Tag: Digital Surveillance

  • US-Saudi AI Deal and the Dangers of AI  Surveillance in Saudi Arabia

    US-Saudi AI Deal and the Dangers of AI  Surveillance in Saudi Arabia

    This month, President Trump announced a deal with Saudi Arabia that would provide the country with advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chips. The deal sees industry leader Nvidia provide Humain, a sovereign wealth fund-owned AI startup, with 18,000 of its new GB300 Blackwell chips. The massive deal makes Saudi Arabia a potential leader in AI data centers within the region and offers the opportunity to become a high-tech economic powerhouse.The deal comes as a reversal of former-president Biden’s policy that limited the spread of advanced AI chips out of fears of unchecked AI diffusion. 

    The AI market of Saudi Arabia remains unregulated in its nascency, with the authorities preferring a laissez-faire approach. Saudi Arabia has yet to pass any legislation or regulations that limit the use of AI in an effort to attract investment in its burgeoning AI economy. Instead, the country merely issued unenforceable guidelines on the topic. This, in turn, does far too little to protect citizens’ privacy rights.

    The deal highlights ongoing concerns about the power of AI in the hands of authoritarians. Saudi Arabia is already known to use other digital technologies to spy on dissidents. This willingness to violate citizens’ privacy rights coupled with the possibility of a more robust understanding of AI, due to the new deal, offers Saudi authorities with more advanced means of spying on its citizens. 

    One such application of the technology comes in the form of facial recognition technologies. The technology allows for AI to determine an individual’s identity by simultaneously scanning an individual’s face and comparing their features to others in a database. AI performs these actions much faster and efficiently than law enforcement officers can. This technology is already being used in cities throughout the world. A greater familiarity with the technology would allow Saudi authorities to not only identify individuals through surveillance cameras but also to use the technology to be used in the digital sphere to identify individuals through other means, such as social media posts.

    Saudi Arabia has proven through its pervasive surveillance of its own people that it is not a responsible actor and should not be allowed access to cutting-edge AI chips. The authorities refuse to regulate the market in an effort to attract investment into its AI market; a gamble that has apparently worked given the new US-Saudi partnership. Without proper regulations, Saudi authorities will undoubtedly use their country’s advancing  expertise with the technology as a means of further suppressing dissent and violating the privacy of its citizens. 

  • An Introduction to The Role of Big Tech in Digital Oppression: Are Companies Complicit?

    An Introduction to The Role of Big Tech in Digital Oppression: Are Companies Complicit?

    In the Gulf region, the relationship between state interests and Big Tech operations has raised significant concerns amongst human rights organisations and activists  about the suppression of independent journalism and the control of dissenting narratives. Particularly during the Arab Spring, social media firms such as Facebook and X (Twitter) have long sought to present themselves as the front-runner of revolutionary movements. Despite this, as Tunisian writer and critic Haythem Guesmi has pointed out, though, it is more appropriate to say they have been vital in the counter-revolutions. In fact, Eight of the top ten largest firms in the world by market capitalization in 2023 are tech corporations, including Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Amazon (the so-called Big Five). To this end, as distinguished by Mike Hynes, these digital companies are “more powerful than most countries on the planet” because of their immense wealth, global presence, and position in international marketplaces. 

    In the digital sphere, governments have systematically employed surveillance tools, censorship, and legal frameworks to create environments hostile to dissent and journalistic freedom. However, how complicit are Big Tech companies in facilitating these oppressive measures? 

    Surveillance Technologies: 

    Gulf states have made significant investments in advanced surveillance technologies, often sourced from private companies, to monitor and suppress dissent. One of the most notorious tools in this effort that has been frequently mentioned on our website is the Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli firm NSO Group. Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have reportedly deployed Pegasus to target activists, journalists, and critics, including the late Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his family . The developer of the powerful Pegasus spyware was found liable on Friday for its role in the infection of devices belonging to 1,400 WhatsApp users, including journalists, human rights activists, political dissidents, diplomats, and senior foreign government officials further demonstrating the complicity of major tech firms in enabling digital repression. A particularly harrowing example can be seen in a 2022 investigation that revealed how NSO Group’s notorious Pegasus spyware was used to infect the devices of three activists in Bahrain, demonstrating yet again the grave threat which Pegasus poses to critics of repressive governments. 

    Surveillance tools grant authorities access to calls, messages, contacts, and even microphones, making it nearly impossible for journalists and activists to protect their sources. This level of intrusion not only violates fundamental privacy rights but also exposes individuals to severe consequences, including legal prosecution, harassment, arrest, and coordinated defamation campaigns aimed at silencing critical voices. 

    Censorship on Digital Platforms:

    Digital repression is centered around this relationship between governments and these companies. Without these big tech companies selling their products to governments. In recent years Big Tech companies have become a driving force for information dissemination, with political dissemination spreading like wildfire across these platforms. However, there have been reported instances from activists and Human Rights advocates that Big tech companies have worked in tangent with governments to censor and target those who share critical opinions of the Gulf regimes online.

    For example, X has faced significant criticism for its interactions with authoritarian governments. Firstly, governments in the Gulf, notably Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have been reported to  manipulate X’s algorithms and trending topics to suppress opposition voices. Evidence of this has been seen through State-sponsored “troll farms” which have been used to flood the platform with propaganda and disinformation, effectively drowning out genuine activist content. Additionally, the same study highlights that activists have reported X’s compliance with governmental requests to suspend or shadow-ban dissidents, thereby limiting their reach or removing their accounts entirely. In 2019, two former Twitter employees  were convicted of spying for the Saudi government, accessing private data of Saudi dissidents through the platform. This incident further highlights the vulnerability of user data and the potential for internal exploitation within tech companies. From a financial perspective, the Big Tech’s deep ties to Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia’s investment in Elon Musk’s new AI venture (Xai), which is a subsidiary of X, raise concerns about political influence over content moderation. Ultimately, these companies enable digital repression by complying with censorship demands, failing to protect user data, and allowing state-backed disinformation to thrive.

    The Role of Big Tech and a Call for Transparency

    These practices are deeply concerning as they illustrate how platforms designed to facilitate free expression can be co-opted by authoritarian regimes to monitor, suppress, and punish dissent. Big Tech’s complicity in digital repression is not just passive—it is often an active engagement driven by financial interests, weak data protections, and a lack of accountability. To clarify further, Big Tech becomes a weapon for these regimes by partnering with them or caving in to official demands, influencing international debate and advancing digital authoritarianism. The partnership creates a digital environment where the right to free speech is compromised and the internet turns into a tool for governmental control. Without increased transparency, accountability, and regulatory oversight, the power of Big Tech may continue to strengthen digital authoritarianism efforts, particularly in regions like the Gulf where freedom of expression is already under significant threat. To safeguard freedom of expression, it is imperative for international stakeholders to hold both governments and technology companies accountable, ensuring that digital tools are used to empower rather than oppress.

  • Digital Threats to Bahraini Journalists: A Systematic Assault on Press Freedom

    Digital Threats to Bahraini Journalists: A Systematic Assault on Press Freedom

    Bahrain’s government has systematically weaponized digital technology to suppress independent journalism and control narratives critical of the regime. Through pervasive surveillance, censorship, and legal harassment, Bahraini authorities have created a hostile environment for journalists, targeting them with spyware and punitive laws to undermine their work and silence dissenting voices.

    Spyware such as Pegasus and FinFisher has been instrumental in this assault. These tools infiltrate journalists’ devices, granting authorities access to their calls, messages, contacts, and microphones. In 2014, FinFisher spyware was deployed to monitor the private communications of Bahraini journalists and activists, exposing them to legal and professional risks. Citizen Lab has further documented the use of Pegasus spyware on at least a dozen Bahraini activists and journalists since 2020. Such invasive surveillance compromises journalists’ ability to protect their sources, deepening systemic repression and exposing them to harassment, arrest, and public defamation.

    Bahraini authorities have systematically discredited and detained journalists to suppress independent reporting. Abduljalil Al-Singace, a human rights defender and blogger, has been imprisoned since 2011, serving a life sentence on charges of “plotting to overthrow the government,” highlighting the regime’s intolerance for investigative and critical journalism. Nabeel Rajab, another prominent journalist and activist, was arrested in 2012 for “insulting a statutory body” on Twitter, and although released in 2020, his case exemplifies the state’s criminalization of online dissent to silence influential voices. Similarly, Ali Mearaj and Hassan Qambar, detained in 2016 and 2018 for reporting on political unrest, remain excluded from recent amnesty efforts, further reflecting the selective and repressive nature of the regime’s policies.

    Bahrain’s legal framework reinforces its control over journalists. The 2014 Cybercrime Law criminalizes vague offenses such as spreading “false news” or “insulting state institutions,” enabling authorities to prosecute journalists arbitrarily. The penal code further punishes perceived offenses against the king or the government’s policies, silencing dissent and censoring online content.

    State-controlled internet providers block websites critical of the regime, and during periods of unrest, authorities impose internet shutdowns to stifle the dissemination of information. These measures ensure that independent journalism and online activism are either suppressed or forced into self-censorship.

    In 2021, the Bahrain Press Association documented 49 media freedom violations, including the arrest, harassment, and surveillance of journalists. These cases illustrate the extent of the government’s efforts to dismantle independent journalism. Journalists are frequently labeled as threats to national security, facing professional ostracization and reputational harm in addition to legal persecution.

    The Bahraini government’s reliance on digital surveillance has exacerbated the challenges faced by journalists. Tools like spyware not only compromise their professional work but also invade their personal lives, creating a pervasive sense of insecurity. The fear of being monitored curtails journalists’ ability to report freely, isolates them from sources, and fosters distrust within journalistic networks. This hyper-surveillance, combined with societal pressures, discourages many from pursuing critical reporting, leading to a chilling effect on press freedom.

    The international community must pressure Bahrain to adhere to its human rights obligations, including commitments to press freedom and privacy protections. As digital tools evolve, it is imperative to establish robust legal frameworks and oversight mechanisms to prevent the misuse of technology against journalists. Safeguarding independent journalism in Bahrain is essential to fostering transparency, accountability, and the fundamental right to freedom of expression. ADHRB calls for urgent reforms:

    • End the use of spyware to monitor journalists and uphold their right to privacy.
    • Amend vague and repressive laws, including the 2014 Cybercrime Law, to protect freedom of expression.
    • Release journalists and activists imprisoned for their work and opinions.
    • Establish safeguards to prevent surveillance and ensure the safety of journalists and their sources.

  • Transnational repression: a tool that extends authoritarian government’s capacity for repression

    Transnational repression: a tool that extends authoritarian government’s capacity for repression

    Perhaps not-so-well-known, transnational repression constitutes a threat to human rights that has been going on for decades. The phenomenon, which entails governments reaching beyond their borders to silence or deter dissent by committing human rights abuses against their nationals or former nationals, has been extensively documented by Human Rights Watch. The 2018 murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia brought this issue to popular awareness.

    Alongside killings, the methods of transnational repression include unlawful removals (expulsions, extraditions, and deportations), abductions and forced disappearances, targeting of relatives, abuse of consular services, and digital transnational repression. Government critics, dissidents, human rights defenders, civil society activists, journalists, opposition party members, and their families and friends are the main victims of this type of repression. In addition, women as a group are specially targeted when attempting to flee their families or their government´s restrictive laws. Several cases reported in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain exemplify this burdensome reality.

    In January 2022, after the Bahraini authorities issued a Red Notice through the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), Ahmed Jaffer Muhammad, a Bahraini critic of the government, was extradited from Serbia, the country he had previously fled after suffering torture and ill-treatment when detained in Bahrain. Serbia did so while ignoring an order from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) pending more information on the risks of mistreatment. Now, the critic is serving life in prison in Bahrain following allegations that he was tortured while in custody.

    Saudi women are among those who have tried to flee their families to escape the rules of a strict male guardianship system that denies them the autonomy to make decisions about their own lives. Families of these women, supported by Saudi authorities, had tried to bring them back, sometimes successfully. In April 2017, Dina Ali Lasloom aimed to flee their family by flying to Australia, but when transiting in Manila, she was prevented from boarding the plane to her final destination. Apparently, two airline security officials and two men -later confirmed as Lasloom’s uncles- were seen carrying her with duct tape on her mouth, feet, and hands. According to Bloomberg, after being sent back to Saudi Arabia, Lasloom was held without charge under protective custody in a detention facility for women under 30 years until the authorities could resolve the case. In January 2019, Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun also attempted to flee her family by traveling to Australia. During a connection in Thailand, however, she was stopped by the Thai authorities, who planned to put her on a flight back home. Global pressure on the Asian country was essential to allow her to travel to Canada, where she finally received asylum.

    It is also worth emphasizing the government’s punishment of the families of individuals who abandon the country following persecution. In this sense, there are instances where relatives have been harassed, threatened, arbitrarily arrested, banned from traveling abroad, and even killed. In Bahrain, authorities have targeted the wife, son, and brother and mother-in-law of the founder of the Bahrain Institute for Human Rights and Democracy –Sayed al-Wadaei-, in exile in the UK. The families of Omar Abdulaziz, a Saudi dissident based in Canada, and of Saad Al-Jabri, a former top Saudi intelligence official, suffered similar repression in Saudi Arabia.

    Although mostly understood as referring to authoritarian governments, cases of transnational repression have also been assisted by democratic administrations, as seen in Serbia’s involvement in the extradition of a Bahraini dissident. Furthermore, this case also highlights governments’ misuse of Interpol’s red notices to target human rights activists abroad. Red notices, formal requests of the National Central Bureaus (NCBs) in the organization, are issued to locate wanted individuals for detention, arrest, or restriction of movement. When put to the wrong use, these notices represent a major concern, especially in countries with authoritarian regimes. In the Arab Gulf region, for example, this has become a political strategy used by governments to suppress dissent and target political opponents. With this, a need for increased vigilance and reform within Interpol’s operational framework has emerged.

    Sometimes downplayed, the phenomenon of transnational repression should be as disturbing as the efforts of some governments to silence dissent or target human rights defenders at home. Also, this practice demands putting pressure on compliant democratic countries, which should be easier to hold accountable. However, more scrutiny must be exerted around this reality to accomplish this endeavor.

    Written By ADHRB INTERN.

  • Cyber Surveillance in Bahrain: The New Tool of Repression Against Activists 

    Cyber Surveillance in Bahrain: The New Tool of Repression Against Activists 

    Human Rights Watch and independent security researchers have reported that Bahrain’s government leverages digital technology to monitor and restrict citizens, especially activists, in ways that closely resemble its strict control over public spaces. While no direct evidence shows continuous surveillance, corporate leaks and research reveal that Bahrain has sought intrusive software, largely from Western firms, that could potentially infringe on citizens’ privacy rights. Alongside this investigative journalism, the Human Rights Watch has documented accounts from activists, detailing a pattern of digital surveillance and control aimed at silencing dissent.

    A key tool of concern about Bahrain’s tyranny is the mandate of apps such as; BeAware Bahrain, which integrates tracking features. Initially deployed for contact tracing during the COVID pandemic, this app monitors users in real-time, gathering extensive location and health data, which raises privacy concerns given mandatory ID registration. According to Amnesty International, BeAware Bahrain was even connected to a public TV show that randomly verified quarantine compliance, intensifying government scrutiny. This gave the authorities additional leverage to monitor individuals without their explicit consent, expanding the scope of surveillance beyond health measures into broader political and social control.

    This connection to public television and other surveillance mechanisms signaled a troubling overlap between public health initiatives and authoritarian control. The TV show, which was an unconventional method of verifying compliance, heightened concerns from international advocates about state overreach. It also led to fears among activists and opposition members that their movements could be tracked, potentially leading to arbitrary detentions or reprisals for political dissent.

    Digital authoritarianism in Bahrain goes beyond surveillance and censorship; it extends into the lives of individuals in nearly every aspect. Although there are no direct cases that link the unjust arrests of activists to these softwares, activists are increasingly aware that any internet comment, tweet, or post might be  heavily scrutinized and used against them. The psychological toll on activists is immense. The knowledge that every digital move could be tracked leads to a pervasive sense of insecurity. In interviews with The Guardian, activists have explained how their awareness of being surveilled has stifled their ability to organize protests, advocate for reforms, or even criticize the government openly online. This creates a vacuum that both inhibits the capacity to mobilize for change as well as political discourse. According to The Human Rights Watch, citizens are less inclined to plan rallies, push for reform, or call attention to injustices if they are scared to voice their grievances both online and offline. However, for those who dare to challenge the regime, the consequences are often severe and are often  detained, interrogated, and even tortured in custody. And for many activists, this risk has become too high, allowing the government to continue to violate human rights, whilst avoiding accountability.