How the World�s Top Telecom and Internet Companies Violate User Rights

3 years 7 months
Share
Tweet
How the World�s Top Telecom and Internet Companies Violate User Rights
Research And Publications Jan 07, 2017 share
1940views
Early November, the Ranking Digital Rights (RDR) project launched its corporate
accountability index, a ranking of 16 of the world�s most powerful
telecommunications and internet companies on their commitments and policies that
affect users� free speech and privacy rights. Orange, MTN, Vodafone and Etisalat,
which all have operations in the Arab region, are included in the ranking. The most
popular internet companies such as Google, Twitter and Facebook are also there.
RDR in Telecom
What does RDR mean in Telecom?
4 meanings of RDR abbreviation related to Telecom:

1
1
1
1
RDR
ReaDeR
RDR
Redirect Request
RDR
Regional Dynamic Routing
RDR
Remote Dump and Restore
Technology, Electronic Engineering, Telecommunications
Technology, Electronic Engineering, Telecommunications
Technology, Telecommunications, Telecommunication
Technology, Telecommunications, Telecommunication
Suggest to this list
Related acronyms and abbreviations
Abbr. Meaning
IP
Internet Protocol
CPU
Central Processing Unit
LAN
Local Area Network
ASR
Access Service Request
ESTEC
European Space Research and Technology Centre
GB
Gigabit
OT
Overtime
EPS
Encapsulated PostScript
EMI
Electromagnetic Interference
DMZ
Demilitarized Zone
Technology, Computing, Technical
Technology, Computing, America
Technology, Computing, Technical
Computing, Cybersecurity, Technology
Astronomy, NASA, Spaceflight
Technology, Computer, Computer Engineering
Ice Hockey, Business, Banking
Computing, Technology, Programming
Technology, Nuclear, Electronics
Technology, Computing, Computer Security

Share RDR in Telecom page

Alternatively search Google for RDR

Violation of user rights in the Arab region is often uniquely blamed on repressive
governments that extensively filter the internet, spy on their citizens, and
prosecute them for merely expressing themselves online.

Over the past few years, however, activists and human rights groups have been
drawing attention to the complicity of companies, either foreign or national, in
violating the rights of users based in the region. Some of these companies, based
in Western Europe or North America, sell internet filtering and surveillance
technologies to governments which use them to crack down on speech and political
dissent.

For instance, several Arab governments including those of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Sudan, Morocco and the UAE, purchased the Milan-based Hacking Team�s �Remote
Control System� intrusion software, as was revealed when the company was hacked and
its documents leaked last July. In October, the Toronto-based Citizen Lab released
a report confirming that filtering products by the Canadian company Netsweeper are
being used to filter critical political content in Yemen.

It is not only companies selling spying and filtering technologies that threaten
the rights of users. The practices and policies of internet and telecommunications
companies can put their users� at risk of rights violations. This is what RDR�s
newly released index sheds light on.

RDR assessed the companies according to their publicly disclosed policies, and not
their practices, in three categories: commitment, freedom of expression, and
privacy. For each category, the indicators draw on guidelines established in
international human rights frameworks, including the United Nations Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights.

In the ranking, internet companies fare better than the telecommunications

companies. The highest ranked Internet company, Google, obtained a score of 65%,
while the highest ranked telecom company, Vodafone, obtained 54%. In the Internet
companies� ranking, four obtained at least a total score of 50%, while only two
telecom companies obtained a score of 50 and above.

RDR, however, notes that �there are no winners� and that �even companies in the
lead are falling short�, particularly when it comes to disclosing how they handle
user information and enforce terms of service, and the lack of transparency when
it comes to requests for content takedown and user data.

How do companies violate our rights?

RDR explains how companies like Internet Service Providers (ISPs), social
networking sites, and cell phones carriers violate user rights: �people
increasingly depend on Internet and telecommunications services for many facets of
their daily lives, including civic, political, and religious activities. The
services these companies offer connect and empower people in unprecedented ways,
but they can also be misused to undermine freedom of expression and privacy�.

Companies take a number of decisions that could affect user rights including:

� handing over user data at the request of governments, law enforcement agencies or
courts.
� taking down content at the request of governments for violating local laws.
� taking down content or banning users from using their services for violating
their terms of service. (Last August, for instance, Facebook removed a photo album
shared by a Syrian artist showing drowned Syrian and Palestinian refugees off the
coast of Libya after a number of users reported it for violating the company�s
terms of service )
� shutting down networks and services at the requests of governments

There are of course legitimate reasons for which companies need to take similar
decisions such as incitement to violence, hate speech, cyber-bullying or security
concerns. Repressive governments, however, have other less legitimate reasons, such
as requesting the data of an anonymous blogger who has been critical of the
authorities, or shutting down communications during protests.

Though several governments in the Arab region advocate for a universal access to
internet and mobile phones (the number of internet users in the region is expected
to hit 197 million by 2017, a penetration of 51%), they are wary of online
criticism and dissent, particularly following the so-called Arab Spring protests,
during which protesters across the region made use of these technologies to
document police violence and organize.

Etisalat gets lowest score in telecommunications companies ranking

With a 14% score, the UAE�s Etisalat received the lowest score for
telecommunications companies. In the overall ranking, only Mail.ru, a Russian
company which provides communication and entertainment services online, scored
worse than Etisalat with 13%.

In fact, Etisalat discloses little to no information about its public policies and
practices affecting its users� free speech and privacy rights. Out of six
indicators in the commitment category, Etisalat only received credit for disclosing
processes to receive complaints and grievances from its users (indicator C6). The
company, however, fails to get credit for the five remaining indicators, including
conducting human rights impact assessments (C4) and engaging with a multi
stakeholder initiative promoting freedom of expression and privacy (C5) such as the
Global Network Initiative.

Etisalat has the lowest score of any telecommunications company in the Privacy
category along with MTN, a South African multinational mobile telecommunications
company, which also has operations inside Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Though Etisalat
makes its privacy policies freely available (P1), and provides some information
into what user information it collects and shares, and why (P3 and P4), it does not
say whether it notifies users about third party requests for their information
(P10) or how long it retains user information (P17), nor publishes data about
requests for user information (P11).

Etisalat fares better in the freedom of expression category by making its terms of
service available (F1), committing to notify its users about changes to these
services (F2), and disclosing information about the circumstances under which it
restricts content or access to its services (F3 and F4). Out of a total of 10
indicators in the freedom of expression category, the company gets zero credit for
five indicators. Etisalat fails to reveal information about its process for
responding to requests from governments and other parties to restrict content (F6),
and does not publish data about such requests (F7). In addition, the company does
not reveal whether or not it prioritizes the delivery of certain types of content
over other, aka net neutrality (F10).

What about foreign companies?

Etisalat is not unique in its lack of public commitments to freedom of expression

and privacy in the Arab region, where even private and foreign companies do not
disclose enough information about their policies.

European companies behave differently in their countries of headquarters from

countries where the regulatory environment is restrictive and does not provide
legal protections for user rights.

Take for example the French multinational telecommunications group Orange which has
operations in Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia. In the telecommunications ranking, Orange
came third with a total score of 37 out of 100 after AT&T and Vodafone which
respectively obtained 50 and 54. Though in France, Orange makes its terms of
service available for each of its services on orange.fr, in Tunisia the terms and
conditions are nowhere to be found on orange.tn.

In 2011, Vodafone came under criticism in Egypt when it shut down its network there
during the protests against former president Hosni Mubarak, at the request of the
government. For 24 hours its customers were unable to make phone calls or use the
internet. Although Vodafone said that it was obliged to do so under local Egyptian
law, this case clearly shows how companies favor business interests over human
rights in countries where customers enjoy little to no protections.

It�s about regulation:

RDR notes that the legal and regulatory framework context in which Etisalat
operates �presents challenges for the company to achieve a higher score in the
Index�. The 2015 Freedom on the Net report states that the �UAE maintains an
authoritarian grip on both politics and telecommunications�. In fact, the state has
dominant ownerships in the country�s two telecommunication service providers,
including a 60% stake in Etisalat.

As long as regulation in the region is about controlling users and not protecting
them, it will be challenging for companies to improve their policies and practices.

In Bahrain, for instance, the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority has the power
to revoke the licenses of ISPs if they do not abide by blocking orders from the
government. In Egypt, the telecom industry regulator (NTRA) has been accused of
monitoring social media.

Despite the restrictive regulatory frameworks, there are steps that telcos could
take to further the protection of user rights, including making their terms of
service available in an easy to understand language, disclosing sites and content
they block access to, and revealing how they handle user information (what
information they collect, with which parties they share, and for what purposes and
for how long they retain it). In the RDR ranking, companies also get scored for
informing and educating users about cyberthreats (P14), and for deploying the
latest encryption and security standards (P12), two practices even companies in the
most restrictive environments should be capable of adopting.

For social media companies, regulation can be a bit tricky because of the
borderless nature of the Internet. Though it is understandable for companies to
respect the local legislation of countries inside which they operate, this does not
mean that they should not assess the risks that come with opening an office in a
restrictive environment. When Twitter launched its office in Dubai, a spokesperson
for the company said: �We do not make special arrangements with governments
regarding censorship�, in response to an inquiry from BuzzFeed News about the
agreements Twitter made with the government in order to be able to operate inside
the UAE.

In addition, Internet companies take down content at the request of courts or

government agencies for violating local laws. For instance, during the first half
of 2014, Facebook restricted seven pieces of content inside Saudi Arabia for
violating local laws that prohibit criticism of the royal family. This is a policy
that Facebook and other new media companies need to review, because legislation
under undemocratic regimes does not usually enshrine free speech protections in
accordance with international human rights standards.

The role of civil society

Despite the restrictions placed on civil society in several countries in the

region, groups

and activists working to advance digital rights protections can still do much. They
can use the RDR ranking in their advocacy work, or if possible conduct a similar
study focusing on ISPs and telcos operating inside the region. They can also raise
awareness and educate users about companies� practices and policies in order to
allow users to make informed choices and know which rights they give away when they
agree to the terms and conditions.

And in countries where civil society is not grappling with draconian restrictions
such as Lebanon and Tunisia, organizations and activists should lobby the
government and legislators to improve laws regulating the telecom industry, in a
way that they respect user rights.

Source: http://7iber.com/politics-economics/how-the-worlds-top-telecom-and-inter...