Will they shut down the Internet during Kenyan poll?
By MUTHONI WANYEKI
Will our access to the Internet be shut down during the
post-polling period? If so, will it be a full or partial shutdown, and
how? What are the likely costs and trade-offs?
We are
increasingly agitated about these questions given that we’re not getting
clear signals from the Communications Authority about its intentions.
At the National Elections Conference, it (sort of) said it wouldn’t.
More recently, it (sort of) said it may.
There’s no
doubt that sensible people are worried about the sentiments flying
around social media platforms in this electoral season. Under the guise
of political partisanship, outrageously sexist and xenophobic slurs have
become the norm. Even though everybody and their dog publicly condemns
“hate speech,” there doesn’t seem to be a legal and public consensus on
what it actually is.
Is it speech that propagates prejudices and stereotypes of people are based on their gender or ethnicity or religion?
Or
is it speech that (intentionally or otherwise) urges and justifies
discriminatory behaviour towards groups of people based on their gender,
ethnicity, religion or other protected ground? Thus risking crossing
the line into incitement to violence?
The fact is,
despite our Constitution’s equality protections and despite the large
number of legislative provisions that touch on the above, neither
responsible authorities nor the public at large seem clear about the
definition of “hate speech.” Which means that, potentially, anything
anybody says that others disagree with can be labelled hate speech.
Thus, we have a problem that we can’t even properly define. Let alone properly deal with.
But is the solution to shut down the Internet, either partially or in full?
The Kenya Information and Communications Technology Action Network (KICTANET) just published a report on precisely this problem.
It noted that, in 2016, no fewer than 11 African states effected full or partial Internet shutdowns in the context of elections or political protests.
These
shutdowns were effected either through Internet Protocol address
blocking (particularly of social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and
WhatsApp). Or through Deep Packet Inspection — the (illegal) diversion
of data to “middleboxes.” And so on.
If the
Communications Authority goes mad and decides to ignore our
constitutional protections to the right to privacy, the freedoms of
expression and information, KICTANET points to the following potential
consequences:
Uganda’s Internet shutdown, during its
elections, is estimated to have cost the economy $2.2 million. Kenya has
more Internet users than Uganda — with mobile money transactions
amounting to a staggering Ksh15 billion ($15 million) daily.
We
have an expectation of customer service so any complicity of our
providers with unconstitutional orders would result in at least some
legal disputes.
Political consequences are just as
grave. Shutdowns fuel wild conspiracy theories and speculation —
precisely when accurate information that we can trust is most needed.
The Communications Authority has already revealed that it intends to
spend a staggering Ksh2 billion ($2 million) on surveillance.
In
short, our authorities are pursuing two dangerous options in this
electoral season. Unauthorised surveillance to catch hate speech (too
imprecisely defined). Or a partial or full Internet shutdown to ensure
hate speech doesn’t circulate and fuel mass violence (translation: that
political protests don’t become uncontrollable).
L. Muthoni Wanyeki is Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes
Comments