Krempley 1 POL 300 Google/Multi-National Corporations, International Surveillance, and Human Rights Abstract The many news reports on cyber security, identity theft, Wikileaks, and NSA intelligence gathering programs over the past few years have shown the international community that the World Wide Web is anything but a safe place to store sensitive information, or any information for that matter. This study will examine how closely multi-national corporations in the information technology sector, such as Google, are involved with national governments on these issues. The study will analyze events in the U.S. and China and attempt to uncover whether or not these have directly infringed upon peoples’ basic human rights. Question With emerging information regarding the NSA's PRISM program and China's "Golden Shield Project", has either country directly infringed on peoples' basic human rights? Hypothesis As more information is uncovered regarding the true nature of the aims of these internationally implemented programs, it has become increasingly clear that there have been multiple violations of peoples' human rights in both the United States and China with their respective monitoring programs. The NSA and the PRISM Project "Since September 11th, 2001, the United States government has dramatically increased the ability of its intelligence agencies to collect and investigate information on both foreign subjects and US citizens. Some of these surveillance programs, including a secret program called PRISM, capture the private data of citizens who are not suspected of any connection to terrorism or any wrongdoing." (Sottek&Kopstein, 2013) Under the guise of a "war on terror", the United States government has consistently upped its efforts to gather as much information as possible regarding the activities of international and domestic citizens alike. Most U.S. citizens were wholly unaware that the government had been running a secret filtration program to determine threat levels of individual citizens both domestically and abroad. This PRISM project and its intentions have recently been leaked in the Edward Snowden fiasco that took the country and the media by storm. "PRISM is a tool used by the US National Security Agency (NSA) to collect private electronic data belonging to users of major internet services like Gmail, Facebook, Outlook, and others. It’s the latest evolution of the US government’s post-9/11 electronic surveillance efforts, which began under President Bush with the Patriot Act, and expanded to include the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) enacted in 2006 and 2007." (Sottek&Kopstein, 2013) FISA, "...may be the most powerful court you have never heard of -- operating out of a bunker-like complex blocks from the Capitol and the White House -- sealed tightly to prevent eavesdropping.The FISA Court's larger mission is to decide whether to grant certain types of government requests-- wiretapping, data anal ...

1. Krempley 1
POL 300
Google/Multi-National Corporations, International Surveillance,
and Human Rights
Abstract
The many news reports on cyber security, identity theft,
Wikileaks, and NSA intelligence gathering programs over the
past few years have shown the international community that the
World Wide Web is anything but a safe place to store sensitive
information, or any information for that matter. This study will
examine how closely multi-national corporations in the
information technology sector, such as Google, are involved
with national governments on these issues. The study will
analyze events in the U.S. and China and attempt to uncover
whether or not these have directly infringed upon peoples’ basic
human rights.
Question
With emerging information regarding the NSA's PRISM
program and China's "Golden Shield Project", has either country
directly infringed on peoples' basic human rights?
Hypothesis
As more information is uncovered regarding the true

2. nature of the aims of these internationally implemented
programs, it has become increasingly clear that there have been
multiple violations of peoples' human rights in both the United
States and China with their respective monitoring programs.
The NSA and the PRISM Project
"Since September 11th, 2001, the United States
government has dramatically increased the ability of its
intelligence agencies to collect and investigate information on
both foreign subjects and US citizens. Some of these
surveillance programs, including a secret program called
PRISM, capture the private data of citizens who are not
suspected of any connection to terrorism or any wrongdoing."
(Sottek&Kopstein, 2013) Under the guise of a "war on terror",
the United States government has consistently upped its efforts
to gather as much information as possible regarding the
activities of international and domestic citizens alike. Most U.S.
citizens were wholly unaware that the government had been
running a secret filtration program to determine threat levels of
individual citizens both domestically and abroad. This PRISM
project and its intentions have recently been leaked in the
Edward Snowden fiasco that took the country and the media by
storm.
"PRISM is a tool used by the US National Security Agency
(NSA) to collect private electronic data belonging to users of
major internet services like Gmail, Facebook, Outlook, and
others. It’s the latest evolution of the US government’s post-
9/11 electronic surveillance efforts, which began under
President Bush with the Patriot Act, and expanded to include
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) enacted in
2006 and 2007." (Sottek&Kopstein, 2013) FISA, "...may be the
most powerful court you have never heard of -- operating out of
a bunker-like complex blocks from the Capitol and the White
House -- sealed tightly to prevent eavesdropping.The FISA
Court's larger mission is to decide whether to grant certain

3. types of government requests-- wiretapping, data analysis, and
other monitoring for "foreign intelligence purposes" of
suspected terrorists and spies operating in the United States."
(Abdullah &Meers, 2014) Essentially, the National Security
Agency relies on the FISA courts to obtain the warrants in order
to snoop around whomever they suspect to be a target, giving
them virtually free reign to investigate anything they choose.
"There were 1,856 applications in 2012 to the FISA Court for
electronic surveillance and physical searches for "foreign
intelligence purposes," the Justice Department said.None were
denied, but 40 were modified to some extent. Only one such
request was withdrawn by the FBI." (Abdullah &Meers, 2014)
This is a startling statistic considering the fact that all but one
request was accepted, allowing the NSA to proceed with
investigations as they please. From a human rights standpoint,
this could raise a few eyebrows. If the NSA can inspect at will,
wouldn't you suspect there to be multiple human rights
violations in this pursuit of information?
The situation becomes even more interesting when
multinational corporations are involved. There seems to be a
fine line between the autonomy of corporations and the extent
to which the government can strong arm information out of
them. "In June, a private contractor working for Booz Allen
Hamilton (Edward Snowden) leaked classified presentation
slides that detailed the existence and the operations of PRISM:
a mechanism that allows the government to collect user data
from companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple, Yahoo, and
others." (Sottek&Kopstein, 2013)Although many of these
companies claim to object government intervention, it is clear
through recent reports that the government has undoubtedly
seized a plethora of information from many of these
multinational corporations in order to build leads and continue
investigations. "...The basic idea is that it allows the NSA to
request data on specific people from major technology
companies like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple,
and others. The US government insists that it is only allowed to

4. collect data when given permission by the secretive Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Sottek&Kopstein, 2013)
However, as previously stated, the process to obtain this
information seems fairly lenient and allows for plenty of
flexibility to maneuver around standard protocol, again raising
suspicion as to what exactly the NSA obtains and how exactly
they obtain it. Although the PRISM project has recently been
leaked and more information is becoming available regarding
their intentions, the agency and its programs continue to be
shrouded in secrecy.
The extent and rate at which the government seizes or
attempts to seize information and/or bars these companies from
sharing pertinent information with the public remains a mystery
as well. "Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and others have stepped up
pressure on the government in the past month to declassify the
process which compels them to hand over user data to the
government. In an impassioned plea made by Microsoft on July
16th, the company’s general counsel Brad Smith said: “We
believe the US constitution guarantees our freedom to share
more information with the public, yet the government is
stopping us.” (Sottek&Kopstein, 2013) Clearly, the government
understands what its doing is wrong, otherwise what would be
the problem with letting citizens know exactly what is going on
by allowing these multinational corporations to release
information to the people? It couldn't be a matter of national
security if a majority of the surveillance incidents are
happening on U.S. soil toward U.S. citizens. It would become
more an issue of domestic security, as people would
undoubtedly be outraged if they knew the overall extent to
which the U.S. government was spying on its own citizens. The
Electronic Frontier Foundation states, "“this isn’t a wiretap, it’s
a country-tap.” (NSA Spying On)
As far as we know, "NSA programs collect two kinds of
data: metadata and content. Metadata is the sensitive byproduct
of communications, such as phone records that reveal the
participants, times, and durations of calls; the communications

5. collected by PRISM include the contents of emails, chats, VoIP
calls, cloud-stored files, and more." (Sottek&Kopstein, 2013)
The NSA runs a dragnet and especially targets calls made from
abroad to the U.S. where foreigners are specifically targeted.
"Leaked documents show that under the agency’s targeting and
“minimization” rules, NSA analysts can not specifically target
someone “reasonably believed” to be a US person
communicating on US soil. According to The Washington Post,
an analyst must have at least “51 percent” certainty their target
is foreign. (Sottek&Kopstein, 2013) So, the stipulation is, if
there is 51 percent certainty that a target is foreign, they can
have their calls monitored and screened without the target
giving any type of consent, even if they are technically U.S.
citizens. It doesn't take long to figure out that there is
something terribly wrong with this new system of information
retrieval; one that directly challenges the ideas our forefathers
presented for a just and free nation where all men are created
equal with the same inalienable rights.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has been
working diligently to fight the NSA and its PRISM project since
2008. "EFF is fighting these illegal activities in the courts.
Currently, EFF is representing victims of the illegal
surveillance program in Jewel v. NSA, a lawsuit filed in
September 2008 seeking to stop the warrantless wiretapping and
hold the government and government officials behind the
program accountable. In July 2013, a federal judge ruled that
the government could not rely on the controversial ‘state
secrets’ privilege to block our challenge to the constitutionality
of the program." (NSA Spying On) Clearly, there are major
violations of human rights going on in the U.S. with the NSA,
the PRISM project, and others that are coming into focus as
more information is revealed and more whistleblowers continue
to speak out.
China and the "Golden Shield Project"

6. "The Golden Shield Project" (GSP), otherwise known as
"The Great Firewall of China", has been a subject of great
debate in the last decade or so because of the peculiar situation
they seem to have created for themselves. The GSP is, "the
Chinese government’s internet censorship and surveillance
project. Initiated, developed, and operated by the Ministry of
Public Security (MPS), the project is one of the most
controversial subjects in the world." (Ping, 2011) On one hand,
the Chinese benefit tremendously from the onset of the internet
and the wave of business opportunities that followed. With
economic prosperity at the forefront and booming, President
Jiang Zemin developed and "Open Door Policy" to "bring in
Western knowledge and open the country to foreign trade and
investment." (Ping, 2011) However, "After the Open Door
policy was implemented, China has struggled to strike a balance
between “opening up” to the Western world and keeping its
people away from the Western ideology." (Ping, 2011)
Considering the fact that the internet is essentially the dawn of
the information age with the ability to share information in an
instant, it is ironic that the Chinese both rely on the internet for
economic purposes, yet reject the internet for the possibility of
Western ideologies permeating society and compromising
communist control in China. It's a real catch-22 for them.
The initial aims of the GSP are eerily similar to what is
currently happening in the U.S. "The government initially
envisioned the Golden Shield Project to be a comprehensive
database-driven surveillance system that could access every
citizen’s record as well as link national, regional, and local
security together." (Ping, 2011) Although China receives the
highest scrutiny for their practices regarding censorship and
human rights violations as a result, there are definite parallels
between the NSA's PRISM program and China's GSP, however
China just doesn't hide theirs as well. In a report issued by
China regarding a U.S. report of Chinese human rights
violations, Chinese officials stated, "The U.S. report is "full of
overly critical remarks on human rights conditions in nearly 200

7. countries and regions, as well as distortions and accusations
concerning human rights causes in China. However, the United
States has turned a blind eye to its own woeful human rights
situation and remained silent about it." (China Issues Report) It
goes on to state, "...civil and political rights violations have
been "severe" in the United States, adding that the country is
"lying to itself" when proclaiming that Americans live in the
"land of the free" and also states, "To support this argument, the
report noted that the U.S. Patriot Act and Homeland Security
Act both have clauses about monitoring the Internet, giving the
government or law enforcement organizations power to monitor
and block any Internet content "harmful to national security."
(China Issues Report) In this case, the U.S. was pointing the
finger at China and denounced their internet censorship tactics,
however China fired right back with a retort that drew even
more attention to the U.S. and their domestic censorship
policies. Even though China gets the bad wrap, (although their
policies are certainly a little more extreme) it is evident that the
United States uses a very similar framework within its own
country, and the international community is well aware.
Cases involving multinational corporations in China
provide some interesting insight as to how closely these U.S.
based corporations can be corralled into handing over sensitive
information to the U.S. government. A few years ago, "Google
cited a major instance of that abuse in announcing its policy
change: "a highly sophisticated and targeted attack" on Google
and more than 20 other large companies aimed at stealing
software code. "A primary goal of the attackers," Google said,
was breaking into the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
activists." China was targeting Chinese Human Rights Activists
living in the United States by infiltrating Gmail in order to
obtain information as opposed to trying to infiltrate the
substantially more difficult FBI database to uncover these
individuals. In response, Google had no choice but to surrender
their databases to the U.S. government in order to have the
situation resolved. With that, Google essentially gave the

8. government full access to their servers with which they could
access at any time. This caused a major stir between Google and
China, as Google was already extending itself in order to
provide China with the censored Google platform they desired.
Another major incident regarding multinational
corporations and China involved tech giant Cisco. The EFF in
the case Du v. Cisco made several accusations toward Cisco
regarding a multitude of human rights violations and their role
in customizing equipment for China's internet censorship goals.
Some of the claims made include:
· That Cisco Systems "aggressively sought contracts to provide
substantial assistance in helping the Chinese government
implement the Golden Shield Project"
· That Cisco knew its services and products would be used by
Chinese law enforcement, prisons, forced labor camps and also
to police Internet usage
· That Cisco employees themselves customized or trained others
to customize the equipment they sold to China to meet the
unique goals of the Golden Shield Project, including targeting
disfavored groups in China
· That Cisco knew the Golden Shield Project would be used to
commit human rights violations (Reitman, 2011)
The case raised some serious questions regarding the
responsibility and accountability of these multinational
corporations and their involvement in human rights violations
both domestically and abroad. "What responsibility do
corporations have to consider human rights when making
business deals? Are companies that build and market equipment
for the purpose of surveilling and censoring pro-democracy
activists in authoritarian regimes culpable when those activists
are imprisoned or tortured? Do companies bear a special
responsibility if they customize products to improve the
efficacy of tracking dissidents and choking free speech? What if
the companies train government agents in using the technology
to ferret out activists?" (Reitman, 2011) It is difficult to answer
any of these questions with one-hundred percent certainty,

9. however the idea that these companies are knowingly producing
products that lead to the capture, torture, and imprisonment of
human rights activists undoubtedly gives precedence to the idea
that these companies could be at fault and partially responsible
for many of these violations as well.
Throughout this report, I have cited numerous instances in
which both the United States through the NSA and their PRISM
program and China with their "Golden Shield Project" have
clearly violated peoples' rights to privacy and free speech.
Under the guise of a "war on terror" in the U.S. and in an
attempt to shelter people from Western ideals in China, both
countries have taken advantage of their citizens and have
exploited their trust in the government and their mission to do
what is best for the country. As multinational corporations
become involved in human rights violations, it is difficult to
draw a definite line as to who is guiltier, the government for
imposing or the corporations for succumbing? Regardless, there
is substantial evidence against these countries and their internet
censorship/monitoring programs that require a call to action to
pursue a more transparent government that can share
information freely with its people without tarnishing the trust of
those that pledge their allegiance to a country that doesn't trust
them back.
References
"China issues report on human rights in the U.S.."
http://news.xinhuanet.com. N.p., 25 May 2012. Web. 18 Apr
2014. <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-
05/25/c_131611391.htm>.
"Google vs. China." washingtonpost.com.N.p., 14 Jan 2010.

10. Web. 15 Apr 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011302908.html>.
Meers, Bill, and Halimah Abdullah. "What is the FISA court?."
CNN. N.p., 17 Jan 2014. Web. 15 Apr 2014.
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/politics/surveillance-court/>.
"NSA Spying on Americans." Electronic Frontier
Foundation.N.p.. Web. 16 Apr 2014. <https://www.eff.org/nsa-
spying>.
Ping, P. "The Great Firewall of China: Background."
Torfox.Stanford. N.p., 1 Jun 2011. Web. 13 Apr 2014.
<http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-
11/FreedomOfInformationChina/the-great-firewall-of-china-
background/index.html>.
Reitman, Reiney. "Cisco and Abuses of Human Rights in China:
Part 1." .N.p., 22 Aug 2011. Web. 11 Apr 2014.
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/cisco-and-abuses-
human-rights-china-part-1>.
Sottek, T.C., and Josh Kopstein. "Everything you need to know
about prism." The Verge. N.p., 17 Jul 2013. Web. 15 Apr 2014.
<http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/17/4517480/nsa-spying-
prism-surveillance-cheat-sheet>.
Krempley
1
POL 300
Google/Multi
-
National Corporations, International Surveillance,
and Human Rights

11. Abstract
The many news reports on cyber security, identity theft,
Wikileaks, and NSA
intelligence gathering programs
over the past few years have shown the
international community that the World Wide Web is anything
but a safe place to
store sensitive information, or any information for that matter.
This study will
examine how closely multi
-
national corporations in the i
nformation technology
sector, such as Google, are involved with national governments
on these issues. The
study will analyze events in the U.S. and China and attempt to
uncover whether or
not these have directly infringed upon peoples’ basic human
rights.
Question