China’s dystopian push to revolutionize surveillance. By Maya Wang
China’s dystopian push to revolutionize surveillance. By Maya Wang. August 18, 2017
As part of a new
multimillion-dollar project in Xinjiang, the Chinese government is attempting
to “build a fortress city with technologies.” If this sounds Orwellian, that’s
because it is. According to the Sina online news portal, the project is
supposed to strengthen the authorities’ hands against unexpected social unrest.
Using “big data” from various sources, including the railway system and
visitors’ systems in private residential compounds, its ultimate aim is to “predict
… individuals and vehicles posing heightened risks” to public safety. And this isn’t the
only project in China that aims to expand surveillance while denying people
privacy rights. Across the country, local governments are spending billions of
dollars implementing sophisticated technological systems for mass surveillance.
The consequences for human rights are ominous.
Beijing’s impulse to
surveil is certainly not new. But mass migration and privatization during the
transition to a market economy have undermined the power of older practices
that allowed the state to keep tabs on people, such as the “hukou” residency
registration system. To bolster and broaden surveillance, the Ministry of
Public Security turned to new technologies, launching the Golden Shield Project
in 2000. The project aims to build a nationwide, intelligent digital
surveillance network capable of identifying and locating individuals, as well
as offering the state immediate access to personal records at the push of a
button.
This dystopian project is bearing fruit. China’s pervasive Internet censorship and its use of countless security cameras in public spaces are well known. Recent reporting reveals authorities’ aspirations to enable facial recognition through upgraded cameras, to calculate citizens’ “social credit” scores based on economic and social status and to establish a national DNA database that logs genetic code irrespective of anyone’s connection to a crime.
The story of Wu Bing
may offer a taste of what is to come. Wu is one of nearly 3 million individuals
whose name is logged into a police database known as the “Online Dynamic
Control and Early Warning System for Drug Addicts.” Wu kicked the habit in
2005, but whenever he uses his ID - when he checks into a hotel, for example, the police are alerted and sometimes force him to take a drug test.
What’s worse, the
Chinese government is promoting its surveillance model abroad. It has pushed
the concept of “Internet sovereignty” - the idea that, instead of a free World
Wide Web, a country’s rulers should determine what netizens can say and read.
And its efforts are aided by Chinese companies eager to peddle their wares. In
2014, a Human Rights Watch report found that Chinese telecom giant ZTE sold
technology and provided training to monitor mobile phones and Internet activity
to Ethiopia’s repressive government. Meanwhile, closed-circuit television
cameras and monitoring systems made by Chinese companies - some high-definition
and equipped with facial and movement recognition powers - have been sold to
countries around the world, including Brazil, Ecuador, Kenya and Britain.
But we are beginning
to see a backlash against Chinese companies with strong ties to the Chinese
government, prompted by security concerns. In July 2017, Germany became the
first European Union nation to tighten rules on foreign corporate acquisitions;
this ensures that Germany retains control over critical technologies, including
artificial intelligence applications. Others, including the United States and
Britain are mulling similar restrictions.
Yet foreign
governments need to take stronger and more systematic action. They should first
understand and review the ways in which the transfer of technologies used for
abusive purposes is taking place. The United States needs to review and enhance
a long-standing ban on exporting policing and “crime control” equipment to
China. The sanctions, passed in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre,
have been largely ineffective in preventing U.S.-based companies from selling
software and hardware for surveillance purposes. That review should ensure that
the list of equipment barred is regularly updated or supplemented to cover the
latest technologies and that the sanctions are vigorously enforced. If the Chinese
government’s Orwellian drive at home does not alarm the international
community, its willingness to export that approach should. It’s not just the
liberty of people in China at stake - it is the liberty of people across the
globe.
Maya Wang is senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.
see also
