Why Kenya must move fast to invest in digital rights security

Disagreeing with issuing digital IDs can stem from various concerns, including privacy, security, and potential infringement on civil liberties. Some might disagree with issuing digital IDs because the process often involves collecting and storing personal information in electronic databases.

This raises concerns about who has access to this data, how it’s stored, and how it might be used or misused by governments, corporations, or hackers. Secondly, storing personal information digitally can make it vulnerable to cyber-attacks and data breaches. If a digital ID system is compromised, it could lead to identity theft, financial fraud, or other forms of cybercrime. Thirdly, some argue that requiring citizens to have digital IDs infringes on their rights to privacy and freedom of movement.

Most people may see it as a form of government surveillance or control over individuals’ lives.

Implementing a digital ID system could disproportionately affect marginalised communities that may have limited access to technology or face barriers in obtaining official identification documents. This could exacerbate existing inequalities and lead to further exclusion and discrimination.

The right to information is enshrined in various legal instruments globally, including Kenya’s Constitution. It guarantees citizens access to information held by public bodies, subject to certain limitations. While this right primarily pertains to access to government-held information, its principles can be extrapolated to digitalising citizens’ data.

The fairness of digitalising citizens’ personal information hinges on several factors, including whether citizens are adequately informed about the data being collected, how it will be used, and who will have access to it.

Transparency is essential to ensure individuals can make informed decisions about their privacy.

Is consent obtained from individuals before collecting their personal information? Consent should be freely given, specific, and informed, per data protection laws.

Are robust measures in place to safeguard citizens’ data against unauthorised access, misuse, or breaches? Adequate security measures are vital to protect individuals’ privacy and prevent identity theft or fraud.

Is the collected data used only for its intended purpose, or is it shared or repurposed without consent? Adhering to the purpose limitation principle ensures that personal information is not misused or exploited.

Are there mechanisms to hold entities responsible for misusing or mishandling citizens’ personal information? Accountability mechanisms, such as data protection authorities, are crucial in enforcing compliance with data protection laws.

Case example includes the Kenyan World Coin Case, which reiterates that technology in Kenya is based on the assumption that a foreign company can walk into the country and implement their technology projects maliciously by luring citizens with money to key in their data that is not well acquainted to them or using the correct data protection procedures. This is where the legal fraternity comes in to appreciate citizens’ data protection issues and build jurisprudence through their wise decisions.

In conclusion, while digitalising citizens’ personal information can enhance efficiency and service delivery, it must be done to uphold fairness and legality. From the perspective of the right to information in the Kenyan context, ensuring transparency, obtaining informed consent, implementing robust security measures, adhering to purpose limitations, and establishing accountability mechanisms are essential.

By prioritising these principles, Kenya can navigate the complexities of digitalisation while safeguarding citizens’ privacy rights and promoting transparency and accountability in handling personal data.