Valentine’s Day 2026 delivered a disturbing gift to Kenyan social media: viral videos of a Russian national reportedly identified as Yaytseslav Trahov showing him filming intimate encounters with women in Kenya and other African countries, with full-length videos reportedly shared on a subscription-based Telegram channel where users paid a monthly fee for access.
Many Kenyans suggested he used Ray-Ban Smart Glasses (devices that resemble regular sunglasses but are equipped with cameras, speakers, and AI) to capture his targets without their knowledge.
The reaction from many online was disappointingly predictable: mockery directed at the women rather than outrage directed at the man responsible. Let us be unambiguous. What Trahov allegedly did is not a moral grey area, a cultural misunderstanding or a debate about women’s personal choices. It is a serious violation of the law. And Kenya has the legal architecture to treat it as such.
Kenya’s Data Protection Act, No. 24 of 2019, is direct on this point. Section 2 defines personal data as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, and intimate video recordings unambiguously qualify. The same section defines consent as “a manifestation of express, unequivocal, free, specific and informed indication of the data subject’s wishes.” The women filmed by Trahov gave no such indication for recording or publication. There was no express agreement, no informed understanding, and no specificity about what their images would be used for – least of all a paid Telegram channel monetised by a foreign national.
The Data Protection Act imposes clear obligations that Trahov appears to have violated at every turn. Section 25 requires that personal data be “processed in accordance with the right to privacy of the data subject” and “collected for explicit, specified and legitimate purposes.” Recording women for commercial distribution on a subscription platform satisfies neither condition.
Section 29 obligates any data controller to inform a data subject – before collecting their data – of the purpose for which it is being collected, the third parties it will be transferred to, and the security measures applied. Trahov disclosed none of this. He wore disguised technology specifically to avoid disclosure.
Section 30 reinforces that personal data shall not be processed unless the data subject has consented for a specified purpose, or another lawful ground applies. No lawful ground exists for secretly filming someone in an intimate context and charging subscribers to watch.
Perhaps most directly, Section 37 provides that no person shall use personal data for commercial purposes unless they have sought and obtained express consent from the data subject. Trahov did the exact opposite – he converted the women’s images into a subscription product without their knowledge, let alone their consent.
Kenya must not allow this scandal to fade into social media memory. Several remedial pathways exist.
First, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner has powers under Section 9 to investigate on its own initiative, impose administrative fines and issue enforcement notices. The Commissioner should open an investigation without delay. While Trahov may be a foreign national, Section 4 of the Act expressly applies to processors of data belonging to data subjects located in Kenya. Jurisdiction is thus not in question.
Second, affected women are entitled to compensation under Section 65, which provides that any person suffering damage from a contravention of the Act – and “damage” is defined to include distress, not just financial loss – is entitled to remedies from the responsible data controller. Kenyan courts have authority to hear such claims, and affected women should be actively encouraged to come forward.
Third, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018 criminalises the unlawful interception and publication of private data. Prosecutors should pursue charges under this legislation alongside the Data Protection Act.
Kenya’s Ministry of Gender, Culture and Children Services has already condemned the act as technology-facilitated gender-based violence that threatens Kenya’s social fabric, citing constitutional protections under Articles 28 and 31 of the Constitution. That government acknowledgement must now translate into concrete prosecution.
Finally, Kenya must pursue diplomatic pressure and international cooperation. Ghana has already initiated extradition proceedings and is working with Interpol to track the suspect. Kenya should align with and support these efforts. African nations must demonstrate collectively that they will not be treated as consequence-free destinations for exploitation tourism.
This case exposes a dangerous gap between technological capability and legal awareness. Wearable cameras disguised as fashionable eyewear are increasingly accessible, affordable, and as this case proves, easily weaponised. The law exists to protect Kenyan women from exactly this kind of predation. What has been lacking is the urgency to enforce it.
Trahov treated the women he filmed as content, not as human beings deserving dignity. Kenya’s response should be unambiguous: every woman has the right to know when she is being recorded, to decide what happens with her image and to seek justice when those rights are violated.
The Data Protection Act 2019 is not decorative legislation. It is a shield. It is time to raise it.
Boniface Mwalii is the lead consultant at Hove Consulting.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article do not represent the position of Kenya Broadcasting Corporation.
