 The Ninth Circuit ruled that American tech companies share a degree of liability if their tools facilitate human rights abuses in other countries. The court’s 2023 decision meant that thirteen members of the Falun Gong spiritual practice group could continue to press their years-long case against Cisco Systems for its role in supporting China’s “Golden Shield.” Golden Shield is the Chinese Communist Party’s domestic internet surveillance system. Members of the Falun Gong creed claim that the Chinese government used the Cisco-powered system to aggressively persecute them in a long-running and coordinated campaign. Because a significant portion of Cisco’s work on Golden Shield was done in the United States, ruled the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiffs had sufficient standing to sue here. Importantly, the court noted that, “Cisco in California acted with knowledge of the likelihood of the alleged violations of international law and with the purpose of facilitating them.” The company’s role was essential, direct, and substantial to the point of being liable for “aiding and abetting.” As the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, this ruling wouldn’t apply to American companies that merely market a tool that anyone could buy and then potentially misuse. What happened in this case was different. Cisco is alleged to have designed, built, maintained – and even upgraded – a “customized surveillance product that the company knew would have a substantial effect on the ability of the Chinese government to engage in violations of human rights.” In so many words, said the Court in assessing Cisco’s role, the Chinese couldn’t have done it without them. To wit, Cisco empowered the following aspects of the Golden Shield surveillance system:
Cisco is accused of doing this while simultaneously helping the Chinese build a nationwide video surveillance system. The result was a state-of-the-art integrated system capable of creating “lifetime” information profiles on Falun Gong members, so full-featured that it could even be updated with data from members’ latest “interrogation” and “treatment” sessions at the hands of Chinese security personnel. Cisco is alleged to have done it all in an environment in which it is common knowledge that torture, and other violations of international law, are likely to take place. This is not conjecture, but clear information in news coverage, shareholder resolutions, State Department communiques, etc. Cisco rejects the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant cert and rule in its favor. As of now, the High Court has yet to decide whether or not it will do so, but on May 27 it asked the Solicitor General to weigh in with the government’s opinion. This case has always been about testing whether foreign victims can sue U.S. companies for deliberately helping foreign governments commit human rights abuses – an inevitable outcome of advanced surveillance systems in particular. Let’s hope the Supreme Court will deny Cisco’s request. If it does, that will only mean that the case will move forward in California and Cisco and its accusers will still get a full and proper hearing. This is too important a question with too many far-reaching implications to skip a step. Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed