Surveillance cameras and facial recognition equipment from China are raising concerns about data security in Brazil.
Across Latin America, the increasing presence of Chinese surveillance technology is sparking a debate about national security, data privacy, and the potential for foreign influence. Governments and municipalities, often drawn by competitive pricing and advanced capabilities, are adopting these systems for public safety and urban management. However, a chorus of experts and international bodies warns that the widespread deployment of such equipment carries inherent risks that could undermine democratic institutions and national sovereignty.
At the end of April, the Rio de Janeiro state government signed an agreement with Chinese companies Hikvision and Dahua to purchase new surveillance cameras and facial recognition equipment for the state. The plan is to expand the technology to all 92 municipalities in the state, with 5,800 cameras for vehicles and urban video surveillance. This policy of mass surveillance with Chinese equipment is rapidly expanding across Brazil, raising significant alarms. Despite official justifications for its use, the widespread deployment of this technology fuels deep concerns about potential data misuse and poses a direct threat to citizen privacy and security.
While Hikvision supplied 21,571 body cameras, purchased by the state government for police use, which the government claims led to over 500 arrests, experts warn that China’s surveillance network carries a more sinister dual purpose. Beyond ostensible crime fighting, this technology is designed to aid in suppressing dissent and preventing protests against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), raising significant human rights and political freedom concerns.
“China wants to export its policing and surveillance techniques to normalize and legitimize its style of surveillance and […] its authoritarian political system,’” Bethany Allen, head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) China Research and Analysis, told AFP. The lack of transparency about the security measures implemented by Chinese companies and the destination of the data collected by the cameras help fuel mistrust.
Many countries worldwide have imposed bans or severe restrictions on Chinese multinational technology companies like Huawei due to grave national security concerns. Nations such as Germany, Japan, and Sweden have cited fears that China could exploit these technologies for espionage or to compromise critical infrastructure. This widespread mistrust stems from the alleged close ties between these companies and the CCP, raising alarms about potential unauthorized data transfer and state control over sensitive networks.
According to Sophie Richardson, co-executive director of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD), a Washington, D.C.-based network of human rights activists, nations with a history of state repression should be viewed with caution regarding their video surveillance systems. “We have long called for surveillance technologies to be regulated so that they are not deployed by abusive governments. Our research shows that Beijing’s technology-enhanced repression extends both inside and outside China,” Richardson told A Referência, an international news and analysis platform focused on foreign policy, international trade, and globalization issues.
“Several countries have already raised the red flag about Chinese equipment. Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom have all restricted or banned this type of technology from China based on a legitimate concern: the possible transfer of sensitive data without consent,” Thiago Guedes, CEO of Deserv, a company specializing in information security and data privacy, told Diálogo.
“South Korea, for example, identified that Chinese AI DeepSeek was collecting and transferring data from its users — including information about devices and networks — to Chinese companies such as Beijing Volcano Engine. All of this was done without consent. This is not speculation. It is an official document from the Korean Data Protection Authority,” Guedes added.
Guedes says that, in the case of cameras, there is still no technical proof that the data goes directly to Beijing. “But let’s face it: The simple fact that China’s National Intelligence Law requires companies to collaborate with the government is already a red flag. Add to that the lack of transparency about the internal workings of the devices, and there you have it, the risk becomes real. China now has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world, but it also requires companies to seek government authorization to transfer data outside the country, which means that the Chinese state is ultimately in control of the information,” he said.
Several factors contribute to the rising use of Chinese equipment: Its lower cost compared to Western counterparts makes it appealing to organizations with limited funds, and in certain situations, a lack of alternative suppliers, either local or international, makes Chinese options the most viable.
“One alternative that can be suggested is to keep the equipment offline. It’s not that simple. The architecture of the equipment, the embedded chips, the firmware, etc., all matter. Just putting it ‘offline’ does not guarantee protection if the system was designed to connect or store data in an opaque manner. And that’s where the danger lies. We need to stop being naive. This is not about Sinophobia. It’s about strategy,” Guedes added.
Brazil has the General Data Protection Law (LGPD), which sets strict principles for data processing and international data transfer. However, Guedes questions the oversight of Chinese equipment. “The LGPD is there, but who monitors, audits, and validates this equipment? Who guarantees that what is promised on the box is what runs in the code? We can and must seek national solutions. Or, at the very least, suppliers that respect Brazilian law and accept independent technical audits. Public safety is urgent, yes, but it cannot be an open door to even greater risks in the future. Privacy is sovereignty,” Guedes concluded.
The spread of Chinese surveillance technology in Latin America poses a critical challenge to national security and democratic values. While cost-effective, these systems carry significant, opaque risks due to their ties to an authoritarian state. Protecting citizen data and national sovereignty demands rigorous oversight and independent verification. Ultimately, adopting such technology is a strategic choice, requiring vigilance to ensure security does not compromise privacy or autonomy.
