Corporate Accountability News Highlights is a regular series by Ranking Digital Rights highlighting key news related to tech companies, freedom of expression, and privacy issues around the world.
Network shutdowns ordered in India to prevent exam cheating and quell protests
Image by the Software Freedom Law Center [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0]
several network shutdowns were recorded for a number of reasons, including to prevent exam cheating, to quell students protests, and to prevent protesters from organizing in Kashmir.
On July 20, the Manipur government ordered a five-day internet shutdown over protests denouncing financial misconduct and mismanagement by the vice president of a local university. In mid July, the Rajasthan state government ordered the suspension of internet services across the state to prevent cheating during police recruitment exams. The suspension of internet services is also expected on July 29 throughout the Arunachal Pradesh state during exams for public sector jobs recruitment. The local government ordered the shutdown “to ensure free and fair conduct” during the exams, local media reported.
The number of shutdowns in India are increasing at a ‘’staggering’’ level, according to the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC). As of July 2018, 68 shutdowns have already been recorded. That number is very likely higher, as many shutdowns go unreported, the SFLC said.
Telecommunications companies should be transparent about their processes for responding to government requests to restrict access to networks. They should disclose information about how they handle government network shutdown demands, including under whose authority a shutdown is ordered, so that those responsible can be held accountable. None of the 10 telecommunications companies evaluated in the 2018 Corporate Accountability Index disclosed sufficient information about how they handle government network shutdown demands. Bharti Airtel, which has the largest market share in India, only provided some information as to why it may shut down service to a particular area or group of users. Vodafone was the only company to clearly disclose its process for responding to these types of government demands and to clearly commit to push back against demands when possible. Telefónica was the only company that disclosed the number of shutdown requests it received.
Will Brazil’s President veto new data protection law?
After both houses of Brazil’s National Congress approved a comprehensive General Data Protection Bill, rights groups and privacy activists are concerned that President Michel Temer could veto it under pressure from lobby groups.
Brazil’s General Data Protection Regulation (LGPD) requires businesses and entities to obtain the consent of individuals in order to process their personal data, and gives data subjects the rights to access and correct their data. The law would also establish an independent data protection authority to enforce the law and ensure protection of people’s personal data. Temer is reportedly considering removing the provisions that would establish such authority, and transferring its oversight powers and responsibilities to a government agency.”This change, and others like it, would seriously undermine the protections Brazilians have fought so hard for,’’ warned AccessNow and the Brazilian Digital Rights Coalition, who are urging the president to sign the bill. Temer has until August 7 to sign the law or to veto it.
Governments should enact and enforce comprehensive data protection laws that require businesses to clearly disclose to users the full lifecycle of their information, from collection, to use, to sharing, to retention and deletion. Under these laws, companies should also give users options to control the collection and sharing of their information. The 2018 Corporate Accountability Index found that companies do not disclose enough information about how they handle user information and that users remain largely in the dark about what information about them is collected and shared, with whom, and for what purposes. However, even in the absence of policy and regulatory reform, all companies ranked by the 2018 Index can take immediate steps to improve their respect for users’ privacy rights.
Israeli Prime Minister nixes vote on controversial ‘’Facebook bill’’
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nixed a vote on the ‘’Removal of Terror-Inciting Content from Social Media’ bill, or the so-called “Facebook bill,” the same day it was expected to be approved by the Knesset. The bill allowed an administrative court to order platforms to take down content the Israeli government deems to be an “endangerment to personal, public or national security,” or speech that “could severely damage the Israeli economy or infrastructure.’’ Users would not be able challenge those requests in court.
The proposal was slammed by both Israeli and Palestinian activists. A report by the Israel Democracy Institute concluded that the bill sets a “dangerous legal precedent” and “opens the door to the dangers of state censorship.” Palestinians criticized the bill as an attempt to silence online criticism of Israel’s policies in occupied Palestinian territory.
While Netanyahu explained that he decided to halt the bill’s passage ‘’out of concern that freedom of expression could be harmed,’’ Palestinian activists already accuse platforms, Facebook in particular, of ‘’blindly’’ complying with Israeli requests for content removal. One of the bill’s initiator Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked declared that Facebook complies with “most of the state’s requests to remove inciteful [sic] content.”
Internet, mobile, and telecommunications companies should be transparent about how they handle government requests for content restrictions, and publish data about the number of requests received, the number they complied with, and the types of subject matter associated with these requests. Most companies evaluated in the 2018 Corporate Accountability Index lacked transparency about how they handle government requests to restrict content or accounts, and did not disclose sufficient data about the number of requests they received or complied with, or which authorities made these requests.
Companies should also notify users when they restrict content. Services that host user-generated content should notify those who posted the content and users trying to access it. The notification should include a clear reason for the restriction. The 2018 Index found that companies do not disclose sufficient data about their user notification policies when they restrict content or accounts.
