BEIJING (AP) — American technology companies have played a significant role in building China's surveillance state, enabling human rights abuses to a far greater extent than previously understood, according to an extensive investigation by the Associated Press. These companies, including major players like IBM, Dell, and Intel, sold billions of dollars worth of technology to Chinese police and government entities, despite warnings from the U.S. Congress and media about the repressive uses of such tools to suppress dissent and persecute minorities.
The investigation utilized tens of thousands of leaked emails, confidential corporate documents, public marketing materials, and extensive interviews with over 100 individuals, including engineers and officials from both China and the U.S. While American tech firms were the primary suppliers, companies from Germany, Japan, and South Korea were also implicated in providing technology that aids surveillance operations in China.
One significant example involves IBM, which collaborated with a Chinese military contractor in 2009 to develop national intelligence and counterterrorism systems for Chinese state security and military applications. IBM later described these historical interactions as outdated and claimed that any misuse of prior technology was beyond their control. However, this claim does not absolve them from responsibility for past dealings.
In the realm of anti-terror analysis, IBM agents reportedly sold i2 policing analysis software to various Chinese police units throughout the 2010s. Leaked emails indicate that this software was then weaponized by a former IBM agent who created a predictive policing platform that unfairly categorized large numbers of individuals as potential terrorists during the crackdown in Xinjiang. Although IBM claims to have ceased relations with the software's subsequent developer in 2014, the harm caused during that period raises ethical questions about corporate accountability.
Companies like Dell have also participated in these activities, providing cloud software to policing entities in regions known for ethnic repression, like Xinjiang and Tibet. Marketing materials revealed that Dell actively promoted surveillance technology tailored for police operations, including an AI-powered laptop designed for enhanced ethnic recognition capabilities. Dell maintains that it follows rigorous compliance measures regarding U.S. export controls, yet its engagement in surveilling ethnic minorities speaks to a moral conflict.
Additionally, companies like Intel and HP provided essential components for national fingerprint databases and influenced the advancement of fingerprint recognition technologies that Chinese authorities utilize. Despite insistence that they have no direct involvement in oppressive measures, these firms' technologies inevitably enhance the capabilities of a regime known for its human rights violations.
Facial recognition technology has also been a focal point for several companies, including IBM and Sony, which promoted advanced AI camera systems for use in Chinese prisons. NVIDIA and Intel were reported to have collaborated with major Chinese surveillance firms, allowing the deployment of AI-driven systems that can identify individuals by their biometric data and behavior.
Moreover, the involvement of foreign biotech companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific in supplying DNA analysis tools has raised alarms. Their products are reportedly used to catalog genetic data in police databases, potentially targeting specific ethnic groups such as Uyghurs and Tibetans. While these companies have ceased certain operations in high-risk areas, their ongoing offerings to law enforcement around China perpetuate the chance for misuse.
As analysis continues to unveil the magnitude of American and foreign tech companies' roles in bolstering China's surveillance infrastructure, it raises pressing questions about corporate ethics, responsibility, and complicity in human rights violations. The intricate web of technology sales underscores an urgent need for stricter regulations and heightened awareness regarding the impact of such technologies on civil liberties and human dignity.
