It is difficult to see how Google would currently be able to relaunch a search engine service in China in a way that would be compatible with the company\u2019s human rights responsibilities under international standards, or its own commitments. Were it to do so, in other words, there is a high risk that the company would be directly contributing to, or complicit in, human rights violations.<\/p>\n
The Chinese government runs one of the world\u2019s most repressive internet censorship and surveillance regimes. Human rights defenders and journalists are routinely arrested and imprisoned solely for expressing their views online. Under the Cybersecurity Law,[1] internet companies operating in China are obliged to censor users\u2019 content in a way that runs counter to international obligations to safeguard the rights of access to information, freedom of expression and privacy. Thousands of websites and social media services in the country remain blocked, and many phrases deemed to be politically sensitive are censored.[2] Chinese law also requires companies to store Chinese users\u2019 data within the country and facilitate surveillance by abusive security agencies.<\/p>\n
According to confidential Google documents obtained by The Intercept, the new search app being developed under Project Dragonfly would comply with China\u2019s draconian rules by automatically identifying and filtering websites blocked in China, and \u201cblacklisting sensitive queries\u201d. Offering services through mobile phone apps, including Google\u2019s existing Chinese apps, raises additional concerns because apps enable access to extraordinarily sensitive data. Given the Cybersecurity Law\u2019s data localization and other requirements, it is likely that the company would be enlisted in surveillance abuses and their users\u2019 data would be much more vulnerable to government access.<\/p>\n
Google has a responsibility to respect human rights that exists independently of a state\u2019s ability or willingness to fulfil its own human rights obligations.[3] The company\u2019s own Code of Conduct promises to advance users\u2019 rights to privacy and freedom of expression globally. In Google\u2019s AI Principles, published in June, the company pledged not to build \u201ctechnologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights\u201d. The company also commits, through the Global Network Initiative, to conduct human rights due diligence when entering markets or developing new services. Project Dragonfly raises significant, unanswered questions about whether Google is meeting these commitments.<\/p>\n
Transparency and human rights due diligence<\/strong><\/p>\n Google\u2019s refusal to respond substantively to concerns over its reported plans for a Chinese search service falls short of the company\u2019s commitment to accountability and transparency.[4]<\/p>\n In 2010, the human rights community welcomed Google\u2019s announcement that it had \u201cdecided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn\u201d, citing cyber-attacks against the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists and attempts by the Chinese government to \u201cfurther limit free speech on the web\u201d.<\/p>\n If Google\u2019s position has indeed changed, then this must be stated publicly, together with a clear explanation of how Google considers it can square such a decision with its responsibilities under international human rights standards and its own corporate values. Without these clarifications, it is difficult not to conclude that Google is now willing to compromise its principles to gain access to the Chinese market.<\/p>\n There also appears to be a broader lack of transparency around due diligence processes at Google. In order to \u201cknow and show\u201d that they respect human rights, companies are required under international standards to take steps to identify, prevent and mitigate against adverse impacts linked to their products \u2013 and communicate these efforts to key stakeholders and the public.[5] The letter from Google employees published on 16 August 2018 demonstrates that some employees do not feel Google\u2019s processes for implementing its AI Principles and ethical commitments are sufficiently meaningful and transparent.[6]<\/p>\n Protection of whistle-blowers<\/p>\n Google has stated that it cannot respond to questions about Project Dragonfly because reports about the project are based on \u201cleaks\u201d.[7] However, the fact that the information has been publicly disclosed by employees does not lessen its relevance and rights impact.<\/p>\n In relation both to Project Dragonfly and to Google\u2019s involvement in the US government\u2019s drone programme, Project Maven, whistle-blowers have been crucial in bringing ethical concerns over Google\u2019s operations to public attention. The protection of whistle-blowers who disclose information that is clearly in the public interest is grounded in the rights to freedom of expression and access to information.[8] The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises recommend that companies put in place \u201csafeguards to protect bona fide whistle-blowing activities\u201d.[9]<\/p>\n We are calling on Google to publicly commit to protect whistle-blowers in the company and to take immediate steps to address the concerns employees have raised about Project Dragonfly.<\/p>\n As it stands, Google risks becoming complicit in the Chinese government\u2019s repression of freedom of speech and other human rights in China. Google should heed the concerns raised by human rights groups and its own employees and refrain from offering censored search services in China.<\/p>\n Signed, the following organizations:<\/strong> Signed in individual capacity (affiliations for identification purposes only):<\/strong><\/p>\n Ronald Deibert Rebecca MacKinnon Xiao Qiang Lokman Tsui Emma Wadsworth-Jones | Asia and the Americas Programme Coordinator | Charg\u00e9e de Programmes Asie et Am\u00e9riques | Encargada de Programas Asia y Am\u00e9ricas | PEN International<\/strong><\/p>\n **Working days: Monday – Friday**<\/p>\n Tel. +44 (0)20 7405 0338 | Twitter | Facebook | www.pen-international.org<\/p>\n Support PEN\u2019s work.<\/p>\n Please consider the environmental costs before printing this e-mail.<\/p>\n PEN Centres can find out more about the 84th Congress here: ENG \/ FR \/ ES<\/p>\n Celebrating 90 years of promoting literature and defending freedom of expression<\/p>\n International PEN is trading as PEN International. International PEN is a company registered in England and Wales with registration number 05683997. International PEN is a registered charity in England and Wales with registration number 1117088. International PEN\u2019s registered office is Koops Mill, 162-164 Abbey Street, London SE1 2AN<\/p>\n [1] See Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China (2016), unofficial translation, https:\/\/www.chinalawtranslate.com\/bilingual-2016-cybersecurity-law\/?lang=en and Human Rights Watch, \u201cChina: Abusive Cybersecurity Law Set to be Passed,\u201d November 6, 2016, https:\/\/www.hrw.org\/news\/2016\/11\/06\/china-abusive-cybersecurity-law-set-be-passed.<\/p>\n [2] See GreatFire.org, Online Censorship In China, https:\/\/en.greatfire.org\/analyzer.<\/p>\n [3] UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/Documents\/Publications\/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.<\/p>\n [4] For example, the Global Network Initiative Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, https:\/\/globalnetworkinitiative.org\/gni-principles\/.<\/p>\n [5] UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.<\/p>\n [6] Kate Conger and Daisuke Wakabayashi, “Google Employees Protest Secret Work on Censored Search Engine for China,” New York Times, August 16, 2018, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/08\/16\/technology\/google-employees-protest-search-censored-china.html.<\/p>\n [7] Amnesty International meeting with Google, August 2018.<\/p>\n [8] UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Report to the General Assembly on the Protection of Sources and Whistleblowers, September 2015, https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/issues\/freedomopinion\/pages\/protectionofsources.aspx.<\/p>\n [9] OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises, para 13, http:\/\/www.oecd.org\/corporate\/mne\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dear Mr Pichai, Like many of Google\u2019s ow … Continue reading
\nAccess Now
\nAmnesty International
\nArticle 19
\nCenter for Democracy and Technology
\nCommittee to Protect Journalists
\nElectronic Frontier Foundation
\nHuman Rights in China
\nHuman Rights Watch
\nIndependent Chinese PEN Centre
\nInternational Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
\nPEN International
\nPrivacy International
\nReporters Without Borders (RSF)
\nWITNESS<\/p>\n
\nProfessor of Political Science and Director of the Citizen Lab
\nUniversity of Toronto<\/p>\n
\nDirector, Ranking Digital Rights<\/p>\n
\nResearch Scientist
\nFounder and Director of the Counter-Power Lab
\nSchool of Information, University of California at Berkeley<\/p>\n
\nAssistant Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication
\nThe Chinese University of Hong Kong<\/p>\n![\"image001\"](\"http:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/files\/2018\/08\/image001.jpg\")
<\/p>\n