| Welcome back to the World Weekly where we deconstruct some of the biggest international news stories from the week. Today, we are discussing China's new draft rules limiting file-sharing services in the country and what instances of rising online censorship and surveillance across the world mean for civil liberties and human rights.  Smoke rises as a banner with a protest message hangs off Sitong Bridge, Beijing, China on October 13, 2022. Pictures of this rare "bridge man" protest were shared through AirDrop. (Reuters) China’s online loophole China has introduced a proposal to regulate file-sharing services, including Apple’s AirDrop and Bluetooth, citing "national security" reasons. Internet regulator Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) posted a draft proposal to its website on Tuesday, launching a month-long public consultation in the matter. The rules, it said, aim to limit “file transfer services that rely on Wi-fi, Bluetooth, and other information technologies to form networks instantly and communicate to other devices over a short-range”. Under the regulations, service providers will have to prevent the dissemination of “illegal” information, save “relevant records," and report who don't comply to rules to the authorities, according to media reports. Service providers will also have to assist authorities in any investigations they are conducting. Additionally, the file-sharing services must be turned off by default. On the other end, users must register with their real names and their ability to share content with others without waiting for them to accept the files or pair devices will be limited. The provisions will allow users to put certain contacts on the “black list,” blocking them from sharing files. They will also be able to register complaints. Plus, any new features and technologies that can mobilise public opinion must undergo a security assessment prior to their introduction, the Guardian reported.  On face value, some people may think the rules seem fairly innocuous, if not an overkill. But in China, amid strict repression, these file-sharing services are among the few tools activists still have to protest the government, and authorities know that. In November last year, anger over China’s strict zero-Covid policies bubbled into a series of protests where AirDrop was used to share anti-government images. In October, some activists on the Shanghai subway used the technology to disseminate posters against President Xi Jinping ahead of his confirmation for an unprecedented third term, the BBC reported. They were inspired by the “bridge man” protest, when a man hung banners accusing Xi of being a dictator across a bridge in China. Any mention of the rare one-man protest was removed by the country’s internet censors, but photos of the event were reportedly also shared through AirDrop. Protesters in Hong Kong have also extensively used AirDrop to organise demonstrations and share anti-government content. “It is mainly about cybersecurity, and the core aim is to ensure all the information transmission can be traced in case problematic things happen,” Gao Fuping, a law professor at the East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai, told the South China Morning Post (SCMP), seemingly defending the new regulations. But the rules offer no clear definition of “illegal” or “harmful” information, meaning they can be used to arbitrarily block any information the government doesn’t approve. Besides, not using their real names also gives activists a modicum of protection from authorities. In the past, content that attacks Xi’s leadership and the Communist Party’s Central Committee; contradicts the official version of Chinese history or Chinese culture; or slanders national heroes or violates national ethnic and religious policies has been viewed as objectionable , according to the SCMP. A person familiar with the matter told the BBC that phone and app developers who don’t comply with the changes will be removed from app stores. “Like WeChat, developers will have to provide censorship capabilities and be subject to take-down orders. These new rules could be a show-stopper for non-Chinese applications,” the software engineer told BBC on the condition of anonymity. “The new draft regulations would bring airdrop and similar services firmly into China’s online content control apparatus,” Tom Nunlist, a senior analyst at the consulting firm Trivium China, told the Guardian. “The authorities are desperate to plug loopholes on the Internet to silence opposing voices,” Netherlands-based human rights activist Lin Shengliang said, according to the BBC.  Workers fix cable near a large screen showing an Apple iPhone advertisement carrying the words "Keep your personal information safe. It's very iPhone" in Beijing. (AP) Growing crackdown This is not the first, nor likely the last, move in the country to regulate the flow of information. China is home to the “great firewall.” Officially known as The Golden Shield Project, it is an initiative of the government to regulate the internet through legislation, surveillance and censorship. It limits access to foreign websites like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, requires all tech companies to adapt to domestic regulations, and gives preference to China’s own tech companies. Over the years, as the internet has evolved and expanded, so has China’s censorship and suppression machinery. The Human Rights Watch (HRW) describes this as a “combination of communications crackdown, ramped-up propaganda and rapid expansion of surveillance efforts.” Xi too has a key role to play in shrinking online spaces. In 2015, at the country’s second World Internet Conference, he warned against foreign interference, saying, “We should respect the right of individual countries to independently choose their own path of cyber-development.” Under him, the internet regulator was updated to strengthen the country’s cybersecurity efforts and, he founded the Communist Party’s leadership group on cybersecurity, which he chairs personally. In February, China's official Xinhua news agency reported that Beijing confirmed it was going to continue a campaign it began last year to “clean up” online content with an emphasis on overseas media and citizen journalism. This comes after several citizen journalists were punished for recording what was going on in the country during the pandemic when Beijing muzzled those trying to share “critical information” and ramped up “its global propaganda extolling its ‘success’ in containing Covid-19,” according to HRW. Between a growing list of banned words, the scrubbing of undesirable photos, comments and accounts, constant monitoring of those labelled “unpatriotic,” and fear of reprisals, activists are finding it increasingly difficult to continue their campaign to end censorship or even express minor dissatisfaction. Though VPNs still work, the BBC says, activists fear there may be too few users to have any major impact.  TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew takes questions from US Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 23 in Washington, DC. US lawmakers questioned the leader of the app about the company's relationship with its Chinese owner, ByteDance, and how they handle users' sensitive personal data. (AFP/ Getty) A global phenomenon While what is happening in China may be unique when it comes to scale, the efforts and motive are not. “We’ve seen this playbook before: Censorship disguised as safety, economic warfare in the name of national security, profiteering beneath a veneer of social welfare,” reporter Hirsh Chitkara writes in the Tablet Magazine critical of recent hype around the “apocalyptical potential” of artificial intelligence (AI). “The national security state has already used the spectre of AI disinformation to justify an escalation in their surveillance and censorship campaigns,” he adds. Amid a lack of meaningful global regulation, governments around the world have begun relying on executive powers to censor what they believe is unfavourable content, raising serious human and civil rights concerns. For instance, digital rights experts told Vice’s Motherboard that the “insanely broad” language in the proposed US RESTRICT Act – touted as a way to ban TikTok across the country –can have wider implications for the First Amendment (right to free speech). The US has cited national security concerns behind its move to ban TikTok, owned by Beijing-based ByteDance. “The RESTRICT Act could lead to apps and other ICT services with connections to certain foreign countries being banned in the United States. Any bill that would allow the US government to ban an online service that facilitates American’ speech raises First Amendment concerns,” Caitlin Vogus, deputy director of the Center for Democracy && Technology’s Free Expression Project, told Motherboard. The US and China aren’t the only ones. At least 27 countries have upped their censorship between 2021 and 2023, according to a study conducted by consumer group Comparitech. And according to internet advocacy watchdog Access Now, in 2022 alone, governments and other actors disrupted the internet at least 187 times across a record 35 countries in one year. “Not only are shutdowns resurging after a decrease at the height of the pandemic, they’re lasting longer, targeting specific populations, and are being wielded when people need a connection the most — including during humanitarian crises, mass protests, and active conflict and war,” it said. India, at 84 shutdowns in 2022, has remained the country with the highest number of recorded shutdowns in the world for the fifth consecutive year. On Monday, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey told the politics podcast Breaking Points that the Indian government had pressured the social media website to remove posts and accounts it found objectionable by threatening to shut down the platform and raid its employees. "India, for example, was a country that had many requests around the farmers' protests, around particular journalists that were critical of the government," he said. "It manifested in ways such as: 'we will shut Twitter down in India' - which is a very large market for us; 'we will raid the homes of your employees,' which they did; 'we will shut down your offices if you don't follow suit.' And this is India, a democratic country." The government has denied the claims. But at a time when tech companies have become global behemoths, it is also imperative to hold them accountable for their role in this. Chinese phone manufacturers, such as Xiaomi and Oppo, as well as Google’s Android offer similar file-sharing services as Apple. But Apple has particularly been on the Chinese government’s radar because it was used in the Shanghai protests last year and is relatively untraceable. Wary of falling foul of Chinese authorities, Apple, shortly after Xi was confirmed for a third term, limited the use of AirDrop on its phones in China — users could only receive files from non-contacts for only ten minutes at a time, the Guardian reported. This was not replicated anywhere else. “Apple has faced criticism in the past for its compliance practices in China,” Nunlist also told Guardian. “Implementation of airdrop controls could easily lead to blowback at home in the US.” In 2019, Apple also bowed to demands for opening a data centre in China and removing an app that allowed pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong to keep track of the police. “The internet does not have border – we need to aim for a global digital space where it is safe for people to exercise their rights,” says Peggy Hicks from the The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), urging countries and companies to address the dilemmas of regulation and moderation of online content in a more meaningful way. With the looming threat of AI ahead and experience of failed Big Tech regulation behind us, there is a unique window of opportunity for governments and companies to take action before this gets worse. The key, this time, would be to involve civil society and experts in the design and evaluation of regulations, especially if the aim is to protect civil liberties and human rights. That's all for this week, folx. If you have any suggestions, feedback, or questions, please write to me at sanya.mathur@hindustantimes.com |
