In an industry as opaque as the surveillance technology industry, any effort to put in place safeguards to prevent human rights abuses
using these technologies should be recognised and encouraged. But what happens when those systems fail? For surveillance
technology companies, deciding where not to sell in a world full of eager government clients has important ethical and financial
implications. The surveillance industry favours a country-agnostic framework that hews to sanctions and export laws. Advocacy
and media groups argue to extend the no-sell zone beyond sanctioned governments to ‘authoritarian’ ones. Yet legal compliance is
not the only factor influencing surveillance companies’ choices, this article argues. Based on original investigation, this article
examines the social responsibility policies of communications surveillance technology vendors and the legal, reputational and
normative concerns these demonstrate. The article explores the use of country rankings related to ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘good
governance’ by examining the inner workings of a specific company in crisis, Procera Networks. As the cases featured demonstrate,
closer attention to be paid processes of corporate responsibility norm-making within companies.
