Previous 27 / 63 Next

China ARTICLE 19 given the complete absence of such apps.85 The report also identified 330 missing VPN apps. Apple began removing VPN apps from its stores in 2017 in response to new laws which required all VPN providers to obtain a government licence, stating that it had been required to remove apps which did not meet new regulations.86 Apple has also made other changes in apparent response to Chinese pressure, even without a specific legal requirement to do so. When protesters were using Apple’s AirDrop filesharing feature in 2022, Apple introduce a feature limiting file sharing with strangers to a 10minute period. Eventually, in June 2023, CAC proposed draft regulations restricting wireless file-sharing services like AirDrop, but Apple’s 2022 action appeared to be in response to Chinese pressure or on its own initiative, rather than in response to a legal requirement. 87 Apple has also increasingly acceded to Chinese demands in the privacy realm, despite cultivating an image as a privacy champion in the West.88 In 2017, Apple relocated data of Chinese customers to servers inside China, apparently in response to new legal requirements in the Law on Cybersecurity. 89 At the time Apple claimed that it retained access to encryption keys in order to protect the locally stored data, but it subsequently acknowledged that Chinese iCloud decryption keys would be stored in China.90 Apple also shares data with Chinese authorities upon request so as to comply with Chinese law. This potentially creates a conflict with its obligations under US law, which prohibit American companies from sharing data with Chinese law enforcement actors. To reconcile these obligations, Apple ceded legal ownership of customer data in China to GCBD (Guizhou-Cloud Big Data), a Chinese company. Requests for the data of Apple’s customers in China are now made by the Chinese Government to GCBD, meaning that Apple is technically not the entity providing the data.91 Apple’s own information notes that in the first half of 2022, it received 1,481 individual requests for user data, relating to information for 167,854 different devices and accounts; Apple provided data for 95% of these requests. 92 ____________________________________________ 85 Tech Transparency Project, Apple Is Censoring Its App Store for China, 23 December 2020. UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Letter to Tim Cook, 4 August 2017. 87 W. Chan, Why Is Apple Limiting Chinese Protesters’ Use of AirDrop?, Fast Company, 29 November 2022; R. Cheung, China Plans New Rules to Regulate File Sharing Services Like Airdrop and Bluetooth, Guardian, 9 June 2023. 88 K. O’Flaherty, Apple Slams Facebook and Google with Bold New Privacy Ad, Forbes, 25 May 2022. 89 Nicas, Zhong, and Wakabayashi, Censorship, Surveillance and Profits. 90 Caster, Apple Says it Cares about Digital Rights. 91 O’Flaherty, Apple Slams Facebook and Google. 92 Apple, China Mainland: Transparency Report, July–December 2022. 86 27

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Engaging tech for internet freedom in authoritarian countries

Report

Preview

Language

English

Topic

Information Operation
Internet Restrictions

Author(s)

Article 19

Date Published: Oct 5, 2024

Abstract: In this report, ARTICLE 19 reviews the human rights context and responsibilities of tech companies operating in 3 authoritarian countries in Asia, namely China, Myanmar, and Vietnam. It focuses on the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, and the manner in which authoritarian states directly or indirectly expect companies to assist them in censoring content, promoting propaganda, accessing user data, and engaging in surveillance. While these are undoubtedly highly challenging contexts, companies have not sufficiently prioritised protecting human rights in their policies and actions. States are the primary duty bearers under international human rights law, but companies also have human rights responsibilities, as outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Even if domestic law or circumstances make it impossible for companies to fully meet their human rights responsibilities, they should take action so as to respect human rights standards to the greatest extent possible. Tech companies should not merely reference local law as an excuse for collaborating in rights violations. They should take steps such as those detailed in this report, like adopting appropriate policies, asking governments to justify content removal requests clearly and specifically, and reporting transparently on their compliance with government demands. For each country, we survey the country context and provide an overview of legal obligations which companies operate under that are problematic from the perspective of international human rights law and that may, as a result, put pressure on companies to become complicit in violations of the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. We then explore how Western tech companies operating in these countries, many of which have explicitly stated their commitment to respecting freedom of expression and privacy, have responded to these legal obligations and to other government expectations that they will cooperate in violations of these rights.

Link: source

Primary Documents

ETIF-Thematic-Report-12Sep-24.pdf
English
Download View

Myanmar Internet Project

Select target paragraph3

Engaging tech for internet freedom in authoritarian countries

Primary Documents

Notifications