PL
All cases B Google

Project Dragonfly

Google's censored search engine for China

Explainer · 60s

Project Dragonfly — Google was building a censored search engine for China

Static animation (SVG + CSS). No audio. No trackers. Open in a new window ↗

B06 — Project Dragonfly: Google’s censored search engine for China

Category: Human rights / censorship / internal whistleblowing / engineering ethics Company/companies: Google (Alphabet) Years: 2017–2019 (project), August 2018 (disclosure), July 2019 (suspension) Status: Project publicly suspended; no formal cancellation announced Card ID: B06

Metadata

FieldValue
Country/regionChina (market target), US (Google’s home jurisdiction), global (ethical debate)
Year revealedAugust 1, 2018 (The Intercept, Ryan Gallagher)
Duration of practice2017 – mid-2019 (project work)
Total penaltyUSD 0 — no formal penalties
Currency—
Legal basisNo US/EU legal violations; potential violations: UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (soft law), Global Magnitsky Act (not applied)
Whistleblower/discovererRyan Gallagher (The Intercept); Google employees (1,400+ signatories of letter); Jack Poulson (research scientist, who resigned)
Number affectedProject never publicly launched — but potentially 1.4 billion users in China had it been deployed
Status (as of today)Publicly suspended 2019; no signals of continuation; no formal cancellation declaration

TL;DR

On August 1, 2018, British investigative journalist Ryan Gallagher at The Intercept exposed a secret Google project code-named Project Dragonfly — the construction of a censored search engine for the Chinese market. The project, which had been running since 2017 under tight secrecy by a narrow group of Google engineers, included:

  1. Blocking results related to human rights, democracy, religion, peaceful protests, Taiwanese independence, LGBT+
  2. A blacklist of specific queries: “Tiananmen Square 1989,” “Nobel Prize” (in the context of Chinese dissidents such as Liu Xiaobo), “Dalai Lama,” criticism of Xi Jinping
  3. “Blackouts” around anniversaries — additional result filtering around June 4 (Tiananmen anniversary)
  4. Great Firewall compliance — not displaying results from blocked sites (Facebook, Twitter, NYT, Wikipedia, BBC)
  5. Tying every query to the user’s phone number — full deanonymization, with data potentially accessible to the Chinese government
  6. A mobile prototype code-named “Maotai” — for Android, tested internally

The reaction inside Google was unprecedented. An open letter from employees titled “We urge Google to cancel project Dragonfly” was signed by more than 1,400 employees. Several senior engineers resigned in protest — the most prominent being Jack Poulson, a Google research scientist who on August 20, 2018 posted his resignation letter on Google’s internal network, had his last day of work on August 31, 2018, with the public reveal via The Intercept on September 13, 2018. Tech Inquiry — a nonprofit that monitors Big Tech contracts with governments and militaries — was founded by Poulson in summer 2019 together with Irene Knapp, Laura Nolan, Liz O’Sullivan, and Shauna Gordon-McKeon. Meredith Whittaker (then at Google, organizer of the earlier Google Walkout against the company’s handling of harassment cases) and Kate Crawford publicly criticized the project from an AI ethics position.

Sundar Pichai (CEO) was initially silent, then in October 2018 at the Wired 25 conference admitted the project’s “explorations.” In December 2018, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, he stated: “We don’t have plans to launch Search in China at this point in time.” — without definitively denying it. In July 2019, VP of Public Policy Karan Bhatia before the Senate Judiciary Committee repeated the pattern: “we have no current plans.” Since 2019 there have been no public signs of project activity — but formal cancellation was never announced. The project may have been suspended, not buried.

The significance of the case does not rest on penalties (there were none) or on technology (it was never deployed). It rests on the precedent of internal whistleblowing: 1,400 Big Tech employees coordinated public opposition to a board-level decision and won. This changed the model of ethics discussions in Silicon Valley. Together with the earlier Project Maven (Google’s contract with the Pentagon for AI drone footage analysis, which Google withdrew from in 2018 after employee protests), Dragonfly established the principle that employees are a moral stakeholder of the company — in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Principles, 2011).

Timeline

  • 2006 — Google launches google.cn with limited censorship compliant with Chinese law. International criticism.
  • January 2010 — after a series of Chinese hacking attacks on dissidents’ accounts and Google’s infrastructure (Operation Aurora), Google publicly withdraws from China. Sergey Brin is personally involved in the decision; Google redirects google.cn traffic to google.com.hk.
  • 2010–2016 — Google unavailable in China directly. Chinese users use VPNs to bypass the Great Firewall.
  • 2015 — Google changes its motto from “Don’t be evil” to “Do the right thing” (a change tied to restructuring under Alphabet).
  • 2017 — Project Dragonfly quietly launches. Classified, with access limited to a narrow group of roughly 300 engineers.
  • Early 2018 — internal testing of the Maotai prototype (Android version). Project Maven (AI for the Pentagon) triggers internal protest.
  • April–May 2018 — letter from about 3,000 employees against Project Maven. Google announces it will not renew the Maven contract.
  • August 1, 2018 — The Intercept publishes Ryan Gallagher’s first article: “Google Plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked Documents Reveal.”
  • August 6, 2018 — further disclosures from Gallagher: detailed query blacklist, tying to phone numbers.
  • August 16, 2018 — open letter from 1,400 Google employees: “We urge Google to cancel project Dragonfly…”
  • August–September 2018 — Pence (US Vice President), Rubio, Warner, and other members of Congress publicly criticize Google.
  • August 20, 2018 — Jack Poulson (research scientist) posts his resignation letter on Google’s internal network in protest.
  • August 31, 2018 — Poulson’s last day of work at Google.
  • September 13, 2018 — The Intercept publicly reveals Poulson’s resignation.
  • October 15, 2018 — Sundar Pichai at the Wired 25 conference: “We have been exploring what search could look like in China… it turns out we can serve well over 99% of the queries.”
  • November 2018 — Google Walkout (a different trigger, but reinforced by the Dragonfly context) — 20,000 employees walk out of the offices in protest.
  • December 2018 — Pichai before the House Judiciary Committee: “We have no plans to launch Search in China at this point in time.”
  • March 2019 — leak: the internal Dragonfly team has been dismantled. Engineers are reassigned to other projects.
  • July 17, 2019 — Karan Bhatia (Google VP of Public Policy) before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “We have no current plans to launch Search in China.”
  • From 2019 onward — no public signals on Dragonfly. The project is publicly dormant.
  • 2020–2025 — Google maintains office presence in China (Beijing, Shanghai); Google Cloud delivered by local partners. Pichai visits China.

Mechanism

What the project envisioned — from leaked documents

Documents exposed by Gallagher and subsequent whistleblowers showed:

1. Query blacklist. Specific queries to be blocked:

  • “human rights” / “prawa człowieka”
  • “student protest”
  • “democracy movement”
  • “Peaceful Revolution” (Czechoslovakia 1989 — preemptively filtered as a prohibited analogy)
  • “Taiwan independence”
  • Names of key dissidents: Liu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei, Chen Guangcheng
  • Topics related to Xinjiang (Uyghurs), Tibet, Hong Kong
  • Religious topics: Falun Gong, independent Catholic Church

2. Event blackout. Filtering of results around key anniversaries:

  • June 4 (Tiananmen)
  • December 10 (Human Rights Day)
  • March 14 (2008 Tibetan unrest)

3. Great Firewall compliance. Results would not display domains blocked in China: Facebook, Twitter, NYT, WaPo, Wikipedia, BBC, YouTube, Google Docs, and so on.

4. Forced deanonymization. Every query tied to the user’s phone number (a requirement of Chinese registration law). The data would potentially be available to the Chinese government on request. Meaning: search “Tiananmen Square 1989” → your name, phone, and location reach the government.

5. Training on Chinese data. The search model would be trained on data from a local Chinese partner — a mechanism that would reinforce Chinese content and algorithmic preferences.

The “Maotai” prototype

The internal code name for the mobile (Android) prototype was Maotai — named after the famous Chinese liquor. This suggested the team included Chinese engineers and used playful code names. Maotai was tested internally — employees in the Bay Area could submit queries via VPN as if they were in China.

Scale of risk

Had Dragonfly gone live:

  • About 1.4 billion potential users
  • For Google, a market worth an estimated USD 50–100 billion per year
  • For the Chinese government: a surveillance instrument of unprecedented scale
  • For dissidents: a threat to life — tying queries to phone numbers creates a target list

Why this qualifies as a “Big Tech scandal”

  • Inconsistency with the company’s public declarations (“Don’t be evil” / “Do the right thing”)
  • Concealment from most employees, regulators, and the public
  • Assistance to an authoritarian regime in surveillance
  • Direct risk to the lives of individuals (dissidents, minorities)
  • Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Discovery

Who is Ryan Gallagher

Ryan Gallagher (b. 1986) — British investigative journalist specializing in intelligence, surveillance, and human rights. He previously collaborated with Laura Poitras on Edward Snowden’s documents (for The Intercept and Der Spiegel, 2013–2016). Author of a series of reports on GCHQ, NSA, and Five Eyes. From 2018 he worked exclusively on Dragonfly — publishing more than 20 articles in The Intercept between 2018 and 2019, gradually disclosing details.

Gallagher received the documents from Google employees (whose identities were protected). He worked with The Intercept’s lawyers for several months to verify authenticity.

Jack Poulson — public resignation

Jack Poulson — a mathematician and Google research scientist for four years. On August 20, 2018 he posted his resignation letter on Google’s internal network; his last day of work was August 31, 2018; the matter was publicly revealed by The Intercept on September 13, 2018 (Ryan Gallagher).

Quote from the letter: “I am forfeiting more than $100,000 a year by resigning. But in doing so, I am saving my integrity. Google’s pursuit of Dragonfly represents a capitulation to the Chinese government’s demands.”

In summer 2019, Poulson — together with Irene Knapp, Laura Nolan, Liz O’Sullivan, and Shauna Gordon-McKeon — founded Tech Inquiry, a nonprofit that monitors Big Tech contracts with governments, militaries, and intelligence agencies. Since 2019, Tech Inquiry has exposed:

  • Project Nimbus — Google Cloud’s contract with Israel (2021); previously secret
  • Numerous Amazon AWS contracts with ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
  • Microsoft Azure contracts with Israel’s Mossad
  • Palantir contracts with local US police forces

Poulson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2019.

1,400 Google employees

An open letter signed by more than 1,400 employees — published by The New York Times on August 16, 2018. Its content:

“We urge Google to cancel project Dragonfly, Google’s effort to create a censored search engine for the Chinese market. We also urge Google to commit to transparency, clear communication, and real accountability. Google employees need to know what we’re building.”

This was the first major coordinated Big Tech employee action in history. Before it (and alongside it) was Project Maven (2018, about 3,000 signatories opposing the Pentagon contract). Later came Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, Microsoft Workers 4 Good (including opposition to ICE contracts), and others.

Meredith Whittaker and Kate Crawford

  • Meredith Whittaker — then at Google, organizer of the Google Walkout (November 2018, 20,000 employees protesting primarily the company’s handling of harassment cases). Co-founder of the AI Now Institute (NYU). Later president of the Signal Foundation.
  • Kate Crawford — co-founder of the AI Now Institute, author of Atlas of AI (2021). AI ethics critic.

Both publicly criticized Dragonfly as part of a broader critique of AI ethics in Big Tech.

First publications

  • August 1, 2018 — Ryan Gallagher, “Google Plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked Documents Reveal,” The Intercept
  • August 6, 2018 — Gallagher, “Leaked Transcript of Private Meeting Contradicts Google’s Official Story on China”
  • August 14, 2018 — The New York Times publishes the letter from 1,400 employees
  • August–December 2018 — series of Gallagher’s articles in The Intercept

Key people

Discoverers and whistleblowers

  • Ryan Gallagher — journalist at The Intercept
  • Jack Poulson — Google research scientist, founder of Tech Inquiry
  • 1,400 Google employees — collective whistleblower
  • Meredith Whittaker — organizer inside Google, later Signal
  • Kate Crawford — AI Now Institute
  • Liu Chuang — (anonymized for safety; several Chinese Google engineers who handed documents to Gallagher)

Google

  • Sundar Pichai — CEO of Google/Alphabet. Responsible for approving the project.
  • Ben Gomes — then Head of Search (later Senior VP Education); led the Dragonfly team.
  • Scott Beaumont — President of Google China. Chief lobbyist for the project.
  • Karan Bhatia — VP of Public Policy. Testified before the Senate.
  • Kent Walker — Chief Legal Officer.

External critics

  • Marco Rubio — US senator, leading critic of Big Tech’s China policy.
  • Mark Warner — US senator, Senate Intelligence Committee.
  • Mike Pence — US Vice President (2018), publicly criticized Google.
  • Amnesty International — 2018 report critical of the project.
  • Human Rights Watch — public statements.
  • Edward Snowden — tweets supporting Google employees.
  • Reporters Without Borders, Access Now — digital rights organizations.

Company response

Google

Stage 1: secrecy (2017–August 2018). The project was classified. Even much of senior management did not know the details. Standard internal arguments: “explorations,” “we don’t yet know what we’ll build.”

Stage 2: denial (August 2018). After Gallagher’s publication, Google declined official comment. Internal management memo: “these are early explorations, nothing concrete.”

Stage 3: partial admission (October 2018). Pichai at Wired 25: “We have been exploring what search could look like in China… it turns out we can serve well over 99% of the queries.” This sentence, cited as hypocrisy — “99% of queries” are empty statistics if the missing 1% is human rights, democracy, Tiananmen.

Stage 4: the undying “no plans at this time” (December 2018, July 2019, 2020). Pichai, Bhatia, and other Google spokespeople use a textbook evasive formula: “We have no current plans.” — never definitively denying the project. The formula suggests “not now, but maybe someday.”

Stage 5: silence (2019+). Since 2019 Google has not mentioned Dragonfly. There is no official cancellation declaration.

Important: Google has not published an internal report on the project’s closure. There is no audit, no “transparency report” concerning Dragonfly. Information about its suspension rests on journalistic reporting and internal leaks.

Jurisdictions

There are no formal legal proceedings against Google in this case.

  • US Senate, Congress — hearings, but no legal consequences.
  • EU — commentary, no proceedings.
  • China — had no reason to initiate proceedings (the project was pro-censorship).

Legal basis — hypothetical

  • UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Principles, 2011) — soft law, imposes a “do no harm” duty on companies in relation to human rights.
  • OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises — requirements for multinational corporations.
  • Global Magnitsky Act (US) — sanctions for participation in human rights violations. Not applied.
  • Export Administration Regulations (US) — export controls on surveillance technology. Not used, because the project never entered the execution phase.

Key stages

DateStage
August 1, 2018Gallagher publication
August 16, 2018Letter from 1,400 employees
August 20, 2018Poulson’s resignation letter on internal network
August 31, 2018Poulson’s last day of work
September 13, 2018Public reveal of Poulson’s resignation (The Intercept)
December 2018Pichai before Congress
July 2019Bhatia before the Senate
From 2019Public silence

There is no court precedent. But the case established a principle in Big Tech practice: employees as ethical stakeholders. Analogous cases:

  • Project Maven (2018, Pentagon — withdrawn)
  • Project Nimbus (2021, Israel — continued despite protests)
  • Project Clover (Meta for the US military)
  • Microsoft HoloLens for the US Army (2019, continued despite protests)

Penalties and settlements

DateAuthorityAmountJurisdictionBasis
——USD 0——

No penalties. This is an unusual situation in the database — but the Dragonfly case is not about law, it is about ethics and human rights. The significance of the case rests not on penalties but on the precedent of internal whistleblowing.

Precedents and implications

For human rights

  • UN Guiding Principles in practice — Dragonfly is now cited in business-and-human-rights textbooks as an example of violating principle 2 of the Ruggie Principles (“do no harm”).
  • Business & Human Rights Resource Centre documents the case as a study.
  • Amnesty International uses Dragonfly in its “The Toxic Twins” campaign (together with Project Nimbus).

For Big Tech practice

  • Employees as stakeholders — this is the most important legacy of the case. After Dragonfly and Maven:
    • Google introduced AI Principles (2018), then dissolved its internal Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC, 2019).
    • Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon developed internal Responsible AI teams (2020+).
    • Employee ethical coalitions became common — Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, Microsoft Workers 4 Good, Meta Integrity Council.
  • Public resignation as a tool — Jack Poulson became a model for later Big Tech whistleblowers: Frances Haugen (Meta, A05), Timnit Gebru (Google AI Ethics 2020), Mohamed Abdalla (2023).

For the Chinese market

  • Google remains shut out of the Chinese search market. Baidu dominates.
  • Microsoft Bing — has operated in China with censorship since 2009; it uses existing technology rather than building something from scratch for censorship.
  • Apple — accepted Chinese requirements: iCloud data of Chinese users on the servers of a Chinese state-owned firm (GCBD, 2018); removal of VPN apps and apps related to Hong Kong protests.
  • LinkedIn — withdrew from China in 2021 under censorship pressure.

For the AI ethics debate

  • The pattern of engineer protest against ethically questionable AI projects was set in motion.
  • AI ethics departments in Big Tech grew from 2018 to 2022, then were cut back (in 2022 Twitter/X dissolved its team, in 2023 Microsoft disbanded its team).

Class actions

None — the project was never deployed, so there was no direct violation of consumer rights.

Conclusions for citizens

What does this mean for me?

Dragonfly was not directly about you (unless you are a mainland Chinese citizen). But it shows how Big Tech makes ethical decisions: in secret, with market calculations, requiring internal employee rebellion to back down. The global consequences:

  1. Your data ends up with corporations that calculate markets in authoritarian states. Your Google searches, Facebook posts, Ring recordings, iCloud photos — all of this sits with companies that could potentially compromise for access to a market worth USD 50 billion or more.
  2. “Surveillance technology export” is real. The US formally restricts it (EAR), but in practice Big Tech technologies reach authoritarian regimes.
  3. Big Tech’s departure from its ethics can be faster than you think. The “Don’t be evil” motto was changed in 2015. Dragonfly came in 2017. For your privacy profile this means: do not assume that a company professing values X today will profess them in two years.

How to protect yourself

Diversify away from Google:

  1. Search engine: DuckDuckGo, Startpage, Kagi (paid, but highly private), Qwant (French), Ecosia (plants trees).
  2. Email: ProtonMail (Switzerland), Tutanota (Germany), Fastmail (Australia).
  3. Browser: Firefox, Brave.
  4. Mobile OS: consider /e/OS (de-Googled Android) or GrapheneOS (open source, security-hardened).
  5. Cloud: Proton Drive, Tresorit (Switzerland), Nextcloud (self-hosted).
  6. Office suite: OnlyOffice, LibreOffice Online, CryptPad.

For Chinese citizens, the Chinese diaspora, and journalists working with China:

  1. VPN — WireGuard with a trusted provider (Mullvad, IVPN, ProtonVPN). Note: in China, VPN use is a gray area — tolerated for companies, risky for citizens.
  2. Tor Browser — blocked in many countries, but it partially bypasses the Chinese Great Firewall (bridges).
  3. Signal instead of WeChat for communication outside China.
  4. ProtonMail with 2FA enabled.
  5. Tails OS for high-risk operations.

What rights do I have?

In the context of Dragonfly it is hard to speak of direct individual rights — this is a systemic case. But:

In the EU:

  • AI Act (2024) — regulates the use of AI, including social scoring systems (directly corresponding to China’s social credit).
  • Digital Services Act (DSA) — transparency obligations for very large platforms.

In the US:

  • No direct regulation of this type of project.
  • Global Magnitsky Act — in the case of involvement in human rights violations, US sanctions.

Where to report

  • Amnesty International — reporting violations
  • Tech Inquiry (techinquiry.org) — documents Big Tech contracts with governments
  • Access Now (accessnow.org) — assistance for activists and journalists

A note for mediators, lawyers, and business ethicists

The Dragonfly case has direct relevance for mediation inside companies:

  1. Collective employee voice as a form of mediation. Big Tech employees showed that coordinated internal pressure can change board-level decisions. For corporate mediators — a method in practice, not just theory. An open letter with 1,400 signatures > months of meetings.
  2. Contracts with ethics clauses. After Dragonfly/Maven, many Big Tech employment agreements include clauses on an employee’s right to refuse to participate in projects that violate the company’s declared values. For employment lawyers — a new area.
  3. Internal vs. external whistleblowing. Dragonfly showed that employees first try internally (letters, petitions, resignations), then externally (through journalists). Jack Poulson: resignation → Tech Inquiry (an external organization). For NGO lawyers — a model of former-employee engagement.
  4. Ruggie Principles (UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011) — principle 2 imposes a “do no harm” duty on companies. Soft law, but increasingly invoked in courts and international arbitration. For mediators: material worth knowing.

Context

  • The “Dragonfly” code name — the dragonfly symbolizes “transformation” in Chinese culture. The name was chosen because it is “friendly to the Chinese market.” The symbolism of Google’s project: transformation from a company that loved the freedom of information into a tool of censorship.
  • “Maotai” — the name of the mobile prototype. Maotai is a famous premium Chinese liquor (50% alcohol, used in Chinese diplomacy, including at banquets with heads of state). Chinese-speaking Google engineers chose playful code names.
  • “Don’t be evil” → “Do the right thing” — Google changed its motto in 2015. In 2018 skeptics joked: “changing the motto was preparation for Dragonfly.” The original “Don’t be evil” remained in the Code of Conduct until 2018, then disappeared.
  • The Intercept — the magazine that published Dragonfly, founded in 2014 after the Snowden documents. Founders: Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill. The Intercept has the most advanced anonymous-contact tools for whistleblowers — SecureDrop (over Tor), PGP, Signal.
  • Project access zones — Dragonfly was classified. Access was limited to a group of about 300 people inside Google. Even the Google AI leadership (Jeff Dean, Fei-Fei Li until 2018) did not know the details.
  • Project Maven and Dragonfly — the “Year of the Employee Protest” at Google. Maven (AI for the Pentagon, ended in 2018 after protests) was a prelude to Dragonfly. These two precedents shaped the culture of employee protest in Big Tech.
  • “Google Walkout” (November 1, 2018) — 20,000 Google employees walked out of the offices in protest. The main reason: the handling of sexual harassment accusations (the Andy Rubin case). But Dragonfly was a reinforcing context. Meredith Whittaker (the organizer) left Google in 2019.
  • Jack Poulson → Tech Inquiry — Poulson’s organization regularly discloses Big Tech contracts with governments. In 2024 Tech Inquiry exposed Project Nimbus — Google Cloud’s USD 1.2 billion contract with Israel. This triggered another wave of Google employee protests (2024–2025, including office sit-ins).
  • Edward Snowden tweeted on August 2, 2018: “Google has an incredible opportunity here. They can walk away. They don’t have to partner with the CCP. They can be the company they’ve always claimed to be.”
  • Comparison with Apple — Apple effectively did Dragonfly in practice (agreeing to Chinese requirements on iCloud, removing protest apps) inside its own infrastructure, without building a new product specifically for censorship. So: “quieter” than Google, but comparable in scale of effect.
  • Dismantling of ATEAC (Advanced Technology External Advisory Council) — after Dragonfly (and earlier Maven), Google tried in 2019 to convene an external AI ethics council. Dissolved within a week after scandals involving its members (Kay Coles James of the Heritage Foundation — employee objections). Shows the difficulty of building credible ethics structures.
  • Continuation or burial? Since 2019 there have been no public signals on Dragonfly. But Google has not announced a formal cancellation. Is the project sitting in a drawer? Are the teams dismantled but the code preserved? No outsider knows. Lack of transparency = risk of reactivation.
  • Polish context — Poles are Google users (its search engine holds about 95% market share in Poland). Dragonfly did not concern Poland directly, but the precedent of compromise with an authoritarian regime carries universal significance. For Polish journalists working with Belarus, Russia, and China, the question becomes: is my Google infrastructure safe? The answer: under certain conditions, yes, but you should have a plan B.

Sources

  1. Ryan Gallagher, “Google Plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked Documents Reveal,” The Intercept, August 1, 2018. URL: https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-censorship/ (accessed: 2026-04-17)

  2. Ryan Gallagher, a series of more than 20 articles in The Intercept (2018–2019) documenting Dragonfly.

  3. Open letter from Google employees, The New York Times, August 16, 2018. URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/technology/google-employees-protest-search-censored-china.html (accessed: 2026-04-17)

  4. Jack Poulson, Tech Inquiry blog and public statements. URL: https://techinquiry.org (accessed: 2026-04-17)

  5. Sundar Pichai, testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, December 11, 2018.

  6. Karan Bhatia, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, July 17, 2019.

  7. Amnesty International, “Google: Drop Dragonfly now,” 2018. URL: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/08/google-drop-dragonfly-china-search-engine/ (accessed: 2026-04-17)

  8. Human Rights Watch, statements 2018–2019.

  9. UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf

  10. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2023 edition.

  11. Scahill, Jeremy; Greenwald, Glenn; Poitras, Laura — founders of The Intercept.

  12. Meredith Whittaker, public statements and Signal Foundation work.

  13. Kate Crawford, Atlas of AI (Yale University Press, 2021).

  14. Edward Snowden, tweet @Snowden of August 2, 2018.

  15. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Dragonfly case documentation. URL: https://www.business-humanrights.org (accessed: 2026-04-17)

Last updated: 2026-04-17 Card in database: B06_project_dragonfly.md

Related cases

Cases that share a company, mechanism, legal precedent or jurisdiction.