Justice in Our Times

The Hidden Costs of Surveillance: When ‘National Interest’ Overrides Public Good

As governments around the world look for ways to increase control over digital spaces and consumer markets, one policy that has started to surface is the mandatory registration of IMEI numbers for all mobile devices. 

This measure, often promoted under the guise of ‘national interest,’ is framed as a tool for national security, crime prevention, or economic fairness. But, beneath these justifications, the potential for misuse and unintended consequences reveals much about the balance of power between state and citizen, and raises important questions about the future of democratic rights.

Why Mandate IMEI Registration?

At first glance, the idea of registering IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) numbers seems straightforward. An IMEI is a unique identifier linked to every mobile phone, like a digital fingerprint. Governments claim that by registering these numbers, they can more effectively combat crime, regulate black markets, and even increase tax compliance.

In countries with large informal economies or minimal tax oversight, it might seem logical to track devices to understand and formalize economic activity. Yet, such moves can have implications far beyond tax and security. For many, this is an intrusion into personal privacy, an overreach of state power that might feel unnecessary in a democracy.

The Veiled Economic Motivation

It’s likely that economic concerns lie beneath this policy. In nations where only a minority pay taxes through a traditional PAYE (Pay-As-You-Earn) system, governments may look to broader measures like IMEI registration as tools to track economic transactions or identify revenue sources. Under the banner of ‘fairness,’ these surveillance policies allow governments to pull back the curtain on informal sectors, drawing more from already overtaxed populations.

However, the true motivation for such policies may go beyond fairness and crime prevention. Governments strapped for cash due to international debt obligations often seek new revenue streams to fund repayments. The desire for increased tax revenue might thus be less about creating an equitable system and more about covering international debt payments that have not tangibly benefited the population. In this scenario, the rhetoric of ‘national interest’ becomes a smokescreen, obscuring the reality that these measures do little more than continue a cycle of financial abuse and misallocation.

The Impact on Privacy and Democracy

In an individualistic, capitalist society, where personal freedoms are paramount, surveillance policies like IMEI registration are likely to meet fierce resistance. When personal privacy is compromised, trust in government tends to erode, and individuals may push back at the ballot box against measures they feel encroach on their rights. The idea of ‘national interest’ here is unlikely to resonate with a population that feels surveilled rather than served, taxed rather than empowered.

But in a society governed by utu—where the collective good and mutual accountability hold greater value—the implications are more complex. Here, such policies may be seen as not just a loss of privacy but as a breakdown in trust between leaders and the people. For many, the notion that elders or leaders would impose surveillance without clear dialogue signals a departure from the core values of communal trust and responsibility. When these measures lack transparency and undermine the bond between leaders and citizens, the outcome is not security, but alienation.

The Role of ‘National Interest’ in Justifying Control

One of the more concerning aspects of mandatory IMEI registration is its reliance on ‘national interest’ as a justification—a term that is increasingly used to override public good. In some cases, this approach appears in judicial systems where justices are asked to prioritize national interest over rights and freedoms typically protected in democracies. This erosion of public good under the guise of national interest sets a dangerous precedent, inviting a slippery slope where further rights and freedoms can be stripped away under similar reasoning.

If ‘national interest’ continues to be invoked as a justification for intrusive policies, citizens should remain vigilant. As IMEI registration illustrates, seemingly small encroachments on privacy can open the door to broader, unchecked control. When public interest and national interest diverge, people must question whether the policies truly benefit them or serve a narrow agenda that consolidates state power.

Surveillance in the Service of Corruption?

What may seem like a small concession—registering a mobile phone number—has larger implications for government accountability and transparency. When surveillance is normalized, it becomes easier for authorities to justify further infringements on privacy, all while continuing financial abuses and systemic corruption. Rather than creating a fairer society, the policies risk squeezing more from already burdened citizens, diverting resources to cover debts or fund projects that may not ultimately benefit the public.

The promise of economic improvement for the public often feels distant, obscured by layers of policy that prioritize revenue over reform, control over community. Yet, in a healthy economy free from such abuses of power, resources could be allocated in ways that genuinely support public welfare, helping communities thrive and reducing the need for invasive surveillance.

Final Thoughts: Standing Up for Public Interest

In democracies, governments are tasked with serving their citizens, not infringing upon their freedoms. Surveillance policies like IMEI registration may be presented as a necessary trade-off, but we must ask ourselves who ultimately benefits. If public interest is sidelined in favor of vague notions of national interest, we risk losing sight of democratic values and opening the door to further overreach.

For individuals and communities, this is a reminder to stay alert to policies that disguise power consolidation as public good. By questioning motives, demanding transparency, and ensuring fair representation, citizens can hold their governments accountable and safeguard the true interests of the public—ones that empower rather than control, and protect rather than surveil.

Reflection: Biblical Insights on Justice and Leadership

In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus declares His mission with words from Isaiah, affirming that He has come 

“to proclaim good news to the poor... freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” 

This powerful proclamation provides the foundation for Christian moral and ethical life—a life dedicated to justice, mercy, and liberation. In these verses, we find the guiding vision of what it means to be and do in Christian faith: to live with compassion, serve the vulnerable, and challenge systems of oppression.

This mission not only defined Jesus’ ministry but serves as a call to all Christians to resist practices and policies that infringe upon human dignity and freedom. Policies like mandatory IMEI registration, which enable state surveillance and place undue burdens on citizens, especially the economically vulnerable, stand in contrast to the values Jesus taught. Rather than uplifting and liberating people, such measures risk encroaching on privacy, increasing control over citizens, and shifting the balance of power toward the state rather than the public good.

The Bible’s teachings reinforce the principles of transparency, fairness, and servant leadership. Micah 6:8 exhorts leaders to ‘act justly and love mercy,’ urging those in power to embody compassion and fairness over control or exploitation. In Isaiah 10:1-2 and Jeremiah 22:13, God condemns leaders who create unjust laws and exploit the poor, warning that oppression and mismanagement of power lead to suffering and societal decay.

Christ’s own words in Mark 10:42-45 redefine authority as a form of service, calling leaders to act not as lords over others but as servants who place the people’s well-being first. Leadership, as Jesus modeled, should prioritize the needs of others, particularly the marginalized and oppressed, reflecting a true commitment to justice and the common good.

These passages collectively challenge us to critique policies that violate privacy, concentrate power, or exploit citizens. Christian moral and ethical being and doing, rooted in Jesus’ mission in Luke 4:18-19, calls us to hold governments accountable to serve the public rather than restrict their freedoms. In embracing this vision, we become agents of justice and compassion, defending the rights and dignity of all people and embodying Christ’s call to “set the oppressed free” in our pursuit of a fair and equitable society.