| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
How China is exporting its digital dictatorship to Hong Kong thereby challenging GAFA companies | | | Under the new national security law in Hong Kong, local authorities can request service providers to remove some online content and to communicate sensitive user data if a “threat to national security” is shown. Sanction for noncompliance consists in fines of up to 100,000 HK dollars ($12,903) and imprisonment for six months. Following the enactment of this law in June 2020, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others announced that they would suspend their cooperation with the local government on data requests, as this could significantly compromise pro-democratic protesters. Yet, this position can only be a temporary one. For now, Google is the only company that publicly declared that it had eventually produced some data to the local government, as part of 3 responses (out of the 43 requests from the HK government). According to Google, the requests concerned threat to life and human trafficking issues, and the data communicated was not content data, just metadata. | |
<
< | In this regard, Hong Kong is the perfect case study to understand how big tech companies have become as powerful, if not more, than states. The scenario presented is one in which tech companies, that claim to defend freedom of speech and democratic values, detain personal data on individuals searched by an anti-democratic government. To me, this strongly resembles to an extradition situation but instead of a country A bargaining with a country B, the country A deals with a tech company. But what is the legitimacy of a private entity that is not politically and democratically entitled to make such decision? Would it be different and sufficient, if the tech company was backed-up by a state (GAFA stated they would only cooperate with the HK government if the request was approved by the US Justice Department)? | >
> | In this regard, Hong Kong is the perfect case study to understand how big tech companies have become as powerful, if not more, than states.
I don't see how. What power do they have to modify China's redefinition of the culture of Hong Kong? Did Google ever do anything to protect Hong Kong patriots other than to tell Joshua Wong to use a Chromebook? Why are US "big tech" companies the only examples used? Didn't the CCP prove by its treatment of Jack Ma personally, and Didi and Ant Financial corporately that tech companies have no power whatever in China unless it is conditionally given to them by the Party?
The scenario presented is one in which tech companies, that claim to defend freedom of speech and democratic values, detain personal data on individuals searched by an anti-democratic government. To me, this strongly resembles to an extradition situation but instead of a country A bargaining with a country B, the country A deals with a tech company. But what is the legitimacy of a private entity that is not politically and democratically entitled to make such decision? Would it be different and sufficient, if the tech company was backed-up by a state (GAFA stated they would only cooperate with the HK government if the request was approved by the US Justice Department)? | | | More recently, in September 2021, the HK Legislature passed amendments to anti-doxing regulations. Doxing refers to the disclosure of one’s personal data on the internet that favors harassment. Doxing has been particularly used as a tool of resistance by pro-democracy protesters in 2019 to threaten police officers (through Telegram in particular). In the same way, police officers have used this method against protesters (on a website called HKLeaks). The 2021 amendments, which aim to crack-down on dissidents, provide that participants in doxing can be fined of up to 1 million HK dollars (about $129,000) and five years' imprisonment, thereby significantly increasing the sanction for doxing. Because this new legislative arsenal exposes big tech companies’ employees to considerable criminal penalties related to what users post online, GAFA and others had threatened to stop offering their services in Hong Kong in July 2021. Now that the law has passed, the departure of these big tech companies seems increasingly likely. The other scenario, not to be ruled out, is collaboration with the HK government. In mainland China, Apple has already shown a willingness to cooperate with the Chinese government regarding censorship, removing hundreds of VPN apps from its mainland app store at the request of authorities. A choice must be made... | |
>
> |
This is not exactly a conclusion, more a jumble.
The best route to improvement is increase in clarity. The next draft should be able to state the main idea you are contributing to the conversation clearly and simply at the top, so the reader can immediately apprehend it. You can then present the learning that brought you to that idea concisely, linking to relevant sources. Whatever the central idea is, it can then be measured against the reality on the ground, which concerns not just the few million people in Hong Kong, but the other 1.4 billion people affected, whom you do not mention. A conclusion, based on what you have learned, can then be offered to the reader in a form that allows her to take the ideas you present further on her own.
The lazy EC-influenced use of GAFA can be replaced by an actual discussion of the companies that do business in Hong Kong and China and how they do it. (Amazon, after all, is buying there and collecting data on the producers from whom it buys, which is a completely different subject than the role of Apple or Google, each of which is a trifle more complex than you let on. The Chinese platforms, about which you also say nothing, cannot be left out of the story. If the middle name of the Internet is Party, as Xi Jinping says, then Xinjiang, Guandong, Hong Kong, Lhasa and Chengdu are all in the same net, are they not?
| | |
Sources : | |
>
> |
These could just be links in the text. You're writing for the web, so make it easy for the reader to find what you're relying on with a click.
| | | - Dan McDevitt? , Nikkei Asia
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/China-has-brought-its-repressive-surveillance-tools-to-Hong-Kong |
|