms employ sophisticated behavioral analysis algorithms that can predict individuals’ political preferences, sexual orientation, mental health status, and likelihood of engaging in various behaviors with remarkable accuracy.
The surveillance capabilities embedded in these systems extend far beyond traditional forms of monitoring, encompassing predictive analytics that can identify individuals likely to commit crimes, join political movements, or engage in other activities of interest to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The algorithmic surveillance system operates through machine learning models that analyze patterns in data to identify anomalies, predict future behavior, and flag individuals for further investigation. This system creates the illusion that surveillance is primarily about identifying genuine threats, while enabling intelligence agencies to monitor entire populations and identify individuals based on their political beliefs, social associations, and behavioral patterns. The result is a surveillance ecosystem where the distinction between investigation and persecution has become increasingly blurred, as predictive algorithms enable law enforcement to target individuals based on their likelihood of engaging in future criminal activity rather than evidence of past wrongdoing.
The illusion of democratic oversight in surveillance systems operates through what political scientists call “security theater” elaborate procedures and institutions that create the appearance of accountability while enabling surveillance agencies to operate with minimal constraints. Legislative oversight committees, judicial review processes, and inspector general offices create the impression that surveillance activities are subject to rigorous oversight, while in practice these institutions lack the technical expertise, political will, or legal authority to meaningfully constrain surveillance operations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the United States, for example, has approved over 99% of surveillance requests submitted by intelligence agencies, while classified oversight reports reveal systematic violations of privacy protections that are rarely prosecuted or punished.
Parliamentary intelligence committees in democratic nations face similar limitations, as their members lack security clearances to access the most sensitive surveillance programs and rely on intelligence agencies themselves for information about surveillance activities. The result is an oversight system that operates more like a rubber stamp than a meaningful check on surveillance power, creating the illusion of accountability while enabling intelligence agencies to operate with near-total autonomy.
This system is particularly insidious because it provides democratic legitimacy to surveillance programs that would be unacceptable in openly authoritarian systems, while maintaining the fiction that surveillance activities are subject to meaningful legal and political constraints. The oversight theater serves not to limit surveillance, but to legitimize it, providing political cover for intelligence agencies while maintaining public confidence in democratic institutions. The citizens who believe they are protected by oversight mechanisms are often the most vulnerable to surveillance overreach, as they lack the skepticism necessary to question systems that appear to operate within legal boundaries.
The psychological dimension of modern surveillance operates through what researchers call “surveillance chilling effects” the phenomenon where individuals modify their behavior in response to the awareness that they might be monitored, even when they are not actually under surveillance. This effect is particularly pronounced in digital environments, where the possibility of surveillance is omnipresent and the boundaries between public and private behavior become increasingly blurred. Studies by the Pew Research Center and the American Civil Liberties Union have documented significant changes in online behavior following revelations about government surveillance programs, with individuals reporting reduced willingness to research sensitive topics, contact certain organizations, or express controversial opinions online. The chilling effect extends beyond digital behavior to encompass offline activities, as individuals become aware that their physical movements, financial transactions, and social interactions are potentially subject to surveillance through digital tracking systems. This psychological surveillance operates through what Michel Foucault termed the “panopticon effect”
The disciplinary power that emerges when individuals believe they might be watched at any time, leading them to internalize surveillance and modify their behavior accordingly. The genius of digital surveillance lies in its ability to create this panopticon effect without the need for actual monitoring, as the mere possibility of surveillance is often sufficient to generate the desired behavioral changes. Intelligence agencies have recognized that the most effective surveillance systems are those that create uncertainty about when and how surveillance occurs, leading individuals to assume they are always potentially under surveillance. This psychological dimension of surveillance is particularly effective because it operates below the threshold of conscious awareness, shaping behavior through anxiety and uncertainty rather than explicit coercion.
The global surveillance ecosystem has created what intelligence analysts call “surveillance interdependence” a system where intelligence agencies from different nations share surveillance capabilities and data to circumvent domestic legal constraints on surveillance activities. The Five Eyes alliance represents the most formal version of this system, but similar arrangements exist across the globe, with intelligence agencies routinely sharing surveillance data with foreign partners to evade legal restrictions on domestic surveillance. This system enables intelligence agencies to claim they are not conducting surveillance on their own citizens while accessing the same information through intelligence sharing agreements with foreign partners. The result is a global surveillance network where legal protections that limit domestic surveillance become meaningless, as intelligence agencies can access the same information through international partnerships that operate with minimal oversight or accountability.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and similar privacy laws create the illusion of strong privacy protections, while intelligence sharing agreements enable agencies to access the same personal data through foreign intelligence services that are not bound by domestic privacy laws. This system is particularly insidious because it maintains the fiction that democratic nations respect privacy rights while enabling intelligence agencies to conduct mass surveillance through proxy relationships with foreign partners. The surveillance interdependence system operates through what legal scholars call “jurisdiction shopping” the practice of conducting surveillance activities in jurisdictions with weaker legal protections, then sharing the results with intelligence agencies that could not legally conduct the same activities themselves. This system creates a global surveillance network where privacy protections become meaningless, as intelligence agencies can always find a jurisdiction willing to conduct surveillance activities that would be illegal in their home countries.
The corporate surveillance apparatus has evolved into what technology researchers call “surveillance capitalism” a business model where personal data is extracted, analyzed, and monetized through advertising systems that generate unprecedented wealth for technology companies while enabling surveillance capabilities that exceed those of most government agencies. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon have built business models around collecting and analyzing personal data, creating detailed profiles of individuals that include their preferences, behaviors, relationships, and psychological characteristics. These companies employ teams of data scientists, behavioral economists, and psychologists who develop increasingly sophisticated methods for extracting value from personal data, while creating the illusion that these services are provided for free. The surveillance capitalism model operates through what researchers call “data colonialism” the systematic appropriation of human experience for capital accumulation, similar to how colonial powers extracted resources from colonized territories.
Technology companies have perfected the art of extracting value from personal data while maintaining the fiction that users are customers rather than products, creating elaborate terms of service agreements that provide legal cover for surveillance activities while obscuring the true nature of these relationships. The result is a surveillance system that operates with minimal oversight or accountability, as technology companies claim to be providing beneficial services while conducting surveillance activities that would be illegal if performed by government agencies. This system creates the illusion that surveillance is primarily a byproduct of beneficial technological services, while enabling technology companies to build surveillance capabilities that exceed those of most intelligence agencies.
The artificial intelligence revolution has transformed surveillance from a reactive system that responds to specific threats into a predictive system that anticipates future behavior and identifies individuals for investigation based on algorithmic assessments of their likelihood to engage in various activities. Machine learning algorithms can analyze vast quantities of data to identify patterns that humans cannot detect, enabling surveillance systems to predict everything from criminal behavior to political preferences with remarkable accuracy. These systems operate through what computer scientists call “algorithmic surveillance” the use of artificial intelligence to analyze behavioral data and identify individuals for further investigation based on predictive models.
The AI surveillance system creates the illusion that surveillance is primarily about identifying genuine threats, while enabling intelligence agencies to monitor entire populations and target individuals based on algorithmic assessments rather than evidence of wrongdoing. This system is particularly insidious because it operates through mathematical models that appear objective and scientific, while actually encoding the biases and assumptions of their creators. The result is a surveillance system that can perpetuate and amplify existing social inequalities while maintaining the fiction that surveillance decisions are based on objective criteria rather than human judgment. The AI surveillance system operates through what researchers call “automated inequality” the use of algorithmic systems to make decisions about individuals that systematically disadvantage certain groups while maintaining the appearance of fairness and objectivity. This system creates the illusion that surveillance is becoming more precise and targeted, while actually enabling mass surveillance systems that operate with minimal human oversight or accountability.
The financial surveillance ecosystem has evolved into what banking regulators call “surveillance finance” a system where every financial transaction is monitored, analyzed, and potentially reported to law enforcement agencies through anti-money laundering (AML) and suspicious activity reporting (SAR) systems. Banks and financial institutions are required to monitor customer transactions for suspicious activity, using sophisticated software systems that flag transactions based on algorithmic assessments of their likelihood to involve criminal activity. These systems generate millions of suspicious activity reports annually, creating a vast database of financial intelligence that is accessible to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The financial surveillance system operates through what legal scholars call “regulatory capture” the process by which regulatory systems designed to prevent financial crimes become tools for mass surveillance of financial behavior.
The result is a surveillance system where every financial transaction is potentially subject to monitoring and analysis, while maintaining the fiction that financial surveillance is primarily about preventing money laundering and terrorist financing. This system creates the illusion that financial surveillance is targeted at specific criminal activities, while enabling intelligence agencies to monitor the financial behavior of entire populations. The financial surveillance ecosystem operates through what economists call “surveillance rent” the value that accrues to institutions that control access to financial surveillance data, creating economic incentives for expanding surveillance capabilities. This system transforms financial institutions into surveillance partners, as they are required to monitor customer behavior and report suspicious activity to government agencies while maintaining the fiction that they are primarily providing financial services.
The emergence of biometric surveillance systems has created what privacy researchers call “surveillance embodiment” the extension of surveillance capabilities into the physical characteristics of human bodies, making it impossible for individuals to escape surveillance by changing their behavior or identity. Facial recognition systems, fingerprint databases, DNA analysis, and other biometric technologies enable surveillance agencies to identify individuals with unprecedented accuracy, while creating permanent records that cannot be altered or deleted. These systems operate through what computer scientists call “surveillance infrastructure” the physical and technical systems that enable surveillance activities, including cameras, sensors, databases, and analytical software.
The biometric surveillance system creates the illusion that surveillance is primarily about identifying specific individuals, while enabling intelligence agencies to monitor entire populations and track individuals’ movements and activities across time and space. This system is particularly insidious because it operates through biological characteristics that individuals cannot change, making it impossible to escape surveillance by altering behavior or identity. The result is a surveillance system that transforms human bodies into surveillance devices, while maintaining the fiction that biometric surveillance is primarily about security and identification.
The biometric surveillance ecosystem operates through what legal scholars call “surveillance creep” the gradual expansion of surveillance capabilities into new domains of human experience, creating a comprehensive surveillance system that monitors every aspect of individuals’ lives. This system creates the illusion that biometric surveillance is becoming more precise and targeted, while actually enabling mass surveillance systems that operate with minimal legal constraints or oversight mechanisms.
The global response to surveillance revelations has created what political scientists call “surveillance legitimacy” the process by which surveillance activities that were once considered controversial become accepted as normal and necessary aspects of modern governance. The Edward Snowden revelations in 2013 initially generated significant public concern about surveillance overreach, but subsequent years have seen a gradual normalization of surveillance activities through legal reforms that provide retroactive authorization for previously illegal surveillance programs. The result is a political system where surveillance activities that were once considered scandalous become accepted as necessary security measures, while creating the illusion that democratic oversight has been strengthened rather than weakened. This legitimacy process operates through what researchers call “surveillance amnesia” the tendency for public concern about surveillance to fade over time as surveillance activities become normalized through legal and political processes.
The surveillance legitimacy system creates the illusion that democratic societies have successfully balanced security and privacy concerns, while actually enabling the expansion of surveillance capabilities with minimal constraints. This system is particularly effective because it operates through democratic processes that appear to provide citizen input while actually serving to legitimize surveillance activities that would be unacceptable in openly authoritarian systems. The result is a surveillance system that operates with democratic legitimacy while conducting activities that undermine the fundamental principles of democratic governance.
The surveillance legitimacy process transforms surveillance overreach into surveillance normalcy, creating a political environment where citizens accept surveillance activities that previous generations would have considered intolerable violations of privacy and freedom. The illusion of democratic accountability persists even as surveillance systems operate with unprecedented scope and minimal meaningful oversight, creating a form of authoritarian surveillance that maintains the appearance of democratic legitimacy while systematically eroding the privacy rights and civil liberties that form the foundation of democratic society.
The writer is a lawyer and legal researcher
Similar Posts by Mt Kenya Times:
- K Unity SACCO Strengthens 17-Year Partnership with Craft Silicon to Deepen Digitization and Financial Trust
- Mt Kenya Times ePAPER July 11, 2025
- Government Should Enforce Laws To Fight Plastic Pollution
- Senator Sifuna Seeks Answers On Lack Of Electricity In Nairobi County
- Postmortem Report Reveals 12-Year-Old Bridgit Njoki Died From Gunshot Wound During Saba Saba Protests
