ICT Insight with Institute of ICT Professionals: Data dictatorship and the blurry lines between surveillance and trust

By Desmond ISRAEL Esq.

Trust is the currency of the digital age — but like any currency, it can be manipulated, inflated, or devalued. In the growing tension between data collection and civil liberties, between digital governance and digital control, a darker reality is emerging: the quiet rise of data dictatorship.

This isn’t just a problem in authoritarian regimes. It’s happening everywhere — often under the banner of national security, public health, or “innovation.” Governments and corporations, with their fingers on the data spigot, are gathering more information than ever about where we go, what we buy, who we talk to, and how we think. The boundaries between surveillance and service, between protection and control, are getting harder to see — and easier to cross.

The question isn’t whether data can be used to help societies. It clearly can. The question is whether the unchecked power to collect and analyze personal data is beginning to undermine the very social contracts it claims to uphold.

Surveillance Infrastructure Disguised as Convenience

It often starts with convenience. A cashless society promises speed and traceability. National digital IDs make service delivery smoother. Health apps offer diagnostics from your phone. City sensors reduce traffic. All of these advances make modern life easier — and all of them collect data.

But this infrastructure, once built, rarely sits idle. It can be retooled in moments of crisis. During the pandemic, thermal scanners, mobile location tracking, and facial recognition were deployed under emergency orders. In some countries, those systems were quietly expanded even after the health emergency waned. What began as public health tools morphed into long-term surveillance networks.

In democratic societies, this expansion is often subtle. In others, it’s explicit. China’s social credit system is the most widely cited example of data used as a tool of behavioral control. But more worrying is the trend in so-called “middle ground” countries — those that deploy mass surveillance without the legal safeguards or public debate required to keep it in check.

Ghana, for example, is advancing in biometric registration, digital taxation, and centralized citizen databases. These can boost efficiency and transparency. But without independent oversight, cybersecurity guarantees, and meaningful consent frameworks, the same systems could be turned against citizens — tracking dissent, profiling communities, or suppressing opposition.

What separates smart governance from digital authoritarianism isn’t the technology. It’s the rules, the accountability, and the trust architecture that surround it.

The Illusion of Consent

In theory, consent protects us. We agree to terms. We tick boxes. We allow apps and services to gather our data. But this system is broken. In reality, users rarely understand what they’re consenting to — or have no real choice at all.

Try opening a bank account, boarding a plane, or even applying for a job without submitting biometric data. Technically, you can opt out. Practically, you can’t. Consent under coercion is not consent — it’s compliance.

Worse, even when data is gathered for legitimate purposes, it can be quietly repurposed. A system built to authenticate voters can be used to monitor protest movements. A telecom registry meant for billing can become a dragnet for surveillance. These are not hypothetical risks. In various countries, they have already happened.

This erosion of consent doesn’t just affect individuals. It affects markets. As people lose confidence in how their data is handled, they become reluctant to engage online. E-commerce, fintech, telemedicine — all suffer when trust breaks down.

And rebuilding that trust is far harder than collecting the data in the first place.

The Corporate-State Collusion

Much of the data that governments use for surveillance isn’t even collected by governments. It’s gathered by tech firms, telcos, fintech apps, and social media platforms — then accessed through formal partnerships, informal backchannels, or outright purchase.

This creates a dangerous triangle: the state has the power, the private sector has the data, and the user has neither transparency nor recourse. Even in democracies, intelligence agencies and law enforcement can now access vast amounts of metadata without needing court orders — because they don’t need to collect it themselves.

Consider how easily predictive policing tools can be deployed in a city where citizen data is collected through ride-hailing apps, CCTVs, and digital ID-linked transactions. These tools claim to spot patterns and pre-empt crimes, but they also risk reinforcing bias, targeting marginalized groups, and violating presumption of innocence.

In places without strong data protection laws — or where enforcement is weak — the leap from service optimization to surveillance is just one policy shift away.

Reclaiming Digital Trust: The Hard Road Back

So how do we push back against data dictatorship without rejecting the benefits of digital systems? It starts with reclaiming the balance of power — putting citizens, not just states or corporations, at the center of data governance.

Laws alone aren’t enough. Many countries have passed data protection acts, but few enforce them consistently. What’s needed is an ecosystem of enforcement: independent regulators, civic oversight bodies, digital rights organizations, and a tech-savvy public willing to challenge misuse.

Transparency mechanisms — like audit logs, public breach disclosures, and data-sharing registries — must be mandatory, not optional. Governments that collect data should be required to show exactly what they collect, why, and how long they store it. Citizens should be able to request, correct, and delete their data without needing a lawyer or a bribe.

Innovation also has a role. Privacy-enhancing technologies, such as differential privacy or zero-knowledge proofs, allow data to be used without exposing individuals. Decentralized ID systems can verify identity without central control. These are not just academic ideas — they are tools that, if adopted seriously, can give people more control over their digital lives.

And finally, there must be accountability. When surveillance powers are abused — whether by public agencies or private firms — there must be consequences. Fines, firings, prosecutions. Without accountability, every safeguard is just a suggestion.

Wrap Up: The Thin Line Between Trust and Tyranny

We are told that data is the new oil. But unlike oil, data flows both ways. It fuels economies, but it can also corrode freedoms. The same data that enables innovation can enable oppression. And in a world obsessed with optimization, the temptation to use data as a tool of control will only grow.

Ghana, like many countries building digital states, must decide now: will it become a model of consensual, rights-based data governance, or will it drift — silently, incrementally — toward a system where surveillance becomes the norm and trust becomes the casualty. That line is thinner than most people think. And once it’s crossed, it’s hard to walk back.

Desmond is a | Partner at AGNOS Legal Company | Law lecturer at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) Law School | Lawyer and technology law expert | Member, IIPGH

For more details, email: [email protected]

The post ICT Insight with Institute of ICT Professionals: Data dictatorship and the blurry lines between surveillance and trust appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.

Read Full Story