A/HRC/32/38 surveillance techniques may be implicated in human rights violations that flow from their sales. 4. Mutual legal assistance treaties and data localization 61. It is important to note that surveillance is affected by other demands on privately held information. For example, the inability of the mutual legal assistance treaty regime to keep pace with cross-border data demands may drive States to resort to invasive extraterritorial surveillance measures. Laws that require companies to retain customer data or store such data in local data centres may also encourage such surveillance. 5. Encryption and anonymity 62. Since the Special Rapporteur reported on the importance of encryption and anonymity for protecting freedom of opinion and expression, government pressure on corporations to compromise the security of their customers’ digital devices, communications and information has grown. A range of private entities, from hardware manufacturers to e-mail services to messaging services, have been taking measures to develop and implement technologies that enhance user security, anonymity and privacy. These measures include end-to-end encryption for digital communications, disk encryption and timely software updates to close security loopholes. In response, States are seeking to compel companies to create or exploit technical loopholes in their products and services on their behalf. In the United States, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation applied to a federal court to compel Apple to create software that facilitates access to a suspect’s iPhone in a terrorism investigation. The Investigative Powers Bill introduced before the British Parliament on 1 March 2016 would authorize intelligence services to apply for a warrant that requires private entities to “secure interference with any equipment for the purpose of obtaining communications […] equipment data and any other information”.46 C. Transparency 63. Transparency can help ensure that subjects of Internet regulation are able to meaningfully predict their legal obligations and challenge them where appropriate. Gaps in compliance with these standards threaten the ability of individuals to understand the limits placed on their freedom of expression online and seek appropriate redress when their rights are violated. Transparency issues arise in both State and private sector contexts, such as public-private partnerships, private sector engagement in trade negotiations and the digital arms race. 64. Despite multiple reform attempts, transparency concerning government requests is still lacking. While there has been some improvement in transparency reporting concerning government requests for user information, there is far less information available about the volume and nature of government requests to restrict or remove content. 47 It is unclear whether such statistics are even retained. State restrictions on private disclosures of relevant information can be a major obstacle to corporate transparency. Several States prohibit disclosures concerning government requests for content removal or access to user data. India, for example, prohibits online intermediaries from disclosing details of government orders to block access to Internet content, as well as any action they take in response to 46 47 Investigatory Powers Bill (2015), Cl. 88 (2). Submissions of Freedom Online Coalition Working Group on Privacy and Transparency Online; and Telecommunications Industry Dialogue. 17