China’s government has increasingly made technological advances such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing. One important innovation which is soon to be implemented by the Chinese is their Social Credit System (SCS). This system is intended to monitor and take control of its citizens and businesses by improving the government’s existing online and surveillance channels. Through monitoring and surveillance, the Chinese government will determine whether its citizens are acting in good or bad faith and assign scores. Lower scores can significantly limit a citizen’s ability to access rights given to them by the government.

The system was initially launched by the Chinese State Council in 2014 and is supposed to be implemented nationwide by 2020. Anything the Chinese government deems as acting in “bad faith” can range from a number of actions including, but are not limited to, membership in or support for Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhism, failure to pay debts, excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking or playing loud music on trains, and jaywalking. Conversely, they would award points for actions such as charitable donations and taking one’s parents to the doctor.  

The SCS will comprise of three parts: a master database, a blacklisting system and a structure for punishments and rewards. This would be done under one program known as Ageis, which is meant to survey the entire country, track cell phone activity and content of telephone calls and emails. For corporations under the SCS, the government will decide whether a company has complied with regulations or engaged in their definition of “good behavior.” The rating of employees can also affect a company’s overall score. A higher score can mean lower tax rates, better credit conditions, easier market access and more public procurement opportunities for companies. While lower scores would mean the opposite and can even mean blacklisting, which would mean one’s name is on the radar of the Chinese government with certain restrictions being implemented such as limitations on travel and purchases. 

Part of this surveillance effort is driven by the cooperation of American technology companies. Facebook allows Chinese officials to prevent certain posts from being on Chinese citizens’ news feeds in specific geographic areas. Google has created the search engine Dragon Fly that denies access to restricted information. Additionally, other companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM have complied with a law that obligates them to store data in China that only government authorities have access to. High-tech corporations’ willingness to help in this effort in SCS stems from the creation of the OpenPower Foundation in August 2013, which is an open membership international organization aimed at more open performance and processor architecture in the technology industry. It includes 230 corporations and institutions from around the world. Within this foundation, IBM has offered firmware and software that can capture the data of its users with a free license in how it’s used. Those who are a part of the foundation claim they have no interest in how this firmware and software may be used.

Given the restrictions that could be implemented on Chinese citizens because of the  SCS and American companies’ assistance in it development, it raises the question of how are technology companies liable for how individuals or governments decide to use their services? Although it’s given that China has had a history of suppressed freedom of expression rights, should technological companies be held responsible for how their technology is used? Some say yes as the importance of privacy is a virtue that must extend into the digital world. In fact, major technology companies, such as Facebook, have stated they are open to regulation by the US government. Although this sounds appealing in theory, there still exist major gaps in the knowledge of the general public in knowing how the data is used or the mechanics of their online use. A study done on US participants conducted by Pew Research found that more than half of Internet users falsely assumed that the privacy policies of companies keep the data they’ve collected on its consumers confidential. In reality, the privacy policies of technology companies more often explain that they have the right to sell a person’s data to third parties. This fact becomes more relevant when Congress, the government body which regulates tech companies, doesn’t even fully comprehend its functions either. For example, one question asked by Senator Roy Blunt of Montana during the Mark Zuckerberg Congressional hearing was, “Do you track devices that an individual who uses Facebook has that is connected to the device that they use their Facebook connection, but not necessarily connected to Facebook?”  Other statements made during the Congressional hearing for Google CEO Sundar Pichai made by Representative Steve Cohen from Tennessee stated, “I use your apparatus often, or your search engine, and I don’t understand all of the different ways that you can turn off the locations. There’s so many different things!” 

The knowledge gaps that exist mean that user’s privacy and data protection are left to major technological conglomerates with the exclusive proprietary knowledge of their technology. Instead, according to Pew Research, 52% of individuals in the US believe that the privacy policies of technology companies believe their data is protected. Also, they aren’t aware that what they’ve searched, posted, or said online could be used for alternative purposes. This can leave open the possibility for certain governments such as China to use this technology for complete surveillance of its citizens. The government can then use the surveillance to create a scale for what rights a citizen deserves based on whether their behavior is in “good faith.