Previous 34 / 63 Next

ARTICLE 19 Vietnam example, takedown notices are not issued by a court or independent body, and certain intermediaries are expected to screen actively for illegal content. The data localisation and user authentication requirements also raise privacy concerns, particularly when paired with expansive government authority to compel access to that data. Vagueness in the laws, although a serious concern from a human rights perspective, has sometimes allowed companies to resist implementation (as demonstrated in the next section) but also creates confusion as to the exact legal obligations imposed on companies. Tech company responses Foreign tech companies, facing increasing pressure from the Vietnamese Government, appear largely to be complying with government content removal demands. Google and Facebook both report data on takedown requests (for Google, these relate to YouTube), and both show sharp increases in requests since 2017. The Vietnamese Government repeatedly claims that the rate of requests accepted by Google and Facebook is high, at 95% and 90% respectively in 2020, for example.129 Google’s own data appears to confirm this, with most requests being related to content containing ‘government criticism’. 130 Facebook’s situation is similar, as discussed in the case study below. Amnesty International has said that by complying with so many takedown requests, Facebook and Google ‘play an increasingly prominent and complicit role in the Vietnamese authorities’ systematic repression of freedom of expression online’ and say that both companies are largely deferring to local law without attempting to object to or contest the requests.131 Vietnam also completed an investigation into TikTok in 2023, claiming that it violated local laws, including by failing to block content. TikTok indicated that it would remain ‘non-political’ when it entered the Vietnamese market but has nonetheless faced government pressure following a surge of political content on the platform.132 After the investigation concluded that TikTok was failing to comply with legal requirements, government sources claimed that ____________________________________________ 129 Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2021: Vietnam. See also a government claim that three platforms had response rates of over 90% to government removal requests in 2023: Tuoi Tre News, TikTok Signs Document to Admit Wrongdoing in Vietnam, 1 July 2023. 130 Google, Transparency Report, Government Requests to Remove Content, indicates that it complied with most of the 848 requests to block 31,626 items of content which it received from January 2021 to December 2022). 131 Amnesty International, Vietnam: Let Us Breathe! Censorship and Criminalization of Online Expression in Viet Nam, 30 November 2020. 132 L. Le, Vietnam Pressures TikTok to Censor More Content or Face a Ban, Rest of World, 24 May 2023; F. Potkin, TikTok Booms in Southeast Asia as It Picks Path through Political Minefields, Reuters, 28 August 2020. 34

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