IT-backed authoritarianism

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (March 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on
Algocracy
Examples
AI in government COMPAS Cybersyn DAO Dutch childcare benefits scandal IT-backed authoritarianism OGAS Ofqual exam results algorithm OIA PMPs Predictive policing Robodebt scheme Smart city SyRI
v t e

IT-backed authoritarianism, also known as techno-authoritarianism, digital authoritarianism or digital dictatorship,^[1][2] refers to the state use of information technology in order to control or manipulate both foreign and domestic populations.^[3] Tactics of digital authoritarianism may include mass surveillance including through biometrics such as facial recognition, internet firewalls and censorship, internet blackouts, disinformation campaigns, and digital social credit systems.^[4][5] Although some institutions assert that this term should only be used to refer to authoritarian governments,^[6] others argue that the tools of digital authoritarianism are being adopted and implemented by governments with "authoritarian tendencies", including democracies.^[7]

Most notably, China and Russia have been accused by the Brookings Institution of leveraging the Internet and information technology to repress opposition domestically while undermining democracies abroad.^[3]

IT-backed authoritarianism refers to an authoritarian regime using cutting-edge information technology in order to penetrate, control and shape the behavior of actors within society and the economy.^{[citation needed]}

According to reports and articles on China's practice, the basis of the digital authoritarianism is an advanced, all-encompassing and in large parts real-time surveillance system, which merges government-run systems and data bases (e.g. traffic monitoring, financial credit rating, education system, health sector etc.) with company surveillance systems (e.g. of shopping preferences, activities on social media platforms etc.).^[8] IT-backed authoritarianism institutionalizes the data transfer between companies and governmental agencies providing the government with full and regular access to data collected by companies. The authoritarian government remains the only entity with unlimited access to the collected data. IT-backed authoritarianism thus increases the authority of the regime vis-à-vis national and multinational companies as well as vis-à-vis other decentral or subnational political forces and interest groups. The collected data is utilized by the authoritarian regime to analyze and influence the behavior of a country’s citizens, companies and other institutions.^[8] It does so with the help of algorithms based on the principles and norms of the authoritarian regime, automatically calculating credit scores for every individual and institution. In contrast to financial credit ratings, these “social credit scores” are based on the full range of collected surveillance data, including financial as well as non-financial information.^[9] IT-backed authoritarianism only allows full participation in a country’s economy and society for those who have a good credit scoring and thus respect the rules and norms of the respective authoritarian regime. Behavior deviating from these norms incurs automatic punishment through a bad credit scoring, which leads to economic or social disadvantages (loan conditions, lower job opportunities, no participation in public procurement etc.). Severe violation or non-compliance can lead to the exclusion from any economic activities on the respective market or (for individuals) to an exclusion from public services.^{[citation needed]}

China has been viewed as the cutting edge and the enabler of digital authoritarianism.^[10] With its Great Firewall of a state-controlled Internet, it has deployed high-tech repression against Uyghurs in Xinjiang and exported surveillance and monitoring systems to 18 countries as of 2019.^[3]

According to Freedom House, the China model of digital authoritarianism through Internet control against those who are critical of the CCP features legislations of censorship, surveillance using artificial intelligence (AI) and facial recognition, manipulation or removal of online content, cyberattacks and spear phishing, suspension and revocation of social media accounts, detention and arrests, and forced disappearance and torture, among other means.^[2] A report by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also highlights similar digital repression techniques.^[11] In 2013, The Diplomat reported that the Chinese hackers behind the malware attacks on Falun Gong supporters in China, the Philippines, and Vietnam were the same ones responsible for attacks against foreign military powers, targeting email accounts and stealing Microsoft Outlook login information and email contents.^[12]

The 2022 analysis by The New York Times of over 100,000 Chinese government bidding documents revealed a range of surveillance and data collection practices, from personal biometrics to behavioral data, which are fed into AI systems.^[13] China utilizes these data capabilities not only to enhance governmental and infrastructural efficiency but also to monitor and suppress dissent among its population, particularly in Xinjiang, where the government targets the Uyghur community under the guise of counterterrorism and public security.^[13]

The Russian model of digital authoritarianism relies on strict laws of digital expression and the technology to enforce them.^[14] Since 2012, as part of a broader crackdown on civil society, the Russian Parliament has adopted numerous laws curtailing speech and expression.^[15][16] Hallmarks of Russian digital authoritarianism include:^[17]

1. The surveillance of all Internet traffic through the System for Operative Investigative Activities (SORM) and the Semantic Archive;^[18]
2. Restrictive laws on the freedom of speech and expression, including the blacklisting of hundreds of thousands of websites,^[19] and punishment including fines and jail time for activities including slander,^[20] "insulting religious feelings,"^[21] and "acts of extremism".^[22]
3. Infrastructure regulations including requirements for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to install Deep Packet Inspection equipment under the 2019 Sovereign Internet Law.^[23]

Since the coup d'état in February 2021, the military junta blocked all but 1,200 websites and imposed Internet shutdowns, with pro-military dominating the content on the remaining accessible websites.^[24] In May 2021, Reuters reported that telecom and Internet service providers had been secretly ordered to install spyware allowing the military to "listen in on calls, view text messages and web traffic including emails, and track the locations of users without the assistance of the telecom and internet firms."^[25] In February 2022, Norwegian service provider Telenor was forced to sell its operation to a local company aligned with the military junta.^[26][27] The military junta also sought to criminalize virtual private networks (VPNs), imposed mandatory registration of devices, and increased surveillance on both social media platforms and via telecom companies.^[27]

In July 2022, the military executed activist Kyaw Min Yu, after arresting him in November 2021 for prodemocracy social media posts criticizing the coup.^[28][29]

A study by the African Digital Rights Network (ADRN) revealed that governments in ten African countries—South Africa, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria, Zambia, Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Egypt—have employed various forms of digital authoritarianism.^[30] The most common tactics include digital surveillance, disinformation, Internet shutdowns, censorship legislation, and arrests for anti-government speech.^[30] The researchers highlighted the growing trend of complete Internet or mobile system shutdowns.^[30] Additionally, all ten countries utilized Internet surveillance, mobile intercept technologies, or artificial intelligence to monitor targeted individuals using specific keywords.^[30]