Recommendations

Apple and other Big Tech companies need to think much harder about the costs and risks of having employees on the ground who the Kremlin can threaten. Closing their Hong Kong offices might prompt the Hong Kong government to use technical measures against the companies’ web-based services, such as throttling access from within Russia (as it did with Twitter back in April). Yet these companies are no strangers to facing technical blocking attempts in autocracies, and censorship demands over email or the phone are much easier to ignore when the state cannot haul employees into detention centers or interrogation rooms and threaten their physical safety. Theoretically, using the internet to resist dictatorship from afar is one thing; risking physical safety while doing so is another entirely.

  1. Apple should declare publicly what measures it will take if Beijing increases its crackdown on digital freedoms and access to information. Apple should make it very clear what actions, if any, the company would take to resist app takedown requests from Beijing’s or Hong Kong’s government agencies..

  2. Apple should provide full transparency regarding its app distribution platform in Hong Kong:

Apple should allow the public to understand how the Hong Kong government and mainland China’s authorities have been attempting to remove (or censor) content, by providing information on:

  • the reasons it provided for each of its requests, including the specific laws and/or guidelines the apps allegedly broke;
  • the rules and procedures that Apple follows when dealing with these requests and if specific rules are enforced in its Hong Kong’s App Store;
  • a copy of Apple’s internal procedures;
  • a timeline of the requests being filed, the length of time it took to consider each request, and the point at which the apps specified were removed from Hong Kong’s App Store.
  1. Apple should also provide:
  • Data on app rejections or removals it made according to any categorical requests from the Hong Kong government, which do not specify apps but do function as blanket legal violation requests;
  • Data on the rejection and removal decisions it made after requests from Hong Kong private entities (i.e. other than government agencies or official bodies with legal powers).
  • Details of the apps it rejected or removed of its own accord from Hong Kong’s App Store, whether these removals are due to guideline violations, proactive takedowns of apps which break local laws, or government-requested category bans.
  • A list of all apps owned by Hong Kong developers / publishers which are blocked in mainland China’s App Store.
  • A list of all apps which remain on Hong Kong’s App Store but are blocked by the government. Apple should further inform users of such blocks directly on the app description page within the App Store.
  1. Regarding transparency and accountability:
  • Apple should adopt all recommendations previously made by AppleCensorship and included in its report “Taken Down” A Look into Apple’s Transparency Reports, published on April 21, 2022;
  • Apple should model its Transparency Reports on the efforts of other companies, such as Twitter and Google, to provide as much - rather than as little - useful information as possible. This would include the addition of many of the details listed above, as well as a broader effort to use the Transparency Reports to resist - rather than enable and conceal - censorship and repressive governance.
  1. Regarding transparency and accountability:

Apple should take measures to make itself less vulnerable to the Chinese government’s pressure and censorship demands, and in particular:

  • Allow “sideloading” of apps on iOS devices in order to make censorship requests a less efficient tool for the authorities;
  • Take measures to ensure safety for its staff to limit Chinese government’s intimidation and censorship pressure, including relocation of staff abroad;
  • Work with other tech companies targeted by censorship demands in order to better resist abusive requests;
  • Engage with Hong Kong civil society organizations to understand the impact of its decisions regarding Hong Kong’s App Store, to learn how to become more resilient to censorship and to discuss ways to protect members of civil society organizations using iOS devices;
  1. Apple should adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in order to address adverse human rights impacts with which it is involved, and in particular:
  • To avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts in Hong Kong through its App Store’s Platform Policy;
  • To seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to its App Store, iOS devices or other services by its business relationships with Hong Kong authorities, China’s government and relevant bodies and agencies.