Vodafone Reveals Government Requests for Subscriber Information

By Ashnah Kalemera & Juliet N. Nanfuka
The true extent of governments’ surveillance and monitoring of citizens’ communications across the world remains largely unknown. This is despite legislative rights provisions for privacy and increased calls for data protection of citizens in their communications.
Last month, Vodafone became the first telecomuminications company to reveal the extent of government surveillance of its subscribers. In its Law Enforcement Disclosure Report, the company revealed that governments in some of the 29 countries in which it operates – including in Africa – are requesting its subscribers’ data sometimes without warrants. In addition, government agencies also listen in on subscribers’ conversations and monitor their whereabouts through wires connected to the Vodafone networks.
However, the British company and world’s second largest mobile phone operator could not disclose the full extent of surveillance in nine of the countries it operates in due to legal provisions prohibiting the disclosure of information relating to government wiretapping and interception of communications.
Vodafone operates in eight African countries, namely the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Lesotho, Tanzania, Mozambique (in all of which it operates as Vodacom), Kenya (as Safaricom), Egypt and Ghana. In 2013, the company received around 100,000 requests from African governments for metadata such as phone numbers, addresses, device locations and times of calls and text messages.
The report cites the Tanzanian government as having made the highest number of requests – 98, 765. Authorities in Congo made 436 requests while in Lesotho 488 requests, were made.
Due to laws restricting the disclosure of information related to law enforcement, Vodafone was unable to publish statistics on the other five African states where it has operations.
According to the report, in Egypt, local criminal laws prohibit the disclosure of national security-related information and other matters related to law enforcement. In Ghana, unclear legal restrictions on access to, transfer and disclosure of electronic records meant that Vodafone was unable to publish information on the demands made. “We have asked the [Ghana] authorities for guidance: however, we have not yet received a reply.” said the report.
Vodafone was also unable to publish statistics related to the Kenyan government’s request for individual communications data due to unclear provisions in the Official Secrets Act and the National Intelligence Services Act. Unclear legal provisions in Mozambique meant that the same statistics could not be published.
Similarly, South Africa’s Regulation on Interception of Communication and Provision of Communication-related Information Act prohibits the disclosure of the fact that any demand for lawful interception or communications data has been issued under the Act. Accordingly, Vodafone did not publish any statistics for the country.
The legal provisions preventing Vodafone from indicating the exact number of government requests for its subscriber information, instances of lawful interceptions or even any indication of interception capabilities, is telling of the degree to which some governments will go to hide the extent of their surveillance.
In the report, Vodafone disclosed that it had not implemented the technical requirements necessary to enable lawful interception in Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Ghana, Tanzania and Mozambique and as such had not received any demands from those authorities for lawful interception assistance.
Vodafone Communication Interception and Data Requests in Africa
(Source: Country-by-country disclosure of law enforcement assistance demands Report)

Country Communications meta data requests Implementation of technical capacity for lawful interception
Democratic Republic of Congo 436 None
Egypt Disclosure of information is unlawful
Ghana Disclosure of information is unlawful None
Kenya Disclosure of information is unlawful None
Lesotho 488 None
Mozambique Disclosure of information is unlawful None
South Africa Disclosure of information is unlawful
Tanzania 98,765 None

Vodafone reported that similar to Egypt and South Africa, the disclosure of information related to interception of communications and government data requests was unlawful in India, Qatar, Romania and Turkey.
In Europe, Italy made the highest metadata requests to the company – a total of 605,601. This was followed by Hungary (75,938), Spain (48,679) and Portugal (28,145). The governments of Albania, Ireland and Malta made 7,667, 4,124 and 3,773 metadata requests respectively. Two requests were received from Belgium and three from France. From the South Pacific, 760 metadata requests were received from Fiji.
The report states that Australia, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom were the only countries whose authorities published statistics on interception of communications and requests for communications metadata.
Vodafone’s report brings to the fore the intermediary liability challenge faced by many other telecommunications service providers across the world. The company published its statistics in an effort to urge all states to publish annual data on the surveillance and monitoring of citizens via digital technologies. Indeed, a similar recommendation was made by a research report published in May 2014 on the State of Internet Freedoms in East Africa. The report revealed the use of legal and extra-legal means to snoop on citizens under the guise of national security in the six countries studied – Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda.
While Vodafone has broken its silence on this highly secretive issue, it remains to be seen whether other service providers will follow suit or whether governments will change their legal provisions to allow for increased transparency in surveillance.

SMS System Boosts Reporting of Human Rights Abuses in Tanzania

Growing the capacity of citizens and civic groups including human rights networks to use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to foster free speech, human rights, access to information and open governance is one of the objectives of the ICT4Democracy in East Africa Network. Since April 2014, the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance (CHRAGG) in Tanzania has conducted a campaign to raise awareness about the SMS for Human Rights system throughout Tanzania.
The system, which was launched on Human Rights Day in December 2012, has made it easier for citizens to report human rights violations to the Commission. In 2013, a total of 173,493 complaints were received through the system. Since then, the number of complaints filed with the Commission has averaged more than 100 per week compared to 10 per week prior to the system’s installation.
Given that CHRAGG has only four regional offices to cover a large country, the system has reduced the amount of time, inconvenience and cost to citizens for submitting complaints and following up on case progress, particularly for those in rural areas. The electronic case handling system has also eased the work of investigators by reducing their travel burden and enabling more efficient evidence gathering. Besides text message, the platform allows for video and image capabilities for complainants and informers.
The SMS for Human Rights System is a mobile phone based Complaints Handling Management Information System aimed at expanding CHRAGG’s case handling and tracking. An individual is able to file a complaint by texting the word ‘REPORT’ or ‘TAARIFA’ to the toll free number:  +255 (0) 754 460 259. The individual receives a text message confirming receipt of the complaint. Thereafter, a follow up phone call is made by investigators at the Commission to obtain further information, authenticate the report and assign the individual a reference number. The same number can be used to track the progress of a complaint by texting the word ‘STATUS’ followed by the reference number.
However, although many complaints are received through the system, many citizens, particularly on the semi-autonomous island of Zanzibar, were not aware of its existence.  With an estimated population of 45 million people, Tanzania has about 28 million mobile phone subscriptions representing a teledensity of 61 phones per 100 inhabitants.
The system’s awareness campaign launch in Zanzibar in April was officiated by CHRAGG’s Commissioner Zahor Kharmis. CHRAGG’s Director of Human Rights Francis Nzuki and Wilfred Warioba, the Head of Management Information System Unit demonstrated how the system works and fielded questions from the attendees who included journalists, representatives from civil society organisations and ordinary citizens.
The event was televised live on Television Zanzibar (TVZ) and broadcast on Coconut FM radio station. It was also featured on Zanzibar Broadcasting TV and Radio, Independent TV, Radio Coconut, Radio Chuchu, Radio Hits, Radio Zenj, Radio Alnoor and two local print newspapers.
Since the launch, two public awareness meetings have been held in the North Unguja and Urban West regions of Zanzibar island. Furthermore, five similar events have been held in Mtwara, KilwaKivinje, Pwani and Dar es Salaam regions on the mainland.
In addition to the meetings, over four million print leaflets have been distributed encouraging citizens to seek redress for human rights violations particularly in the areas of poor service delivery, police brutality, corruption and employment rights.
The awareness raising campaign is expected to cover at least 18 more regions in the coming months. It is expected to incorporate nationwide TV and radio talk shows as well as social media as part of its outreach campaign.
Established in 2001 in fulfillment of Tanzania’s national constitution, CHRAGG plays the dual role of an ombudsman and a human rights commission for the protection and promotion of human rights as well as good governance.
CHRAGG is a member of the ICT4Democracy in East Africa Network whose work is supported by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the Swedish Programme for ICT in Developing Regions (Spider). The network is coordinated by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA).

Uganda: When National Security Trumps Citizens’ Internet Freedoms

The Ugandan telecommunications sector was liberalised in 1998, resulting in an influx of service providers – there are currently four major mobile telecom operators and more than 30 Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The establishment of a Uganda Internet Exchange Point (UIXP) allows for local internet traffic routing, increased speeds and lower costs. The regulatory body reports a teledensity of 52 phones per 100 inhabitants and an internet penetration rate of 20%.
Ugandans have embraced social media as an alternative means of communication with their peers as well as for engaging with government. This is seen in the increase in the popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Youtube and Blogspot, which are ranked among the top 10 most visited websites in Uganda. As such the government has developed social media guidelines to aid its ministries, agencies and departments in communicating and engaging with citizens online.
However, as the telecommunications sector grows, so have the number of laws passed to regulate it. Some of these laws have drawn criticism from internet actors both locally and internationally due to their severity, infringement on human rights and contradictions with other existing legislation, including the constitution.

“No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of that person’s home, correspondence, communication or other property.”

Article 27 (2) of Ugandan Constitution

The use of ICTs in Uganda is threatened by the very laws that are meant to both protect citizens and ensure their rights. The Regulation of Interception of Communications Act, 2010, the Anti-Terrorism Act No.14 of 2002, the Anti-Pornography Act of 2014 and the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 have undercurrents of surveillance, content filtering, and monitoring.
Although these laws are guised under provisions aimed to protect national security or fight cybercrime, in effect they may serve to silence voices critical to the state. Ultimately, these provisions are resulting in self-censorship by both ordinary online users and the media.
Provisions in the Electronic Transactions Act of 2011 limit the liability of ISPs for users’ content and do not require them to monitor stored or transmitted data including for unlawful activity. However, other laws place ISPs at a cross roads of service provision and protection of subscriber information. They are required to lawfully release users’ data to state agencies for purposes such as fighting terrorism and cybercrime. Moreover, the Anti-Pornography Act (2014) requires them to monitor, filter and block content of a pornographic nature.
In the absence of a data protection and privacy law, just like other countries in East Africa (State of Internet Freedom in East Africa), users’ data is vulnerable to mishandling and abuse by the state and ISPs. These vulnerabilities are also transferred to the offline world where freedom of expression and assembly have not been spared as seen in the limiting provisions under the Public Order Management Act, 2013.
It should be noted that the Ugandan government recently announced plans to draft a Data Protection and Privacy Bill. This is a positive step toward the protection of personal information and its use by the government and the private sector.
Read more in the 2014 Internet Freedom in Uganda Report prepared by CIPESA under the OpenNet Africa initiative. The report provides a status of the legislative environment and threats to internet freedoms in the country.

Internet Freedom in Kenya: Balancing Hate Speech And Free Speech

By Juliet N. Nanfuka
As of May 2014, up to 52% of Kenya’s population had access to the internet. This was much higher than in other East African countries, where less than a quarter of the population had access to the internet. Most of the Kenyan population accessed the internet through mobile phones whose own popularity was partly driven by M-Pesa, a mobile phone based financial services system designed by local developers. Currently, Kenya has a mobile teledensity of 77% facilitated by four mobile service providers.
Kenya’s democratic credentials have been improving in recent years, owing to a new liberal constitution and various transparency and governance reforms. The 2010 constitution redistributed power, including that of the president, which for many years had been a highly divisive matter. However, some of the country’s laws as well as recent reforms undermine freedom of expression, including online. This is a familiar occurrence in East African countries, according to the recently released State of Internet Freedoms in East Africa Report.
The use of ICTs In Kenya has brought to the fore the problem of hate speech resulting from ethnic tensions which have polarised the country for decades. Hate speech became most apparent during the 2007 post-election period during which short message service (SMS) fuelled political conflict and ethnic based violence. More than 1,200 people were killed in the aftermath of the elections. A key concern since 2007 has been the movement of hate speech from SMS to social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
The lead up to the country’s March 2013 presidential elections saw the increased use of social media platforms by both citizens and politicians for campaign purposes, civic engagement, and communication, among others. Parallel to this was resurgence of hate speech online. This resulted in the government enacting laws to control hate speech both online and offline. For instance, the National Cohesion and Integration Act of 2008 criminalises the use of speech including words, programs, images or plays that are “threatening, abusive or insulting…” and “with the intent to stir up ethnic hatred…” (Section 13). This Act was supported by the Communications Amendment Act 2009 which also criminalises similar behaviour.
It was also during the elections period that 14 bloggers were sought by Kenyan authorities. Six of them were charged with posting “annoying” statements on social networks under Article 29(b) of the 2009 Kenya Information and Communications Act that prohibits the transmission of a message that is known “to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person”.
Additional actions included the monitoring of social media especially in the lead up to the 2013 elections as well as the issuance of regulations that required service providers to vet political bulk SMS content before rejecting or sending it.
While these actions and related legal provisions are aimed at controlling hate speech, they have had an impact on intermediary liability, free speech and media freedom online, as well as on privacy of communications. This is somewhat similar to Rwanda where freedom of expression has been curbed and online media heavily regulated in the wake of the 1994 genocide, during which traditional media fuelled ethnic tensions [See State of Online Freedom in Rwanda].
However, it should be noted that it is not only the need to fight hate speech online or to defuse ethnic polarisation more generally that has impeded internet freedoms in Kenya. In 2013, the Kenya Communications and Information (Amendment) Act, 2013 and the Media Council Act 2013 were amended but came with provisions that restrict media freedom and general freedom of expression. Further attempts were made by parliament to pass laws that restrict the operations of non-government organisations.
Kenya is faced with the tough challenge of controlling hate speech online without infringing on freedom of expression and privacy. Vague definitions of what constitutes hate speech and unclear provisions on the procedures for taking legal action against accused individuals leaves the gateway open for uncalled for legal action against those voicing legitimate opinion.
Read more on the practices, legislative environment, and threats to online freedoms in Kenya in the 2014 Internet Freedom in Kenya Report prepared by CIPESA under the OpenNet Africa Initiative.

Open Data: Can it Play a Role in Poverty Eradication?

By Emily Mullins
Open data is widely believed to have the potential to positively influence transparent and accountable governance across the world including in developing countries like Uganda. But how can open data help in eradicating poverty? This was the focus of a workshop hosted by Development Initiatives (DI) and Development Research and Training (DRT) on June 5, 2014 in Kampala, Uganda.
The workshop served as the presentation of research findings comparing Kenya and Uganda on how current open data initiatives in the two countries are contributing to poverty eradication and how such initiatives could be strengthened.
Bernard Sabiti, Program Officer at DRT, said although the study found no immediately clear link between open data and poverty eradication in Kenya and Uganda, this did not rule out the possibility for future linkage. He noted that in Kenya, ICT sector growth had driven increased government openness, with initiatives such as the Kenya Open Data portal promoting access to resource allocation information. However, up-to-date data and information remained unavailable. In Uganda, accessibility to public information was limited due to an underdeveloped ICT sector and reliance by government departments on traditional means of information sharing. While Kenya’s Right to Information law remained in draft form and Uganda’s 2005 Access to Information law remained largely unimplemented, accessibility of information in the two countries was further hampered by the rural-urban divide in literacy, access and use of digital technologies.
The study found that often, actors such as civil society, the private sector, the tech community, media, citizens, and academia work in isolation, producing good data but failing to collaborate to extend its usefulness and impact. It suggested that these actors should work more with the government to explore ways that open data can positively influence policy decisions to eradicate poverty.
In Kenya, Mr. Sabiti said, stakeholders and beneficiaries needed to be encouraged to utilise the available data, while encouraging government to open up more data. In Uganda, initial focus needed to be on financial investment in open data processes and capacity building particularly at central government level to implement and strengthen existing access to information frameworks.
However, Charles Lwanga-Ntale, Regional Director of DI Africa, emphasised that open data should not be seen as an end in itself but as a means to reducing poverty. He argued that open data can play a role if the quality, quantity and accessibility of information available to monitor economic, social and environment performance at the national and global levels can enable governments and citizens to track development progress better and to make more informed decisions.
Mr. Lwanga-Ntale said advancements and increase in use of ICTs had created greater demand for openness in Kenya and Uganda. Accordingly, governments needed to take positive steps by embracing open practices and amending policies that restrict access to public information.
“Many political leaders fear openness, and they are attempting to hold onto power in a space that is becoming less and less easy for them to control. Those who tend to favour open data generally come from lower ranks, and have less influence in decision making,” he said.
The utility and appropriateness of data in the public domain emerged as key themes during open floor discussions. One workshop participant questioned whether the youth in the two countries were interested in engaging with open data, or if the information provided was simply too overwhelming to be used effectively by ordinary citizens. Another asked whether the intended recipients of data were being adequately engaged in determining exactly what data they want or need.
Many agreed that these questions raised significant challenges: that open data initiatives sometimes fall into the trap of mass information dumping without consideration of how the information can be utilised. Since data collection can be expensive, such mass data dumps are neither productive nor efficient because the intended beneficiaries remain unable to engage with the information and it remains un-used.
As a means to overcome this, participants said there was a need for more discussion with proposed consumers of data and for data producers to try not to assume the needs of users. The importance of engaging infomediaries such as the media, civil society and community based organisations so that they interact and translate the data for the wider populace was highlighted. Doing so could help create visual aids and simple, meaningful data that more citizens can understand.
Indeed, as pointed out by Vincent Bagiire, Chair of the ICT Committee in the Ugandan Parliament in his key note address at the workshop, a significant challenge to open data in countries like Uganda and Kenya was the tendency for initiatives to rely “too much on the internet” yet citizens as the intended beneficiaries were predominantly based in rural areas where internet access was low.
Sam Mutabazi, the Executive Director of Uganda Road Sector Support Initiative, provided an example of the utility of open data in resource allocation. He presented on prevailing issues in the road sector, such as mismanagement and poor quality control. He argued that open contracting – the disclosure of information on tendering, performance and project status in the sector – could help increase public engagement in monitoring implementation and thus better quality roads.
Overall, the workshop showed that while open data has not been fully realised in East Africa, there was significant potential for it to contribute to overcoming poverty. A lack of funding, especially in Uganda, and internet accessibility issues serve as major barriers to data openness, but the growing youth population, with their tech savviness, have the capacity to demand greater data openness from their governments. Meanwhile, a “unified movement” of multiple stakeholders need to come together to establish and understand the needs of open data consumers and producers so that the data provided can be fully utilised by all not only toward good governance but also overcoming poverty in the respective countries.
Emily Mullins is a 2014 AidData Summer Fellow stationed at CIPESA where she is engaged in geocoding methodology and training. She holds a Masters in International Affairs from the George Bush School at the Texas A&M University, USA.