Previous 15 / 63 Next

International human rights standards ARTICLE 19 Principle 23 of the UNGPs affirms that businesses should both comply with applicable laws and respect internationally recognised human rights. Where these conflict, they should ‘seek ways to honour the principles’ of human rights. This principle affirms that businesses cannot use domestic law as an excuse for disregarding their international human rights responsibilities. Rather, if the domestic context ‘renders it impossible’ to fully meet human rights responsibilities, businesses should respect human rights principles ‘to the greatest extent possible in the circumstances’ and should be able to demonstrate their efforts to do so. Applying the UNGPs to tech companies raises some particular challenges. The operations of tech companies raise complex jurisdictional issues because they have users potentially in every country in the world. Tech companies also face a large number of complex ‘enduse’ human rights risks, given the vastly varied uses made of the services they offer. Nonetheless, given that many tech companies provide services which are crucial to the realisation of freedom of expression and access to information, as well as other rights, it is particularly important that both they and states respect human rights in the context of their operations. There are also an increasing number of resources available for applying the UNGPs in the technology context,24 as well as principles, such as the Santa Clara Principles (endorsed by a number of major tech companies), 25 that outline appropriate company approaches to transparency and accountability in the content moderation process. These challenges are aggravated in authoritarian contexts where states are failing in their duties under Pillar I of the UNGPs. Resources for companies operating in such situations include the Implementation Guidelines produced by the Global Network Initiative (GNI), a multi-stakeholder initiative designed to help companies respect freedom of expression and privacy when faced with government requests which breach those rights. Members of the GNI include major Western tech companies such as Google, Meta, and Microsoft. ____________________________________________ 24 For some examples, see the Global Network Initiative (GNI), Implementation Guidelines for the Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, 2017; OHCHR, B-Tech Project; OHCHR, Report on the Practical Application of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to the Activities of Technology Companies, 21 April 2022. 25 The Santa Clara Principles On Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation. Since 2018, twelve major companies – including Apple, Facebook (Meta), Google, Reddit, Twitter (X), and Github – have endorsed the Santa Clara Principles and the overall number of companies providing transparency and procedural safeguards has increased, as has the level of transparency and procedural safeguards provided by many of the largest companies. 15

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