FRT Zimbabwe Analysis
FRT Zimbabwe Analysis
Introduction
The deployment of facial recognition technology (FRT) in Zimbabwe, particularly through
DigiSoft (Pvt) Ltd’s software, has sparked a significant discussion on its legal and ethical
implications. With increased usage by both government agencies and private companies,
concerns arise over FRT's potential misuse. Issues such as racial biases, unauthorized
surveillance, and risks of data breaches have become focal points in debates around its
impact on citizens’ fundamental rights. This discourse has led to a human rights group filing
a complaint, highlighting potential violations of privacy and non-discrimination rights as
per Zimbabwe’s Constitution—specifically Section 57 (right to privacy) and Section 56
(equality before the law). Additionally, the Data Protection Act (Chapter 11:22) seeks to
regulate data processing but lacks specific guidelines for biometric data collection. This
paper examines the legal landscape surrounding FRT in Zimbabwe and the need for stricter
regulations to uphold ethical standards while safeguarding human rights.
Legal Issues
Under Zimbabwe’s Constitution, the deployment of FRT, particularly by DigiSoft (Pvt) Ltd,
poses significant threats to the right to privacy (Section 57). This section enshrines every
individual’s right to privacy, protecting them from unsanctioned interference with their
personal space, home, or communications. However, critics argue that FRT enables
surveillance practices that infringe on this right, turning public spaces into zones of
constant monitoring.
The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and the Interception of
Communications Act (ICA) further impact privacy rights. AIPPA allows public bodies to
collect personal information under broad interpretations, particularly for national security.
For instance, Section 29(b) permits data collection for law enforcement, raising concerns
about potential misuse. Additionally, the ICA permits communication interception but lacks
adequate oversight to prevent overreach, a situation exacerbated by recent government
partnerships with foreign firms like CloudWalk Technology Co. for FRT.
Ethical Implications
The primary ethical issue with FRT in Zimbabwe is the violation of individuals' privacy.
Under AIPPA, public bodies may collect personal information for national security, a
broadly interpreted provision that could lead to mass surveillance without adequate
oversight. This has implications on informed consent and autonomy, as individuals may be
monitored in public spaces without their knowledge.
Further, a lack of accountability surrounding FRT use poses ethical concerns. Without
stringent legal guidelines, there is a risk of misuse by government and private entities. Law
enforcement agencies, for instance, could utilize FRT to target specific groups based on
biased data.
Moreover, specific legislation is needed to set boundaries for surveillance, ensuring state
authorities use FRT solely for legitimate purposes, like crime prevention, without infringing
on citizens' rights. This legislation should mandate reporting to Parliament on surveillance
activities and expenditures and establish transparency about surveillance technologies.
Conclusion
As facial recognition technology becomes more prevalent in Zimbabwe, the need for
comprehensive legal frameworks is clear. Incorporating stringent guidelines within existing
laws would protect individuals’ rights to privacy and prevent potential abuses by both
government and private entities. Ensuring FRT use aligns with ethical standards and
respects citizens’ rights is imperative in an increasingly surveilled society.
References
1. Zimbabwean Constitution, Section 57 (Privacy Rights) and Section 56 (Equality Before
Law).
2. Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA).
3. Interception of Communications Act (ICA).
4. Madhuku v. Minister of Justice (2000).
5. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v. Minister of State for National Security (2021).
6. Data Protection Act (Chapter 11:22).
7. Cyber and Data Protection Act (2021).
8. TechRepublic, Analysis on Ethical Implications of Facial Recognition.