undergroundmusiccompanion.com
General Category => The AI (SkyNet becomes SELF-AWARE) subboard => WAPO Articles and Stories => Topic started by: Administrator on February 10, 2025, 06:08:46 AM
-
We’re Russian. We know what happens when Big Tech coddles dictators.
Tech companies are complying with dictators’ laws, compromising human rights and freedom of speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/03/kara-murza-navalnaya-yashin-dictators-tech/
Vladimir Kara-Murza is a contributing columnist for Post Opinions. Yulia Navalnaya is a Russian opposition politician and the widow of the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Ilya Yashin is a Russian opposition politician.
In many countries around the world — from Russia and Iran to Venezuela and Cuba — dictators regularly draft new laws aimed at destroying citizens’ rights, including those related to the internet. Far too often, U.S. tech companies comply with these laws without asking too many questions.
Block access to foreign media? Done. Restrict tools that bypass censorship? No problem. Deny citizens tools to encrypt their messages to avoid repression? Even to that, Big Tech says “yes.”
Every concession to dictators hides a tragedy. In Iran, administrators of opposition media platforms, whose data was handed over to the government, have been executed under the country’s laws. In Russia, tens of millions lost access to uncensored information about Vladimir Putin’s bloody war against Ukraine, leaving them vulnerable to relentless state propaganda — all in full compliance with laws dictated by a regime that flagrantly violates international norms. These “laws” are crafted by a dictator and rubber-stamped by a toy parliament of loyalists.
But do we really have a choice?” corporate lawyers from Western tech companies argue. “To operate in a country, we must follow its laws!” They see no room for debate. Law is law, they claim. And it must be obeyed.
But there is room for discussion. And we aim to start it.
The principle of “following local laws, no matter what they are” provides a convenient excuse. But it’s just that: an excuse and a moral dodge. Local laws can demand stoning a woman for uncovering her face or imprisoning someone for 15 years for calling Putin’s war a crime. We propose that companies replace the principle of blindly “following local laws, no matter what” with three other simple ones.
Principle 1: Put human rights first. Dictators’ “laws” are not always legitimate under international standards. Universal human rights, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, must not be violated. The rights of users must take precedence over the interests of dictators. Compliance with local laws cannot justify violating basic human rights.
Principle 2: Focus on real-world outcomes. In dictatorships, what’s written as law is not necessarily enforced fairly. Companies must consider the practical consequences of their actions on users and aim to protect them. For example, data-localization laws exist in many democracies to protect user data. But dictatorships use similar laws to target dissidents and fuel repression. When implementing any law, companies must evaluate how it will be applied in practice and what real consequences it might have for users.
Principle 3: Establish mechanisms for dialogue with civil society. To understand how a law might harm users, tech companies should consult with users and their representatives. Numerous national and international NGOs specialize in digital rights and have extensive knowledge about how dictators exploit technology for repression. Often, preventing tragic outcomes is as simple as consulting with experts.
All three of us are Russian. Recent events in our country illustrate how Western tech companies could have avoided causing harm by adhering to these three principles.
Last summer, during the third year of Russia’s war against Ukraine, the Kremlin ramped up its crackdown on free speech. Truth about the war was spreading too widely, prompting the regime to further restrict Russians’ access to uncensored information. Then, between July and November, Apple agreed to a series of Kremlin demands by removing independent media apps from the Russian Apple Store. Russian users lost access to content from publications such as the Insider, the BBC and Echo, as well as podcasts by Meduza and Holod. Even U.S.-funded media such as Current Time and Radio Liberty were removed.
Additionally, throughout 2024, Apple followed Kremlin orders and removed more than 50 VPN services from the App Store, which had enabled Russians to bypass censorship and access independent news.
These censorship demands by Putin’s regime were not “lawful.” The law itself is severely compromised in Russia’s authoritarian regime. The Kremlin controls Russia’s parliament and judiciary, using its laws to suppress opposition and strengthen censorship. Under Putin’s laws, antiwar or opposition activities are labeled extremist, and independent journalism is criminalized.
Complying with an authoritarian regime’s demands was immoral. Apple’s actions bolstered Putin’s dictatorship, deprived Russian society of access to independent information and hindered the antiwar movement.
On Dec. 25, Apple publicly responded to criticism from Reporters Without Borders about its policies in Russia. A spokesman argued that the alternative to removing VPNs and censoring independent media was a total ban on Apple services in Russia.
This response highlights the need for the three principles we’ve outlined:
Were users’ human rights prioritized over legal compliance? No. Tens of millions of users have a right to use VPNs to bypass illegal censorship to access information about Putin’s regime and his war in Ukraine. These rights were sacrificed to comply with the Kremlin’s illegitimate laws.
Were actions aligned with practical enforcement realities? No. Apple claimed the Kremlin threatened to ban all Apple services in Russia if the tech giant didn’t comply. However, the Kremlin has made such threats in the past — always as bluffs to pressure Western companies into submission. Putin’s officials, their families and even their mistresses all use Apple products. Owning the latest iPhone is a status symbol in Russia. The regime, focused on waging war against Ukraine, cannot afford to create even more new tensions, which a complete Apple service shutdown would probably spark.
Were consultations held with civil society? Sadly, no. Russian digital rights experts unanimously agree that the Kremlin’s threat to ban Apple services was pure bluff. Any one of these experts would have gladly explained this to Apple’s legal and policy teams, if only they had been asked.
We urge U.S. and Western tech companies to launch a public discussion about operating principles in countries ruled by dictatorships. We offer our assistance, time and expertise to help prevent mistakes such as the one Apple made in Russia.
We believe technology can stop being an unwitting accomplice to dictators and an easy tool for oppression. We believe technologies that protect freedom, rights and users’ interests will ultimately bring greater benefits to their creators.