In a troubling revelation regarding digital privacy, Boniface Mwangi, a well-known Kenyan pro-democracy activist, observed significant security breaches after his recent release from police custody. Mwangi, who is preparing to run for president in 2027, discovered that one of his personal phones was returned to him with its password protection disabled. This article delves into the implications of this incident and the broader concerns surrounding surveillance in Kenya.
Privacy Concerns Following Arrest
When Boniface Mwangi, the prominent Kenyan pro-democracy activist who plans to run for president in 2027, had his phones returned to him by Kenyan authorities after his controversial arrest last July, he immediately noticed a problem: one of the phones was no longer password protected and could be opened without one.
It was Mwangi’s personal phone, which he used to communicate with friends and mentors, and contained photos of private family moments with his wife and children. Knowing that its contents could be in the hands of the Kenyan government made Mwangi – who has described harassment and even torture – feel unsafe and “exposed,” he told the Guardian.
Details from Citizen Lab’s Report
A report released on Tuesday by Citizen Lab, which tracks digital threats against civil society, found with “high confidence” that Kenyan authorities used Israeli technology to break into Mwangi’s phone while he was under arrest last year, during which time the device was in police custody.
Authorities’ use of the technology, made by Cellebrite, “could have enabled the full extraction of all materials from Mwangi’s device, including messages, private materials, personal files, financial information, passwords, and other sensitive information,” Citizen Lab stated.
The findings have raised concerns about the misuse of Cellebrite’s technology by government entities that fail to prevent such abuses.
In a statement to the Guardian, Cellebrite mentioned that it maintained a “rigorous process for reviewing allegations of technology misuse” and that the company takes “decisive action,” including license termination, when credible evidence is presented.
“We do not respond to speculation and encourage any organization with specific, evidence-based concerns to share them with us directly so we can act on them,” the company stated.
Legal and Political Ramifications
The Guardian reached out to Kenya’s police spokesperson and the Kenyan embassy in Washington for comment but did not receive a response.
Amnesty International noted last July, following Mwangi’s arrest and charges of unlawfully possessing ammunition linked to his involvement in street protests, that the legal actions against him seemed to be part of a broader strategy to intimidate lawful dissent and those committed to upholding the rule of law. Mwangi was released on bond shortly after his arrest and is scheduled to return to court on Wednesday.
In an interview, Mwangi explained that he was acutely aware of the constant surveillance environment within which he operates. He believes authorities have gathered information about him from other people’s phones, leading to insights about his role in the movement.
“We know that I get spied on all the time. I know that my phone calls are monitored and my messages are read,” he stated.
Broader Implications of Surveillance
Last year, a forensic analysis by Citizen Lab revealed that FlexiSPY spyware had been installed on the phones of Kenyan filmmakers Bryan Adagala and Nicholas Wambugu while the devices were in police possession. The police were investigating them concerning a BBC documentary that incriminated security forces in killings during anti-government protests in 2024, with the BBC denying that the two men were involved in the production.
The latest findings by Citizen Lab, Mwangi asserted, point to the complicity of “non-state actors” in facilitating government surveillance of pro-democracy activists, amid claims of abduction and abuse.
“By giving the government access to spy on me, they’re putting my life in jeopardy,” he stated.
Citizen Lab’s findings follow a separate report released in January, indicating that authorities in Jordan appeared to utilize Cellebrite to extract data from the mobile phones of activists opposing the government and supporting Gaza.
In response to previous accusations, Cellebrite stated its technology is used strictly to “access private data only in accordance with legal due process or with appropriate consent to aid investigations legally after an event has occurred.”
Cellebrite products have also reportedly been deployed to target members of civil society in various regions, including Myanmar and Botswana. There are even reports of misuse in Serbia and Belarus.
John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at Citizen Lab, commented: “Your phone holds the keys to your life, and governments shouldn’t be able to help themselves to the contents just because they don’t like what you are saying … When Cellebrite sells their technology to a security service with a track record of abuses, journalists, activists, and those speaking their conscience are at risk.”
Key Takeaways
- Boniface Mwangi’s personal security was compromised after authorities returned an unprotected phone.
- Citizen Lab confirmed Kenyan authorities used Cellebrite’s technology to access Mwangi’s phone during his arrest.
- Reports indicate a troubling trend of government surveillance on activists in Kenya and globally.
- Cellebrite claims to follow a rigorous process to address allegations of technology misuse.
- The use of surveillance technology highlights the risks to activists advocating for democratic freedoms.
FAQ
What happened to Boniface Mwangi’s personal phone?
After his arrest, Mwangi received his phone back without password protection, raising concerns about unauthorized access.
What did Citizen Lab’s report uncover?
The report indicated that Kenyan authorities likely used Cellebrite technology to extract sensitive data from Mwangi’s phone while in police custody.
How does Cellebrite respond to misuse allegations?
Cellebrite states it reviews allegations of misuse and takes decisive action when credible evidence is presented.
What are the implications of this surveillance?
The incident underscores the risks faced by activists and the potential abuse of technology in monitoring dissent.
What has been the global reaction?
Concerns have been raised internationally about the use of similar technologies to surveil activists in various countries.
The events surrounding Mwangi serve as a stark reminder of the ongoing battle for personal privacy and the dangers that activists face in their pursuit of freedom and justice.
