A/HRC/35/22 senior or executive-level management; conduct due diligence processes that meaningfully “identify, prevent, mitigate and account for” actual and potential human rights impacts throughout the company’s operations; and provide for or cooperate in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts (see A/HRC/17/31, annex, principles 16-24). A. Context considerations 46. The Guiding Principles emphasize the need for companies to take into account the particularities of their operating context when executing their human rights responsibilities (Ibid.). In the digital access industry, several contexts must be considered. Access providers supply a public good 47. The digital access industry is in the business of digital expression; its commercial viability depends on users who seek, receive and impart information and ideas on the networks it builds and operates. Since privately owned networks are indispensable to the contemporary exercise of freedom of expression, their operators also assume critical social and public functions. The industry’s decisions, whether in response to government demands or rooted in commercial interests, can directly impact freedom of expression and related human rights in both beneficial and detrimental ways. Restrictions on Internet access affect freedom of expression globally 48. The industry’s human rights impacts are frequently global, affecting users even in markets beyond those served by the company concerned. For example, surveillance of a single Internet exchange point in the United States may capture large streams of communications among Americans and foreigners, and even those entirely among foreigners. Similarly, security vulnerabilities in network design affect all users who rely on the compromised network for digital access, including users located far away from the network. Accordingly, companies should identify and address the broader implications of their activities for freedom of expression generally, in addition to their impacts on customers or rights holders in the markets they operate. To be sure, the manner in which they account for their impacts may vary according to their size, resources, ownership, structure and operating context (Ibid., principle 14). For example, all providers should vet user data requests for compliance with a minimum set of formalities, regardless of the origin of the request or the user affected. But while a multinational provider may have dedicated teams vetting requests, a small or medium-size provider may task its legal or public policy teams to perform the same function. The industry is vulnerable to State pressure against freedom of expression… 49. The Guiding Principles seek to address the gaps in corporate accountability left because of a lack of national legislation or implementation. 88 However, zealous enforcement of domestic law also poses human rights challenges in the digital access industry. For example, States may hold providers liable for, or otherwise pressure them to restrict, Internet content posted by users on their networks, under laws as varied as hate speech, defamation, cybercrime and lese-majesty. Yet such intermediary liability creates a strong incentive to censor: providers may find it safest not to challenge such regulation but to over-regulate content such that legitimate and lawful expression also ends up restricted. The pressure to assist in State censorship and surveillance also escalates when authorities harass, threaten or arrest employees, or attempt to tamper with the company’s networks or equipment.89 88 89 14 Yael Ronen, “Big Brother’s little helpers: the right to privacy and the responsibility of Internet service providers”, Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, vol. 31, No. 80 (February 2015), p. 76. In 2014, a network shutdown request that the multinational telecommunications provider, Orange, received from the authorities in the Central African Republic was reportedly “accompanied by the