Previous 39 / 63 Next

ARTICLE 19 Vietnam around the scope of the requirement.159 In the meantime, we are not aware of any case under Decree No. 53 where Vietnam has demanded that a specific foreign tech company localise data. However, Amazon, at least, is reportedly planning a ‘local zone’ server which will host a ‘fraction’ of its operations, with the localisation requirement cited as a factor in these plans.160 This example suggests that coordinated lobbying by tech companies can have some impact, at least in terms of delaying or mitigating legal requirements which have negative consequences for human rights. The focus on the economic costs of data localisation may have been particularly impactful, as these could be substantial: one report suggests that data localisation could reduce Vietnam’s GDP by 1.7%.161 On the other hand, Vietnam may yet order compliance with the data localisation requirements in Decree No. 53, the threat of which will likely be a convenient tool for compelling compliance in other areas, such as content moderation. In any case, according to tech companies’ own numbers, the Vietnamese Government is not making large numbers of formal requests for user data. Facebook reports indicate that from 2015 to 2022, the government made 61 requests. Facebook provided some data for only 18 of them.162 Google’s data shows that from 2014 to 2021, it received 6 requests for data; Apple received 4 requests for user data in 2020 and 2021.163 Despite these low numbers, there have been examples in Vietnam of arrests of social media users for anonymous posts, and it is not clear how authorities linked the anonymous accounts to the actual users. 164 Vietnam is known for its relatively sophisticated offline and online surveillance, and it may have sufficient other tools at its disposal to identify such accounts, rendering formal requests to the platform unnecessary. Unfortunately, limited transparency on the topic has made it hard to ascertain how Vietnam is conducting surveillance and accessing personal data. Data localisation would make this easier. To the extent that major tech companies have resisted localisation so far, this may represent a positive example of tech company resistance to domestic laws that compromise human rights. ____________________________________________ 159 US Chamber of Commerce, American Chamber of Commerce Vietnam, and Asia Internet Coalition (2022), Letter Re: Decree No. 53/2022/ND-CP detailing the implementation of a number of articles of the Law on Cybersecurity (LOCS), 9 September 2022. 160 L. Hoang, Amazon Woos Cloud Clients as Vietnam Floats Onshore Data Rules, Nikkei Asia, 11 July 2022. 161 Hinrich Foundation, CIEM, and AlphaBeta, The Data Revolution: How Vietnam Can Capture the Digital Trade Opportunity at Home and Abroad, 2023. 162 Meta Transparency Center, Government Requests for User Data, 2017. 163 Apple, Vietnam. Transparency Report: Government Requests, 2021. 164 Radio Free Asia, Vietnam Arrests Facebook User for Posts Criticizing COVID-19 Policies, 6 October 2021. 39

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