WITNESS stands by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. As we said recently in a submission to the United Nations, “companies must make a commitment to adhere to international human rights standards, including freedom of expression, even when it affects their financial bottom line or requires them to affirmatively defend attacks on rights by States.” And, even when it means they cannot enter a new market. This is especially true in the case of international technology platforms like Google, which have an enormous impact on freedom of expression, privacy, and other human rights. Entering a market cannot be an excuse for participating in the violation of fundamental rights.

Today’s letter follows an August 28 letter from 14 organizations, including WITNESS, which called on Google to “[Disclose]what steps, if any, Google is taking to safeguard against human rights violations linked to Project Dragonfly and its other Chinese mobile app offerings” and “Guarantee protections for whistle-blowers and other employees speaking out where they see the company is failing its commitments to human rights.” The letter outlined concrete concerns with the project and how it would aid surveillance and censorship. It also builds on two open letters from Google employees calling on the company to drop Project Dragonfly.

Google’s October 26th response was lackluster. The company notes that it hasn’t committed to building a censored search engine, but it also doesn’t explain how the project could possibly comply with Google’s previous public statements about upholding human rights and freedom of expression.

Read the letter in full below:

OPEN LETTER: RESPONSE TO GOOGLE on PROJECT DRAGONFLY, China and Human Rights

To: Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, Google Inc

cc: Ben Gomes, Vice President of Search; Kent Walker, Senior Vice President of Global Affairs; Scott Beaumont, Vice President, Greater China & Korea

11 December 2018

Dear Mr Pichai,

We are writing to ask you to ensure that Google drops Project Dragonfly and any plans to launch a censored search app in China, and to re-affirm the company’s 2010 commitment that it won’t provide censored search services in the country.

We are disappointed that Google in its letter of 26 October[1] failed to address the serious concerns of human rights groups over Project Dragonfly. Instead of addressing the substantive issues set out in the August letter,[2] Google’s response – along with further details that have since emerged about Project Dragonfly – only heightens our fear that the company may knowingly compromise its commitments to human rights and freedom of expression, in exchange for access to the Chinese search market.

We stand with current and former Google employees speaking out over recent ethical scandals at the company, including Project Dragonfly. We wholeheartedly support the message from hundreds of Google employees asking Google to drop Dragonfly in their open letter of 27 November, and commend their bravery in speaking out publicly. We echo their statement that their “opposition to Dragonfly is not about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be.” [3]

New details leaked to the media strongly suggest that if Google launches such a product it would facilitate repressive state censorship, surveillance, and other violations affecting nearly a billion people in China. Media reports state that Google has built a prototype that censors “blacklisted” search terms including “human rights”, “student protest” and “Nobel Prize”, including in journalistic content, and links users’ search queries to personal phone numbers.[4] The app would also force users to sign in to use the service, track and store location information and search histories, and provide “unilateral access” to such data to an unnamed Chinese joint venture company, in line with China’s data localization law – allowing the government virtually unfettered access to this information.[5]

Facilitating Chinese authorities’ access to personal data, as described in media reports, would be particularly reckless. If such features were launched, there is a real risk that Google would directly assist the Chinese government in arresting or imprisoning people simply for expressing their views online, making the company complicit in human rights violations. This risk was identified by Google’s own security and privacy review team, according to former and current Google employees. Despite attempts to minimize internal scrutiny, a team tasked with assessing Dragonfly concluded that Google “would be expected to function in China as part of the ruling Communist Party’s authoritarian system of policing and surveillance,” according to a media report.[6]

Actively aiding China’s censorship and surveillance regime is likely to set a terrible precedent for human rights and press freedoms worldwide. A recent Freedom House report warned that the Chinese government is actively promoting its model of pervasive digital censorship and surveillance around the world.[7] Many governments look to China’s example, and a major industry leader’s acquiescence to such demands will likely cause many other regimes to follow China’s lead, provoking a race to the bottom in standards. It would also undermine efforts by Google and other companies to resist government surveillance requests in order to protect users’ privacy and security,[8] emboldening state intelligence and security agencies to demand greater access to user data.

Google’s letter makes several specific points that are directly contradicted by other sources. The letter states that it is “not close” to launching a search product in China, and that before doing so the company would consult with key stakeholders. However, as reported by the media, comments made in July by Ben Gomes, Google’s Head of Search, suggested the product could be “six to nine months [to launch]” and stressed the importance of having a product ready to be “brought off the shelf and quickly deployed” so that “we don’t miss that window if it ever comes.”[9]

The letter also states that Google worked on Dragonfly simply to “explore” the possibility of re-entering the Chinese search market, and that it does not know whether it “would or could” launch such a product. Yet media reports based on an internal Google memo suggest that the project was in a “pretty advanced state” and that the company had invested extensive resources to its development.[10]

Google’s decision to design and build Dragonfly in the first place is troubling. Google’s own AI Principles commit the company not to “design or deploy” (emphasis added) technologies whose purpose contravenes human rights. Given the company’s history in China and the assessment of its own security team, Google is well aware of the human rights implications of providing such an application. Moreover, Google’s letter fails to answer many questions about what steps, if any, the company is taking to safeguard human rights, including with respect to its current Chinese mobile app offerings, consistent with its commitments.

We urge Google to heed concerns from its own employees and from organizations and individuals across the political spectrum by abandoning Project Dragonfly and reaffirming its commitment not to provide censored search services in China. We also note that the letter makes no reference to whistle-blowers, and thus we urgently repeat our call to the company that it must publicly commit to protect the rights of whistle-blowers and other workers voicing rights concerns.

We welcome that Google has confirmed the company “takes seriously” its responsibility to respect human rights. However, the company has so far failed to explain how it reconciles that responsibility with the company’s decision to design a product purpose-built to undermine the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.

Signed, the following organizations:

Access Now

ActiveWatch – Media Monitoring Agency (MMA)

Adil Soz – International Foundation for Protection of Freedom of Speech

Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)

Amnesty International

Article 19

Articulo 12 – Son Tus Datos

Association for Progressive Communications

Asociacion para una Ciudadania Participativa

Bolo Bhi

Briar Project

Bytes for All (B4A)

Cartoonists Rights Network, International (CRNI)

Center for Democracy & Technology

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)

Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ)

Child Rights International Network (CRIN)

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF)

Foro de Periodismo Argentino (FOPEA)

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Freedom Forum

Fundación Datos Protegidos (Chile)

Fundacion Internet Bolivia

Globe International Center (GIC)

Hong Kong Journalists Association

Human Rights in China (HRIC)

Human Rights First

Human Rights Watch

Independent Chinese PEN Center (ICPC)

Independent Journalism Center (IJC)

Index on Censorship

Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey

Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)

International Campaign for Tibet

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

International Tibet Network Secretariat

Internet Sans Frontières

Latin American Observatory of Regulation, Media and Convergence – OBSERVACOM

Media Rights Agenda (MRA)

Mediacentar Sarajevo

NetBlocks

Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD)

New America’s Open Technology Institute

Norwegian PEN

OpenMedia

Pacific Island News Association

Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA)

PEN International

PEN America

Privacy International

Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in)

South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)

Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)

Students for a Free Tibet

Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)

Tibet Action Institute

Việt Tân

WITNESS

World Uyghur Congress

Signed in individual capacity (affiliations for identification purposes only):

Chinmayi Arun

Assistant Professor, National Law University Delhi

Arturo J. Carrillo

Clinical Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School

Richard Danbury

Associate Professor, Journalism, De Montfort University Leicester

Ronald Deibert

Professor of Political Science and Director of the Citizen Lab, University of Toronto

Molly K. Land

Professor of Law and Human Rights, University of Connecticut School of Law                                                                                  

Rebecca MacKinnon

Director, Ranking Digital Rights                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Deirdre K. Mulligan

Associate Professor, School of Information and Faculty Director, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley

Paloma Muñoz Quick

Director, Investor Alliance for Human Rights (IAHR)                                                                                                                 

Edward Snowden

President, Freedom of the Press Foundation

Lokman Tsui

Assistant Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

——

[1] Letter from Kent Walker, Senior Vice President for Global Affairs at Google, responding to concerns of multiple human rights organizations and individuals, 26 October 2018, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ASA17/9552/2018/en/

[2] Letter to Sundar Pichai from multiple human rights organizations and individuals, 28 August 2018, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4792329-Google-Dragonfly-Open-Letter.html

[3] Google employees, ‘We are Google employees. Google must drop Dragonfly’, 27 September 2018, https://medium.com/@googlersagainstdragonfly/we-are-google-employees-google-must-drop-dragonfly-4c8a30c5e5eb

[4] Ryan Gallagher, ‘Google China Prototype Links Searches to Phone Numbers’, The Intercept, 14 September 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/09/14/google-china-prototype-links-searches-to-phone-numbers/ ;  Jack Poulson, Letter to Senate Commerce Committee, 24 September 2018, https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/328-jack-poulson-dragonfly/87933ffa89dfa78d9007/optimized/full.pdf

[5] Ryan Gallagher and Lee Fang, ‘Google Suppresses Memo Revealing Plans To Closely Track Search Users In China’, The Intercept, 21 September 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/09/21/google-suppresses-memo-revealing-plans-to-closely-track-search-users-in-china/

[6] Ryan Gallagher, ‘Google Shut Out Privacy and Security Teams from Secret China Project’, The Intercept, 29 November 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29/google-china-censored-search/

[7] Freedom House, ‘Freedom on the Net 2018: The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism’, October 2018, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism

[8] Reform Government Surveillance Coalition

[9] Ryan Gallagher, ‘Leaked Transcript Of Private Meeting Contradicts Google’s Official Story On China’, The Intercept, 9 October 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/10/09/google-china-censored-search-engine/

[10] Ryan Gallagher and Lee Fang, ‘Google Suppresses Memo Revealing Plans to Closely Track Search Users in China’, The Intercept, 21 September 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/09/21/google-suppresses-memo-revealing-plans-to-closely-track-search-users-in-china/

Open letter to Google on reported plans to launch a censored search engine in China

To: Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, Google Inc
cc: Ben Gomes, Vice President of Search; Kent Walker, Senior Vice President of Global Affairs

Dear Mr Pichai,

Like many of Google’s own employees, we are extremely concerned by reports that Google is developing a new censored search engine app for the Chinese market. The project, codenamed “Dragonfly”, would represent an alarming capitulation by Google on human rights. The Chinese government extensively violates the rights to freedom of expression and privacy; by accommodating the Chinese authorities’ repression of dissent, Google would be actively participating in those violations for millions of internet users in China.

We support the brave efforts of Google employees who have alerted the public to the existence of Dragonfly, and voiced their concerns about the project and Google’s transparency and oversight processes.

In contrast, company leadership has failed to respond publicly to concerns over Project Dragonfly, stating that it does not comment on “speculation about future plans”. Executives have also refused to answer basic questions about how the company will safeguard the rights of users in China as it seeks to expand its business in the country.

Since Google publicly exited the search market in China in 2010, citing restrictions to freedom of expression online, the Chinese government has strengthened its controls over the internet and intensified its crackdown on freedom of expression. We are therefore calling on Google to:

• Reaffirm the company’s 2010 commitment not to provide censored search engine services in China;
• Disclose its position on censorship in China and what steps, if any, Google is taking to safeguard against human rights violations linked to Project Dragonfly and its other Chinese mobile app offerings;
• Guarantee protections for whistle-blowers and other employees speaking out where they see the company is failing its commitments to human rights.

Our concerns about Dragonfly are set out in detail below.

Freedom of expression and privacy in China and Google’s human rights commitments

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’s 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.

The Chinese government runs one of the world’s 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’ 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’ data within the country and facilitate surveillance by abusive security agencies.

According to confidential Google documents obtained by The Intercept, the new search app being developed under Project Dragonfly would comply with China’s draconian rules by automatically identifying and filtering websites blocked in China, and “blacklisting sensitive queries”. Offering services through mobile phone apps, including Google’s existing Chinese apps, raises additional concerns because apps enable access to extraordinarily sensitive data. Given the Cybersecurity Law’s data localization and other requirements, it is likely that the company would be enlisted in surveillance abuses and their users’ data would be much more vulnerable to government access.

Google has a responsibility to respect human rights that exists independently of a state’s ability or willingness to fulfil its own human rights obligations.[3] The company’s own Code of Conduct promises to advance users’ rights to privacy and freedom of expression globally. In Google’s AI Principles, published in June, the company pledged not to build “technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights”. 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

Transparency and human rights due diligence

Google’s refusal to respond substantively to concerns over its reported plans for a Chinese search service falls short of the company’s commitment to accountability and transparency.[4]

In 2010, the human rights community welcomed Google’s announcement that it had “decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn”, citing cyber-attacks against the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists and attempts by the Chinese government to “further limit free speech on the web”.

If Google’s 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.

There also appears to be a broader lack of transparency around due diligence processes at Google. In order to “know and show” 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 – 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’s processes for implementing its AI Principles and ethical commitments are sufficiently meaningful and transparent.[6]

Protection of whistle-blowers

Google has stated that it cannot respond to questions about Project Dragonfly because reports about the project are based on “leaks”.[7] However, the fact that the information has been publicly disclosed by employees does not lessen its relevance and rights impact.

In relation both to Project Dragonfly and to Google’s involvement in the US government’s drone programme, Project Maven, whistle-blowers have been crucial in bringing ethical concerns over Google’s 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 “safeguards to protect bona fide whistle-blowing activities”.[9]

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.

As it stands, Google risks becoming complicit in the Chinese government’s 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.

Signed, the following organizations:
Access Now
Amnesty International
Article 19
Center for Democracy and Technology
Committee to Protect Journalists
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Human Rights in China
Human Rights Watch
Independent Chinese PEN Centre
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Pen International
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
WITNESS

Signed in individual capacity (affiliations for identification purposes only):

Ronald Deibert
Professor of Political Science and Director of the Citizen Lab
University of Toronto

Rebecca MacKinnon
Director, Ranking Digital Rights

Xiao Qiang
Research Scientist
Founder and Director of the Counter-Power Lab
School of Information, University of California at Berkeley

Lokman Tsui
Assistant Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication
The Chinese University of Hong Kong

[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, “China: Abusive Cybersecurity Law Set to be Passed,” November 6, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/06/china-abusive-cybersecurity-law-set-be-passed.

[2] See GreatFire.org, Online Censorship In China, https://en.greatfire.org/analyzer.

[3] UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,  https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.

[4] For example, the Global Network Initiative Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/gni-principles/.

[5] UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

[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.

[7] Amnesty International meeting with Google, August 2018.

[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.

[9] OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises, para 13, http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/

Here are some sessions that we will be a part of:

• Anti-oppression Principles for Global Internet Freedom and Human Rights Work – Monday, March 5, 2:30-4:45 p.m. with Dia Kayyali, (WITNESS),  Kaustubh Srikanth (Totem), Elizabeth Rivera (IFEX/Global Voices/WITNESS), Sarah Aoun, (Mozilla Open Web Fellow/ Tandem)

This 2-hour long workshop will focus on finding solutions to the ways in which we recurringly see various privileges – such as being from North America or Europe, having light skin, or being a man–exert themselves in the human rights and internet freedom community.

Full description can be found on the IFF schedule here.

• Going beyond Values Statements: Prioritizing Healthy Organizational Cultures – Tuesday, March 6, 12:15-1:15 p.m. with Nicolas Sera Leyva of (Social Media Exchange/SMEX), Dragana Kaurin (Localization Lab) Nathalie Marechal (PhD Candidate, USC Annenberg) Dia Kayyali (WITNESS)

This panel will be “an intentional conversation about the impact of organizational working cultures on the ability of individuals to go about their work in a healthy, positive, constructive manner. The ultimate goal of this session is to ignite a conversation which leads to a series of collaboratively developed standards – standards which organizations of all shapes and sizes in our community should embrace to demonstrate their commitment to we the individuals who advance their causes and serve our communities.”

Full description can be found on the IFF schedule here.

• Right to Record – Wednesday, March 7, 10-12 p.m. with Dia Kayyali and others.

What is the right to record? We’re glad you asked. We see the right to record as the right of everyone, not just credentialed press,  to film the police and military when they are carrying out their duties.  If you are interested in learning more about the right to record or our research so far, want to join this work, or want to share your experiences with filming the police, please stop by!

• WITNESS the Apps – Thursday, March 8, 12-2 p.m. with Dia Kayyali and the Guardian Project

We will be discussing the Android apps we have been working on with the Guardian Project. We will provide demos, and we would also love your feedback. We’ll have some special treats for folks who take a few minutes to chat with us about our apps. You can download ProofMode here and ObscuraCam here.

See you in Valencia!