AI Data Collection Raises New Privacy Questions for Nigerian Users

AI’s promise of wider access to learning, business tools and professional services in Nigeria depends on a bargain users may not fully see: they provide information, while companies decide how it is collected, retained and reused. The central question is whether people can benefit from AI while keeping meaningful control over their personal data.

That concern reaches beyond privacy notices. Search queries, social media activity and prompts to AI systems can reveal interests and habits. Aggregated over time, those traces can help companies refine products, personalize services and generate revenue. They can also support detailed profiles that others may use to predict or influence behavior.

More data means more power to infer

A September 2024 investigation by the United States Federal Trade Commission examined data practices at nine major social media and video streaming companies, including Meta, YouTube, TikTok and Amazon-owned Twitch. The agency reported that companies collected extensive information about users and, in some cases, people who did not use their services. That information included personal details, interests, online activity and data gathered from other sources.

The FTC also raised concerns about long retention periods, weak privacy protections and the use of personal information in automated systems, including AI. Its findings point to an uneven relationship: Companies can assemble detailed records, while individuals may have little visibility into how those records are used or how to limit particular uses.

AI increases the value of that information. Data can train models, improve recommendations and feed automated decisions. The more varied the information a company can access, the more important it becomes to explain what is collected and set boundaries on its use. The risk does not depend on every company acting with bad intent. Business models that reward data collection can still push companies to gather more than users expect.

Access needs to include real choice

AI tools could help students with learning, give small businesses new ways to manage work and help journalists explore research and production methods. In Nigeria, where access to resources and professional services is uneven, these services may help close some gaps. AI that supports local languages and reflects a broader range of cultural experience could also make digital services more useful to more people.

But access alone doesn’t amount to inclusion. Users also need to understand the terms under which they use these tools and have meaningful rights over the information they provide. Long policies and dense user agreements make it difficult to assess what a service does with personal data. AI products add further uncertainty: a prompt, an uploaded document or another interaction might be retained or used to improve a model, depending on the company and product.

Companies should explain in plain language what they collect, why they need it, how long they keep it and whether they use it for purposes beyond delivering the service. Without that clarity, the convenience of AI can come with an unseen cost: less control over personal information.

Corporate data can enable surveillance

Data collection by a private company is not, by itself, authoritarianism. The concern is how concentrated power can be exercised when it weakens accountability, rights or freedom. Large stores of personal information can make profiling and targeted persuasion easier. Businesses, governments or other actors may exploit those capabilities, especially where data can be accessed or shared without adequate safeguards.

The stakes rise when automated systems make consequential decisions without meaningful oversight, or when people cannot challenge how their information has been used. A small number of companies also control widely used platforms, AI services and substantial pools of data. For users, leaving can carry a real cost if it means losing professional contacts, customers, communities or access to essential services.

That does not make every AI tool a surveillance system or imply that every technology company intends to limit freedom. It does make the infrastructure of digital life worthy of scrutiny. Systems built for commercial purposes can acquire capabilities that reach well beyond their original use.

Nigeria’s framework will depend on implementation

Nigeria’s Data Protection Act 2023 established the Nigeria Data Protection Commission and provides a framework for lawful, fair and accountable handling of personal data. The law sets a foundation, but protection also depends on effective implementation, public awareness and the Commission’s ability to hold organizations responsible for their practices.

As AI services become more common, Nigerians need accessible information about their rights, and organizations need to explain how they handle the data they collect. Representation matters, too. If systems are built on data that poorly reflects Nigerian languages, cultures and social conditions, their benefits may reach communities unevenly. Good AI governance must address both privacy and whose experiences shape the technology.

UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence offers principles that apply throughout an AI system’s lifecycle, including privacy, data protection, transparency, accountability and fairness. Those principles give policymakers and companies a basis for judging whether development respects people’s rights.

Set boundaries that preserve control

The choice is not between using AI and protecting privacy. Companies can limit unnecessary collection, make policies understandable, offer meaningful choices and guard against unauthorized access. Regulators can put existing protections into practice as AI capabilities change, while users need clear guidance on the rights available to them.

AI’s value in Nigeria will depend on more than how many people adopt it. It will also depend on whether users can participate safely, understand the services they rely on and exercise control over their information. As these systems grow more capable, the practical test is who decides what happens to personal data, who benefits from those decisions and whether individuals can challenge them.

The next phase of AI adoption will be shaped as much by those boundaries as by the technology itself.