Tag: International Law

  • AI Regulation in Saudi Arabia: Innovation over Human Rights

    AI Regulation in Saudi Arabia: Innovation over Human Rights

    With the global rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), countries have increasingly adopted regulations to restrict the use of this new technology, exemplified by the AI Act in the European Union. In contrast, Gulf governments have taken a more business-friendly approach to AI regulation, raising concerns about potential breaches of their populations’ privacy rights. Notably, Saudi Arabia has sought to create an attractive environment for data and AI businesses and has so far avoided implementing binding regulations.

    Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in AI as part of its Vision 2030 initiative and plans to integrate various AI technologies into its futuristic city-building project, Neom. These intentions raise significant concerns about potential human rights abuses by the Saudi government involving the use of AI, such as ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence language model making international headlines. These concerns are not limited to AI but extend to the misuse of a broader range of digital technologies. Recent high-profile cases involving Saudi Arabia include the use of digital technologies to spy on dissidents and their families overseas, as well as attempts to infiltrate Twitter to identify government opponents using anonymous accounts. Thus, AI presents yet another opportunity for the Saudi government to infringe on people’s most basic rights to privacy through surveillance and manipulation, exacerbating existing injustices.

    These concerns would be less severe if the Saudi government introduced rules to regulate AI. However, the kingdom has only issued guidelines for AI use, without enforcing any legally binding regulations. This absence of strict regulations means that the Saudi government could potentially violate international human rights laws and standards on privacy without breaching its own laws. Given Saudi Arabia’s tendency to disregard the international right to privacy with its current digital technology, this situation poses significant risks for the future of not only the Saudi population but also any person visiting their future mega city, Neom.

    To address these concerns, it is crucial for the international community to take action. Governments and international organizations should apply pressure on Saudi Arabia to implement comprehensive and binding AI regulations. Such regulations should ensure the protection of human rights and privacy, adhering to international standards. Additionally, countries should collaborate on establishing a global framework for AI governance that promotes ethical use and prevents abuses.

    Furthermore, multinational corporations and AI developers should be encouraged to adopt ethical guidelines and refuse to participate in projects that could lead to human rights violations. By fostering a culture of accountability and ethical responsibility, the international community can mitigate the risks associated with the misuse of AI technologies.

  • Why Digital Freedom is a Human Right and What We Can Do to Defend It.

    Why Digital Freedom is a Human Right and What We Can Do to Defend It.

    In an era where digital spaces shape political discourse, social movements, and individual expression, the right to digital freedom is more crucial than ever. Yet, around the world, authoritarian governments are leveraging technology to silence dissent, surveil citizens, and manipulate information. From mass surveillance to online censorship, digital repression has become a powerful tool for state control. This raises an urgent question: If access to information and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights, why is digital freedom not universally recognized as one?

    The Growing Threat to Digital Freedom

    Over the past decade, governments have increasingly weaponized technology to monitor and suppress activists, journalists, and political opponents. The Gulf region offers a critical example of this trend. In Bahrain, human rights activist Ebtisam Al-Saegh was repeatedly targeted with Pegasus spyware; an invasive surveillance tool developed by the Israeli NSO Group. According to Middle East Eye, her phone was hacked at least eight times between August and November 2019, granting authorities access to her private communications and movements (Read more about her experiences here insert link to blog)

    In particular, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have also deployed Pegasus to infiltrate the devices of activists and journalists. One of the most infamous cases was the hacking of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his associates before his assassination in 2018. According to The Guardian, forensic investigations confirmed that Saudi operatives used Pegasus to spy on individuals close to Khashoggi, highlighting how digital surveillance can have deadly consequences.

    Beyond spyware, governments also manipulate social media platforms to control narratives. X (formerly Twitter) has faced criticism for working in tandem with Gulf states to suppress dissent. In 2019, two former Twitter employees were convicted of spying for Saudi Arabia, accused of accessing private user data to identify regime critics. This demonstrates the risks posed by corporate complicity in digital repression.

    Why Digital Freedom is a Human Right

    The ability to communicate freely, access information, and express dissent without fear of surveillance or retaliation is fundamental to democratic societies. Digital freedom is an extension of core human rights, including:

    • Freedom of Expression (Article 19, UDHR): This right extends to the digital world, ensuring people can express opinions online without fear of censorship or persecution.
    • Right to Privacy (Article 12, UDHR): Governments and corporations should not have unregulated access to personal data, private messages, or location tracking without consent.
    • Access to Information (Article 19, ICCPR): The internet has become a primary source of knowledge.  The right to privacy has two factors: reactive and proactive. As such, restricting access through censorship, a lack of transparency,  or content manipulation undermines fundamental human rights outlined through these provisions.

    Yet, despite these protections, governments and corporations continue to erode digital rights through surveillance, censorship, and data exploitation.

    What Can Be Done to Defend Digital Freedom?
    1. Demand Accountability from Big Tech: 
      It is critical that tech giants such as Meta, Google, and Apple are held responsible for their role in enabling digital repression. We believe that companies should be required to disclose government surveillance requests, strengthen data protection policies, and resist cooperation with authoritarian regimes. Aside from ourselves, we recommend looking at advocacy groups like Access Now and Electronic Frontier Foundation, who also push for greater transparency and corporate accountability.
    2. Strengthen Legal Protections for Digital Rights:
      A huge priority within the digital right sphere is that Governments must establish stronger legal frameworks to protect digital freedom. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation provides a model for safeguarding user privacy, but similar protections need to be implemented globally. The UN has also called for an international treaty on digital rights to prevent state abuse of surveillance technologies. This is a clear next step for upholding accountability. 
    3. Support Encrypted and Open-Source Technologies:
      For activists, encryption tools such as Signal and ProtonMail provide secure communication channels resistant to government surveillance. In addition to this, open-source projects like Tor and Tails OS  may allow activists and journalists to browse the web anonymously, mitigating risks of state tracking. If you are currently in the gulf region and are experiencing these violations, you can also look at Redline for more information.  
    4. Amplify the Voices of Activists:
      When governments attempt to silence activists, international solidarity is critical. Sharing their stories, supporting legal defense funds, and pressuring governments through diplomatic channels can help counter digital repression. There are several organizations like ourselves, such as: Front Line Defenders, Red Line, Article 19 and Committee to Protect Journalists  that work tirelessly to support the fundamental freedoms of those affected by digital authoritarianism. 
    5. Advocate for a Global Ban on Spyware:
      Finally, international legislation has been demanded  as a result of the ongoing  misuse of spyware such as Pegasus. Apple filed a lawsuit against NSO Group in 2021, and the firm was placed on a U.S. federal blacklist for its involvement in permitting violations of human rights. But more has to be done to prevent private businesses from providing authoritarian governments with surveillance equipment.
    Conclusion

    Digital freedom is not just about technology; it is about human rights, democracy, and the ability to express political dissent  without fear. As governments and corporations continue to expand their control over digital spaces, it is up to civil society, lawmakers, and individuals to push back and protect our fundamental rights. ADHRB believes that The internet should be a tool for empowerment, not oppression. Whilst there is not a clear path, we believe that defending fundamental right to digital freedom starts  by lobbying for better safeguards, demanding corporate responsibility, and supporting people on the front lines of digital repression.

  • 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.

  • The Struggle Against Digital Authoritarianism: International Law Under Pressure

    The Struggle Against Digital Authoritarianism: International Law Under Pressure

    Digital authoritarianism has become a powerful tool for repressive regimes, weaponizing technology to suppress dissent, surveil citizens, and manipulate public discourse. While international legal frameworks exist to protect fundamental freedoms, they remain insufficient against the rapid evolution of digital repression. States exploit surveillance tools, censorship mechanisms, and cyber tactics to entrench control, exposing the inadequacies of global legal safeguards.

    International agreements enshrine rights frequently undermined by digital authoritarianism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms freedom of expression and access to information under Article 19,  yet regimes routinely impose internet shutdowns, block critical websites, and deploy state-sponsored disinformation to distort narratives. Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees the right to privacy under Article 17, a protection rendered hollow by invasive spyware and mass surveillance masquerading as national security measures. While the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime  provides a foundation for countering cyber threats, it lacks the provisions necessary to confront state-backed digital repression, allowing governments to operate with impunity.

    In conflict zones, digital authoritarianism escalates instability and exacerbates human rights abuses. Governments and armed actors disregard International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles such as distinction and proportionality, deploying mass surveillance and cyber offensives against activists, journalists, and civilians. Such tactics silence dissent, erode trust, and deepen societal divisions, using digital tools as instruments of coercion and fear.

    As seen within these examples, despite the existence of these international frameworks there are  significant challenges hindering their enforcement. One major issue is the global nature of digital technologies. Surveillance and cyberattacks often transcend national borders, complicating jurisdictional accountability. Secondly, private companies  supplying spyware and other surveillance tools operate with minimal oversight, enabling authoritarian practices. Finally, multilateral institutions lack robust enforcement mechanisms, making it difficult to hold states or private actors accountable for their role in digital oppression.

    To address these challenges, the international community must modernize legal frameworks to confront state-backed digital repression. In particular, strengthening the Budapest Convention to include specific provisions for addressing these issues is crucial. Additionally, stricter oversight of private entities involved in the surveillance industry is essential to ensure accountability. Multilateral institutions must also enhance their enforcement capabilities, enabling swift and effective responses to violations of digital rights.Without decisive reform, digital authoritarianism will continue to erode democratic values, human rights, and global stability. International law must adapt to the realities of the digital age, ensuring technology is used to empower people rather than oppress them. By safeguarding fundamental freedoms in the digital realm, the international community can reaffirm its commitment to justice, transparency, and accountability.

  • 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.

  • Bahrain’s Internet Censorship and Its Impact on Freedom of Expression

    Bahrain’s Internet Censorship and Its Impact on Freedom of Expression

    Bahrain’s internet censorship has become a critical tool for the government in maintaining control over its citizens and repressing dissent. With increasing reliance on digital technology, the Bahraini authorities have implemented pervasive mass surveillance, content blocking, propaganda, and online monitoring to restrict freedom of expression and control individuals.

    Amnesty International reports that spyware and tracking tools are used to target individuals for harassment, deepening power imbalances and eroding personal freedoms. Bahraini authorities deploy spyware to monitor the personal communications of activists, journalists, and opposition figures. In 2014, the government used the malicious FinFisher software to track the emails and WhatsApp messages of prominent Bahraini human rights defenders and researchers from Citizen Lab have detected Pegasus spyware on the devices of at least a dozen Bahraini activists since 2020.

    The government’s efforts to suppress online criticism are justified through vague laws, such as the 2014 Cybercrime Law, which criminalizes actions perceived as anti-government or critical of the ruling regime and it consequently allows the government to censor critical content and prosecute human rights defenders. Also, the penal code includes various punishments for offenses such as insulting the king or state institutions, contradicting the government’s policies and spreading false news including on social media.

    Some notable examples include the human rights defender and blogger Abduljalil Al-Singace who has been arbitrarily detained since 2011 after being sentenced to life in prison on charges of “plotting to overthrow the government” and another prominent HRD, Nabeel Rajab, who was charged for insulting a statutory body on Twitter in 2012 and released in 2020.

    Additionally, Bahrain’s state-controlled internet providers are empowered to block content critical of the government, and during times of political unrest, this can result in complete internet shutdowns, suppressing dissent.

    In such an environment, news outlets, media, and digital activism are also under government control or operate self-censorship. In 2021, the Bahrain Press Association documented 49 media freedom violations, including arrests of journalists and activists for their cyber activities. Ali Mearaj and Hassan Qambar, respectively arrested in 2016 and 2018 have been excluded from the recent releases.

    Following the COVID-19 pandemic Bahrain has quickly adopted tracking systems that raised concerns about privacy. One example is the “BeAware Bahrain” app, which was launched by the authorities to curb the spread of the virus by tracing contacts and capturing location data but also posed significant threats to privacy and security, potentially normalizing surveillance tools that could later be used for invasive governmental control.

    As the government continues to violate fundamental rights like freedom of speech and privacy under the guise of cybercrime prevention and counter-terrorism, citizens, journalists, and activists struggle to freely voice their views online. ADHRB calls on Bahrain to stop the digital authoritarianism which resulted in serious human rights violations and arbitrary detentions of critics. The government must amend the vague and overly broad cybercrime laws imposed to silence the right to freedom of expression. Also, ADHRB urges Bahraini authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all the individuals imprisoned for expressing their opinions and uphold its human rights obligations.

    WRITTEN BY ADHRB INTERN