Previous 33 / 63 Next

Vietnam ARTICLE 19 must not provide or transmit certain types of content, including anything which infringes on national security. 122 None of these requirements are very clear in the absence of implementing regulations, but overall they provide a legal framework for imposing intermediary liability. Article 26 also requires service providers to authenticate user data upon registration and to provide user information to the Ministry of Public Security on request to aid in investigating LCS violations. Other provisions grant fairly intrusive inspection powers to a cyber task force in the Ministry of Public Security, including to inspect information stored on information systems. There is a data localisation requirement for foreign companies handling the personal data of Vietnamese citizens, which must also have a branch or office in Vietnam. • Decree 53/2022: This is a crucial implementing decree for the LCS. It sets out a ‘triggering’ provision for the requirement to store data locally; if foreign companies do not comply with the Vietnamese Government’s request for content removal and the sharing of users’ data, the government can order the company to localise the data and open a local branch, which they must do within 12 months.123 Domestic companies have more immediate obligations to implement local data storage for certain kinds of data (primarily the personal data of Vietnamese citizens). Decree 53 also empowers administrative authorities to initiate enforcement actions in response to illegal content, such as by issuing takedown notices, requesting a system shutdown or suspension of domain names, or requiring information disclosure and inspection. 124 It also allows the Ministry of Public Security to suspend or terminate a range of apps and websites. • Vietnam has indicated that it is enacting other measures too. For example, it is amending its Telecommunications Law, with a reported change being to mandate social media users to verify their identity. 125 In 2022, Reuters reported that Vietnam was also developing a law requiring social media companies to take down illegal content within 24 hours and block illegal live streams within 3 hours.126 Some sources suggest that such a requirement was then enacted,127 but it appears that it has instead been incorporated into the draft decree which will replace Decree 72.128 Vietnamese law empowers authorities to order content removal, restrict services, or access personal data without the kinds of protections demanded by human rights standards. For ____________________________________________ 122 Law on Cybersecurity, Article 26. PwC, Decree 53 Guiding Cybersecurity Law, PwC Vietnam Legal NewsBrief, 8 September 2022. 124 KPMG, Legal Alert, September 2022. An English translation of this Decree could not be located. 125 Reuters, Vietnam to Require Social Media Users to Verify Identity, 9 May 2023; BBC, Vietnam to Crack Down on Anonymous Social Media Accounts, 9 May 2023. 126 Reuters, Vietnam to Require 24-Hour Take-Down for ‘False’ Social Media Content, 4 November 2022. 127 BBC, Vietnam to Crack Down. 128 Baker McKenzie, Vietnam: Updated Amendments that Affect Internet Services, Client Alert, August 2021. 123 33

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