This marks the primary in a series by Unite.AI exploring the growing connections between international government bodies and AI surveillance. Across the globe, state-driven surveillance programs are rapidly evolving, often underpinned by partnerships with powerful technology exporters comparable to China, Israel, and Russia. Uganda serves as a compelling case study, revealing how AI surveillance has been deployed, expanded, and justified within the name of national security.
AI surveillance in Uganda has undergone significant expansion, deeply influencing security, governance, and public oversight. There could also be cause for concern, especially with the Ugandan government previously using military courts to prosecute civilians.
Uganda has recently implemented an in depth AI-powered surveillance system featuring hundreds of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras equipped with facial recognition capabilities. This initiative – a part of a nationwide “Protected City” plan – was rolled out with the assistance of China’s telecom giant Huawei. Ugandan authorities argue that the high-tech network will bolster public safety and help curb rising crime rates. Nonetheless, this system has also sparked debate, as critics voice concerns over privacy, potential abuse of the technology, and the broader implications of state surveillance. Uganda’s experience exemplifies a growing global trend of governments adopting AI surveillance within the name of security, raising necessary questions on how one can balance security and civil liberties within the digital age.
Background: Uganda’s Protected City Surveillance Project
The push for CCTV surveillance in Uganda gained momentum after a series of high-profile violent crimes in 2017. Following the assassination of a senior police official, AIGP Andrew Kaweesi in March 2017, President Yoweri Museveni directed security agencies to urgently install “spy cameras” across major towns and highways. This political directive led to the launch of an ambitious Protected City surveillance project in 2018, managed by Huawei. The project got here with a price tag of Ugandan Shillings 458 billion (roughly $126 million).
Implementation began in Kampala Metropolitan Area as the primary phase. The plan envisioned over 3,200 cameras deployed across greater Kampala, monitored from centralized command centers. While now we have no current data, by late 2019, the rollout within the capital was nearly complete – about (roughly 2,500 cameras) had been installed. These cameras watch over streets, intersections, and public spaces, feeding video to police control rooms in real time. The system is an element of Huawei’s global Protected City initiative which goals to make use of technology to help law enforcement in urban areas. Ugandan police officials indicated that after Kampala, the surveillance network could be expanded to all major towns nationwide.
Huawei Ownership
Huawei Technologies is officially a personal company that claims to be entirely employee-owned. Its unique ownership structure is very opaque: roughly 99% of Huawei is held by a trade union committee on behalf of its employees, with founder Ren Zhengfei reportedly owning the remaining 1%.
Employees are granted virtual shares that entitle them to profit-sharing, but external analyses suggest these shares don’t confer typical control or voting rights over the corporate’s governance. This structure – ownership via an organization labor union committee – is incredibly unusual in China, especially for a firm of Huawei’s size
The dearth of transparency about who ultimately controls the trade union committee has fueled questions on whether Huawei’s management or other actors wield true influence over the corporate.
Huawei insists no outside entity (including the federal government) holds any shares and that it’s an independent, employee-run enterprise.
Despite Huawei’s assertions of independence, its ties to the Chinese state and Communist Party are some extent of contention. Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, is a former engineer for the People’s Liberation Army, and he has been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) because the late Nineteen Seventies. Like many large Chinese corporations, Huawei hosts an internal CCP committee or “party cell” amongst its employees.
Such party organizations are common in Chinese firms and are supposed to ensure the corporate’s policies align with state and Party objectives
Western officials often point to Ren’s military background and Party membership as signs that Huawei may very well be influenced by Beijing. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for instance, alleged in 2019 that Ren was “lying” about Huawei’s lack of presidency ties.
Official Rationale and Early Impact
The Ugandan government’s stated rationale for investing in AI-powered surveillance is to strengthen public safety and modernize crime fighting. Police and government officials pointed to a surge in violent crime – including assassinations, robberies, and kidnappings – as justification for the CCTV project. The procurement of the Huawei camera system was explicitly presented as an effort “to cut back violent crime” within the country.
Security agencies quickly touted early attributed to the brand new surveillance tools. In early 2019, as cameras were being installed around Kampala, police reported dozens of incidents already solved or aided by the CCTV footage. Officials claimed the cameras helped investigators make progress on over 40 cases inside Kampala’s central and surrounding divisions in a brief period, including identifying suspects and vehicles involved in crimes. The Uganda Police Force praised the CCTV network as a major upgrade for policing, noting that features like facial recognition and automatic number plate reading would enhance their ability to discover criminals and respond swiftly.
Privacy and Political Concerns
Despite the promised security advantages, Uganda’s AI surveillance program has faced heavy criticism from opposition leaders, civil society activists, and privacy advocates. Their concerns center on the potential for abuse of those technologies in a rustic with a long-ruling government and a history of crackdowns on dissent. Opposition politicians have warned that the nationwide camera network could easily be became a tool for political surveillance – used to trace and discover government critics under the pretext of public security. Notably, Ugandan police acquired the facial recognition camera system just ahead of contentious general elections in 2021, heightening suspicions about its true purpose.
Privacy rights organizations also objected to the shortage of adequate legal safeguards and oversight when the surveillance rollout began. The Kampala-based digital rights group Unwanted Witness criticized the federal government for rushing to deploy “spy cameras” without an enabling law or clear guidelines, warning that this might “endanger more lives” relatively than protect them. Activists identified that within the absence of privacy laws and transparency, the vast data collected by CCTV and facial recognition systems may very well be leveraged to watch innocent residents, stifle free expression, or goal political opponents.
Comparative Insights: AI Surveillance in Africa
Uganda will not be alone in embracing AI-powered surveillance – similar programs have been launched in other nations, raising parallel debates over security and privacy:
- Kenya: Uganda’s neighbor has partnered with Huawei to implement its own Protected City surveillance system, with over 1,800 high-definition cameras installed in Nairobi.
- Zimbabwe: The country entered a controversial agreement with CloudWalk Technology to develop a nationwide facial recognition program.
Conclusion
Uganda’s foray into AI-powered surveillance underscores the double-edged sword that such technology represents. Moving forward, ensuring legal protections and oversight can be crucial. Uganda’s experience highlights the broader global challenge of balancing security needs with privacy rights.
The implications of a completely surveilled population are profound. Residents may experience self-censorship, limiting their freedom of speech and expression out of fear of presidency retaliation. A climate of mass surveillance may lead to a chilling effect on political dissent, activism, and public assembly. Moreover, extensive surveillance often erodes trust between the federal government and the general public, as people may feel they’re being watched in any respect times, inhibiting open democratic discourse. Without strict safeguards, these technologies could shift from crime prevention tools to instruments of control.
That is only the start of our deep dive into the worldwide rise of AI-driven surveillance and its far-reaching implications. As this series continues, we are going to explore how governments wield AI as a tool for control, the risks it poses to civil liberties, and the growing concerns over privacy and transparency. From predictive policing to mass data collection, we are going to examine the real-world impact of AI surveillance and what it means for the long run of freedom and governance in an increasingly monitored world.
