0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views3 pages

FRT Zimbabwe Analysis

Uploaded by

tsinakwadit
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views3 pages

FRT Zimbabwe Analysis

Uploaded by

tsinakwadit
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Analysis of Facial Recognition Technology Deployment in Zimbabwe

Name: Tinovimbanashe Nyasha Tsinakwadi


ID: 230027
Lecturer: Nkosana Maphosa

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.

Case Law on Privacy


In Madhuku v. Minister of Justice (2000), the Zimbabwean Supreme Court ruled that
infringements on privacy must meet rigorous legal standards, underscoring the need for
judicial oversight. Similarly, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v. Minister of State for
National Security (2021) reinforced this stance. In this case, the High Court ruled against an
internet shutdown during civil unrest, asserting citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of
expression.
Data Protection Act and FRT
The Data Protection Act (Chapter 11:22) aims to establish a robust framework for data
protection in Zimbabwe, empowering the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory
Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) as the Data Protection Authority. However, the Act lacks
specific measures for biometric data regulation. For example, while it penalizes unlawful
data disclosure, it does not adequately address the storage or sharing of biometric data
collected through 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.

Recommendations for Legal and Regulatory Framework


To safeguard privacy and address FRT’s unique challenges, Zimbabwe’s Cyber and Data
Protection Act (2021) could be refined to include provisions for defining biometric data as
sensitive, regulating FRT data collection, storage, and sharing, and setting strict cross-
border data transfer guidelines, especially with foreign partners such as CloudWalk
Technology.

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.

You might also like