It sits at the intersection of our worst digital fears: privacy invasion, the dark side of the creator economy, and the lag in African cyber-legislation.
A Russian national, Vyacheslav Trahov (known online as “Yaytseslav”), has sparked a diplomatic and social firestorm across Kenya and Ghana. He is accused of secretly recording African women using smart glasses and monetising the intimate footage on the dark corners of the web.
While the social outrage is justified, from a tech perspective, this scandal exposes a glaring vulnerability in how we regulate wearable technology and cross-border content monetisation.
The “Invisible” Camera
The core of this violation lies in the hardware. Reports indicate Trahov allegedly utilised Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. To the average person in Nairobi or Accra, these look like standard wayfarer sunglasses. However, they are equipped with 12MP ultra-wide cameras capable of recording 1080p video.
The Tech Flaw: While these glasses have a “capture LED” (a small light that signals recording), it is often difficult to see in bright sunlight, or it can be easily obscured with tape or modification. This allowed the creator to capture first-person perspective (POV) footage of women in malls and private spaces without raising an alarm.
Monetisation:
Trahov didn’t just record for fun; he built a business model known in the dark web economy as a “conversion funnel.”
- Top of Funnel (The Bait): He used TikTok and YouTube to post “clean,” edited clips of him “picking up” women. The algorithm pushed this content to a global audience interested in “pickup artist” (PUA) content and travel vlogging.
- Bottom of Funnel (The Product): Viewers were directed to a private Telegram channel.
- The Paywall: To see the “uncensored” or “full” results of these encounters, subscribers allegedly paid roughly KES 650 (USD 5) per month.
This highlights a massive moderation failure. While TikTok bans explicit content, it often fails to detect content that advertises explicit material elsewhere. Telegram, known for its lax moderation and encryption, served as the vault for the non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII).
The Law: Kenya vs. Ghana:
The response to this scandal highlights a divergence in how African nations are handling digital sovereignty.
Ghana’s Approach: Ghana was swift. The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection immediately flagged this as a criminal offence under their Cybersecurity Act. They are actively seeking extradition and have summoned the Russian ambassador.
Kenya’s Approach: Kenya’s response was initially slower, causing public outcry. However, on 16 February 2026, the Ministry of Gender, Culture and Children Services issued a strong statement.
“This is a serious form of technology-facilitated gender-based violence and exploitation.” — Ministry of Gender, Culture and Children Services (Kenya)
The Ministry has explicitly stated that this behaviour violates Articles 28 and 31 of the Constitution (Dignity and Privacy) and falls squarely under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (CMCA).
Key Legal Provisions Cited:
- Identity Theft & Impersonation: If he used their likeness for profit without consent.
- Cyber Harassment: The non-consensual publication of intimate images.
The Grey Areas:
While the government has now stepped up, this case forces us to ask uncomfortable questions about our readiness for the future of tech.
- The “Tourist Gaze” & Digital Colonialism: This isn’t just a crime; it’s an economic extraction. A foreigner used local citizens as “free content” to earn foreign currency, exploiting a power and language barrier (often using Google Translate to coerce non-English speaking women).
- Wearable Regulation: Kenya has no specific legislation governing the public use of smart glasses. As companies like Meta, Apple, and Snap push for AR glasses, how do we protect the privacy of non-users in public spaces?
- Platform Accountability: Why was this channel active for over a year? Algorithms on mainstream platforms are designed to maximise engagement, and often, controversial “pickup” content drives high watch time, meaning the platforms inadvertently incentivised this behaviour.
What Happens Next?
The Ministry has promised a “whole-of-government” response involving the DCI and international partners (likely Interpol). They have also urged survivors to call the toll-free helpline 1195.
For the tech community, this is a wake-up call. Innovation cannot come at the cost of dignity. If “smart” tech allows for seamless abuse, the regulatory framework must be just as smart (and just as fast) to stop it.
