Men are using a Saudi government-made app to track their wives and control their travel.
The app allows Saudi men to limit the number of times a nominated woman can leave the country, how long she can travel for and even prevent her from leaving.
The Absher app has been described as “abhorrent” and accused of helping to “facilitate human rights abuses”.
There are calls from 14 members of US Congress to have the app removed from major US-owned tech platforms.
And yet despite all this, Google refuses to remove the app from its Play store.
The tech giant says that it doesn’t breach the company’s terms and conditions, Business Insider reports, and therefore they have left Absher available to download.
Apple, meanwhile, has been accused of dragging its feet on the issue. After CEO Tim Cooke announced the company would investigate the app last month it is still yet to make a decision.
How Absher works
The app allows users to put in the details of their wife or another female family member he has guardianship over, including her passport number. The man can then set parameters like how many journeys she can take outside the country, and the length of each journey, and even which airports she can go to.
The app will then alert the man via whenever his wife uses her passport. If he wants to, he can grant or revoke her travel permission with just a few taps of his thumbs.
It's important to note that Absher is a government-made app - in fact, it's the mobile app for the Saudi Ministry of Interior's website. The capabilities it offers are wholly in line with the country's strict 'guardianship laws'.
It's the same set of laws that, up until mid-2018, dictated that Saudi women could not drive. But while that law was overturned by a decree from the ruler, King Salman, it's other oppressive rules have not.
Not only do men have control of their female family members rights to travel, with women required to provide signed permission forms, but they also get to decide whether or not she can play sport.
And in a society where men and women are kept separate from each other as much as possible, women are the ones discouraged from taking public transport.
Equally important to note though, is that the app makes it that much harder for women attempting to flee the abuse and control of their homelife.
As Insider pointed out in their investigation of the app, by alerting the men in real time, it makes it much more likely that they will prevent the woman from leaving, when otherwise she might have reached relative safety before they'd found out.
And that's why US Congress members are asking for Apple and Google to remove the app from their platforms.
"The ingenuity of American technology companies should not be perverted to violate the human rights of Saudi women," the 14 Congress men and women wrote in their letter to the companies CEOs.
"Keeping this application in your stores allows your companies and your American employees to be accomplices in the oppression of Saudi Arabian women and migrant workers."
Top Comments
As someone that works in a country of a very different culture to my own, it is difficult at times to reconcile when cultures clash. However, preference is given to following local cultural norms rather than imposing my culture upon my hosts. Google is in the invidious position of trying to do the same (permit personally distasteful actions) with the added pressure of Western cultural background people wishing to impose their cultural beliefs on others.
The human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia go beyond culture clashes. Any 'local customs' that involve allowing one group of people to completely control the life of another group of people, up too and including allowing domestic abuse, violence and murder, do not deserve respect. This goes beyond 'personally distasteful actions', as the app enables and upholds this horrendous social system.
Then I am sure you will agree that Google and Apple should ban all
cooking apps that have any animal products as ingredients. I am sure you
are aware that using animals for food is an abuse of animal rights and
additionally is contributing to global warming. Any 'local customs' that involve allowing one group of people to completely control the live of animals, up to and including animal abuse, violence, murder and do not deserve respect. Only a psychopath would disagree.
I am also sure you will agree that Facebook in particular should ban the display of all images of deceased people in Australia. Any 'imported custom' that involves one group of people to completely ignore the cultural wishes of the original inhabitants up to and including cultural abuse, violence and murder do not deserve respect. Only a racist would disagree.
Veganism is a poor comparison to this case, as the discussion over whether animals have intrinsic rights and what these rights should be is still being had. We are past the discussion on whether different types of humans should have different rights.
Your hypothetical example of Facebook banning images of deceased people is a poor comparison. While it is culturally insensitive, it is not a human rights issue. If you were to mention the years of abuse indigenous people suffered under the Australian government, then that would be an example of racism and human rights abuse- and just like in the case of Saudi Arabia, the moral course of action is to condemn these policies and the social attitudes that led to them.
Another aspect to consider - do we really want Google, Amazon, Apple et al to act as moral arbitrators.
For example, before same sex marriage became legal, should the same carriers providing mobile apps be forced to remove any gay dating hook-up apps as well?
I'm just wondering where this all leads to.
A ridiculous slippery slope argument. It's been years since gay relationships were illegal in most western countries, even before gay marriage was accepted. It's not asking much to expect that these app providers not enable human rights abuses.
Okay, so ignore the example and answer the question then.
Fair enough, it was just an example, I could name a dozen more but it appears it would only distract from what I was considering.
It's not really that much of a slippery slope either. For example Google are already demonitising YouTube videos for content it does not agree with politically or socially.
Fine. Yes, they should be held morally responsible for upholding the actions of a regime that contravenes human rights and international law. I think it's pretty clear in this case that the moral and ethical course of action would be to remove this app from their platform.