By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An Associated Press investigation revealed how American tech companies played a significant role in building China’s digital surveillance state, selling billions of dollars worth of technology to the Chinese government despite warnings of human rights abuses. This technology, including “predictive policing” systems, was used to monitor and control citizens, especially those deemed “troublemakers” like the Yang family. U.S. firms like IBM and Cisco provided the foundation for China’s surveillance, particularly in Xinjiang, where the Uyghur population faced mass detention facilitated by these technologies. Although the flow of this tech has slowed, the initial foundation enabled the current surveillance apparatus.
Read the original article here
US tech companies enabled the surveillance and detention of hundreds of thousands in China, a sobering thought, isn’t it? It brings to mind historical parallels, like the American companies that found ways to work with the Nazi regime in Germany. This isn’t some abstract concept; it’s a reality where the desire for market access and profits can lead to some uncomfortable compromises. We’re talking about companies that, in essence, facilitated a system that has resulted in the detainment of a massive number of people.
It’s pretty unsettling when you consider the implications of a senior executive from a major social media company admitting they worked “hand in glove” with the Chinese government on ways to censor and control content. This isn’t about a single rogue actor; it’s about a systemic collaboration. Imagine the lengths these companies went to, to cater to the demands of a government that’s known for its tight control over its population. It’s the kind of thing that makes you question the very nature of the internet and the role these tech giants play in it.
The question of “localization” comes up a lot in these discussions, right? When a company like TikTok enters a new market, should it follow the rules of that market? Sure, on the surface, it makes sense. But at what cost? Are we willing to accept the erosion of privacy, freedom of expression, or other human rights to gain access to a product? It’s a trade-off that demands critical consideration. The line between following local regulations and enabling oppressive regimes is often blurry.
And let’s be honest, it’s tough to point the finger at American companies without acknowledging the broader context. Multinational tech companies, especially, are dependent on their relationship with China. Their existence in that market is intricately tied to the whims of the Chinese government. It’s a complex game where the lines between Chinese and American companies blur. It’s like a global dance of quid pro quo, where you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours, all in the name of doing business.
The situation is compounded when we consider that the US has the largest incarcerated population in the world, although this number is debated. It’s easy to cast stones at China, but we should also recognize that the US has its own problems with its justice system. We also know from other sources that the Chinese government might not acknowledge the full extent of the detention of groups like the Uyghurs. This makes it even more difficult to know exactly what’s going on.
Of course, the internet in the West does have regulation, and it might be better than China’s. But that doesn’t give Western companies a pass. If they’re going to operate in China, they have to follow their laws. It just makes the issue more complex. You can’t use different laws to justify doing something, it’s not a defense.
Looking at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that there is a convergence of powers. The US, China, Russia, and India are a confederation that’s easy to see. They’re all playing their parts on the world stage. The US tries to inspire hope, while these other countries provide the foundation for an alternate reality. Europe is attempting to find its way.
All of this serves as a stark reminder: Be critical of everything. Don’t assume anything. And always, always, question the motives of those in power.