RDR is now an independent initiative. Our website is catching up.  Read our announcement →

Donate

05 Dec

Posted at 05:00h in Events, News by
0 Likes

keepiton

Internet shutdowns are bad for human rights – as this YouTube video by RDR advocacy partner Access Now clearly illustrates, and as the UN Human Rights council asserted in a landmark resolution this past summer. Shutdowns are also bad for business. A recent paper by the Brookings Institution found that between July 2015 and June 2016, 81 short-term shutdowns of the internet by 19 countries cost the global economy over $2.6 billion in GDP.

For both reasons, the UK-based investor advocacy group ShareAction and Access Now recently co-published an Investor Brief explaining why investors should be concerned, and suggesting questions they should be asking of the telecommunications companies in whose stock they invest. Last month ShareAction and UNPRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) hosted an investor briefing event in their London offices. RDR was asked to present at the meeting alongside Access Now and the Global Network Initiative, whose members have also been speaking out against the harms of network shutdowns. The Investor Brief cites RDR as a useful tool for investors in evaluating companies’ performance on digital rights including network shutdowns, and notes which companies that performed poorly in RDR’s 2015 Index have also been connected to internet shutdowns.

While our 2015 Index methodology did not have a dedicated indicator focusing exclusively on network shutdowns, specific elements within several of the 2015 “freedom of expression” indicators examined company policies and practices in relation to network shutdowns. Specifically F4: Reasons for account or service restriction, F5: Notify users of restriction, and F6: Process for responding to third party requests which includes requests to restrict or shut down networks, and F7: Data about government requests which included data about requests to shut down networks. Other indicators in the commitment section also sought due diligence and accountability policies and mechanisms that would have an impact on how companies handle government demands to shut down networks.

For the 2017 Index, in response to the growing problem of network shutdowns and the need to highlight company policy and practice in relation to them, we have consolidated elements related to network shutdowns into a single indicator, F10: Network shutdowns, which states:

The company should clearly explain the circumstances under which it may shut down or restrict access to the network or to specific protocols, services, or applications on the network.

In order to evaluate telecommunications companies on this indicator we evaluate their disclosures on eight “element” questions:

  1. Does the company clearly explain the reason(s) why it may shut down service to a particular area or group of users?
  2. Does the company clearly explain why it may restrict access to specific applications or protocols (e.g., VoIP, messaging) in a particular area or to a specific group of users?
  3. Does the company clearly explain its process for responding to requests to shut down a network or restrict access to a service?
  4. Does the company commit to push back on requests to shut down a network or restrict access to a service?
  5. Does the company clearly disclose that it notifies users directly when it shuts down the network or restricts access to a service?
  6. Does the company list the number of network shutdown requests it receives?
  7. Does the company clearly identify the specific legal authority that makes the request?
  8. Does the company list the number of requests with which it complied?

Stay tuned for the launch of the 2017 Corporate Accountability Index in March 2017 to find out which companies do best and worst on this indicator.

23 Nov

Posted at 05:43h in News by
0 Likes

We are excited to announce that Ranking Digital Rights’ 2015 Corporate Accountability Index has been included on the WikiRate website, a collaborative research platform that features a variety of corporate social and environmental responsibility metrics.

wikirateborder2On WikiRate.org, visitors can view the Index findings in new ways as well as compare our findings with other corporate transparency rankings and ratings. For instance, WikiRate allows users to view each company ranking both individually and next to metrics from other non-profit and ranking organisations–which can be as diverse as metrics on corporate emissions to CEO-to-worker pay comparisons.

Users can also see the 2015 Index results grouped together with other metrics by topic area. The Index rankings are included under the Human Rights category, which also features evaluations of corporate policies related to Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) and corporate whistleblowing programs, among other human rights issues.

Visitors can also vote on what they find to be the most important metrics. The RDR Total Score and the Index’s Privacy Score are currently in the top 10 of nearly 400 different measures featured on the WikiRate platform.

WikiRate’s mission is “to spur corporations to be transparent and responsive by making data about their social and environmental impacts useful and available to all.”  This includes metrics about corporate pollution, sustainable mineral sourcing, employee working conditions, and in the case of Ranking Digital Rights, corporate commitments to international human rights like freedom of expression and privacy.

By featuring such a diverse array of metrics and ratings, WikiRate enables users not only to see a wider picture of corporate policies but also to identify gaps, trends, and areas for advocacy and action. This is also one of RDR’s key goals: to provide a tool that equips advocates, policymakers, and investors with the facts they need to hold companies accountable for their freedom of expression and privacy commitments. We are glad to see our findings being used in new and useful ways, and to contribute, along with other corporate accountability rankings, to the effort to achieve greater corporate transparency across all industries.

15 Sep

Posted at 12:48h in News, Uncategorized - X do not use X by
0 Likes

Ranking Digital Rights (RDR) is pleased to announce that research has begun for the 2017 Corporate Accountability Index, which ranks the world’s largest ICT companies’ public commitments to users’ freedom of expression and privacy rights.

A team of 28 researchers based around the world are contributing to this year’s research. The 2017 Index research cycle is an exciting new year for the RDR, as we have expanded our ranking to include new companies, products and services. The 2017 Index will evaluate 22 companies, which includes all companies previously ranked in 2015 as well as six new companies. The 2017 Index ranking also includes makers of mobile devices and software products that create what we call “mobile ecosystems.”

Click here to view or download the full 2017 Index methodology, research guidance, and definitions glossary that our researchers are now using to evaluate companies.

We anticipate launching our findings in March 2017. Companies’ scores and accompanying analysis will be generated through a rigorous process including peer review, company feedback, and quality control.

We encourage stakeholders to review the following documents for details on the changes we made to the 2017 Index methodology, which the RDR team finalized this month after concluding a process of public consultation.

  • The 2017 Index methodology, research guidance, and definitions glossary
  • The “Summary of revisions” document that outlines key changes introduced to the 2017 Index methodology
  • A table comparing the 2015 indicators to the 2017 indicators

Stay tuned for more updates from the RDR team.

15 Sep

Posted at 12:48h in News by
0 Likes

People around the world increasingly access the Internet through handheld devices we call “smartphones.” These devices are of course much more than telephones: they are handheld computers, photo and video camera—the gateways to data stored in remote servers, GPS-enabled maps, tracking devices, and more. Companies that produce these devices are gatekeepers for countless types of software applications that are downloaded via their app stores that have serious implications with both free expression and privacy.

RDR has therefore expanded the 2017 Index to include Apple (iOS), Google (Android) and Samsung (implementation of Android)—makers of mobile devices and software products that we call “mobile ecosystems.”

But what do we mean by “mobile ecosystems”? Our definition is: “the indivisible set of goods and services offered by a mobile device company, comprising the device hardware, operating system, app store and user account.”

Broadly speaking, consumers can choose between two competing product families for mobile Internet access, each of which is centered around a private company: Google and Apple (there are other mobile ecosystems (ie Windows and Blackberry) but these companies currently represent a small share of the market).

The two product families differ in many ways. While all components of Apple’s iOS ecosystem are firmly under the company’s control, the Android ecosystem is more fragmented. The Android operating system is open-source, which allows a variety of manufacturers to adapt it for their own devices. And unlike with iOS, there are a number of Android app stores from which users can download apps.

However Google and Apple are alike in one key aspect: with either product, users must create a user account with the company, they are limited in their choice of hardware (Google offers more options but it still excludes iPhones and Windows phones); they must commit to a particular operating system; and they will generally install new software (apps) through the app store associated with the company in question. Crucially, users can’t mix and match, pairing (for example) Apple hardware with the Android operating system, and installing apps from both the Apple and Google App Stores. They must commit to one set of products and services, which are linked through the user account (Google account or Apple account).

In addition to its core elements (hardware, operating system, app store, and user account), each ecosystem involves more-or-less optional services for which it is possible to mix and match between Google, Apple, and other providers, or not to use at all: email, cloud storage, office software, web browsers, music subscription services, messaging apps, and more. Such services are evaluated separately.

23 Aug

Posted at 12:29h in News by
0 Likes

A majority of companies analyzed in Ranking Digital Rights’ 2015 Corporate Accountability Index have publicly responded to our findings, thanks to a campaign by digital rights group Access Now. As part of a public outreach effort launched this spring, Access Now sent letters to each of the 16 companies evaluated in the 2015 Index, asking them to respond to our findings and offering tailored recommendations for improving their policies affecting users’ freedom of expression and privacy rights.

Twelve of the 16 companies have responded to Access Now’s campaign, with many reporting they have taken steps to improve their commitments to freedom of expression and privacy standards in light of the Index results and Access Now’s recommendations.  

In response to Access Now’s letter to Kakao about the company’s Index results, which showed the company’s greater emphasis on privacy than freedom of expression, a senior executive of the South Korean Internet company wrote that it will “soon start to institutionalize our commitments to users’ freedom of expression at the same level of our commitments to privacy.” The company also said it was planning other improvements, including “clearer control options for collection of user information and more details of the company’s collection of user information.”

Microsoft reported plans to enhance its human rights grievance and remedy mechanisms, based on recommendations from Access Now. “We already have work underway to address some of Access Now’s primary recommendations, particularly around further enhancing our human rights grievance and remedy mechanisms,” the company wrote. Along with many of its peers, Microsoft’s performance on on remedy left much room for improvement.

AT&T also revealed it is taking steps to improve its human rights impact assessment practices. While our 2015 research found that AT&T carried out no human rights impact assessments on its U.S. operations, a company executive wrote that they are conducting human rights impact assessments on newly acquired Mexican wireless operations.

A number of companies, including Twitter, Yahoo and Facebook, reported new efforts to improve their transparency reporting. After the 2015 Index highlighted the lack of company disclosure about terms of service enforcement, Twitter’s February 2016 update of its transparency report included some data on terms of service enforcement. According to the company, it now includes “reports from government deputized reporters, a critical and growing area for transparency reporting. We included such reports not only in our transparency reports but in our disclosures to Lumen as well.”

Yahoo said the company is “actively studying, analyzing and considering the results and findings of RDR with respect to company transparency,” according to its response to Access Now’s letter. “We’re examining the issues at the core of the indicators and discussing the findings with our teams. We look forward to continuing this work and to continued dialogue with interested stakeholders.”

Facebook described a number of improvements it has made to its transparency report since the 2015 Index research was conducted, in addition to “enabling end-to-end encryption by default for all WhatsApp messages and voice conversations and extending Facebook over Tor support to our Android app.”

In its response to Access Now’s letter to Google, the company highlighted its commitment to freedom of expression and privacy, and reported it has “used the findings to guide internal discussions about how our practices and communications to the public can evolve.”

The successful campaign by Access Now highlights RDR’s multi-stakeholder approach and our strategy of engagement with companies, which we believe is key to furthering understanding among all stakeholders about how users’ rights are affected and what improvements can be made.

The Business & Human Rights Resource Center, which facilitated the dialogue between Access Now and the companies, provides a full overview of letters sent and company responses.