Previous 5 / 63 Next

Executive summary as a commitment to evaluate each request individually and challenge the legality of requests as appropriate; • prioritise transparency and accountability: transparency reports should be more regular (ideally monthly) and more detailed than is currently standard practice and should include country-specific commentary on steps taken to comply with and challenge local law, as well as more details on content which has been removed at the request of both governments and users; companies should also be transparent about how they negotiate the conditions for market access, as well as any licences, contracts, or permissions they receive from the government; • provide tools for user privacy and security: implement privacy by design and empower users to control their personal data; • ensure appropriate support for their local country teams, including rapid responses and assistance when human rights concerns are raised by local or regional staff; • support freedom of expression initiatives in the Asia region, such as through providing financial support and technical expertise and collaborating with civil society and other human rights defenders; and • engage in multi-stakeholder and industry-wide dialogue and pursue initiatives designed to enhance industry-wide collaboration on human rights issues. 5

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