Chinese Surveillance Tech Firms Operate Like Western Counterparts, Leaked Documents Reveal

A massive leak of internal documents from Chinese tech company Geedge Networks has revealed how digital censorship tools are being marketed and exported globally, challenging the perception that China’s surveillance technology operates differently from Western counterparts.

According to the documents, Geedge Networks sells what amounts to a commercialized version of China’s “Great Firewall” to at least four countries: Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Myanmar. The leak provides unprecedented insight into the company’s capabilities to monitor, intercept, and hack internet traffic, with researchers describing the operation as “digital authoritarianism as a service.”

What’s particularly noteworthy about these revelations is how they demonstrate that China’s surveillance technology ecosystem functions similarly to those in Western countries. Rather than being a monolithic government-controlled system, the Chinese surveillance industry involves collaboration with academic institutions, adapts business strategies for different clients, and even repurposes infrastructure from competitors.

In Pakistan, for instance, Geedge secured a contract to work alongside and eventually replace equipment manufactured by Canadian company Sandvine, according to the leaked documents.

A separate leak from another Chinese firm this week further reinforces these parallels. Researchers at Vanderbilt University published a 399-page document from GoLaxy, a Chinese company specializing in AI-powered social media analysis and propaganda generation. The document, which includes internal presentations, business objectives, and meeting notes, may have been leaked by a disgruntled former employee who accused the company of labor violations.

Unlike Geedge, GoLaxy appears to focus primarily on domestic government clients. The company claims to be China’s “number one brand in intelligence big data analysis,” serving three main customers: the Chinese Communist Party, the government, and the military. Its technology demonstrations heavily feature geopolitical issues such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and U.S. elections.

Despite their different specializations, both companies share significant operational similarities. Each maintains close relationships with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), ranked as the world’s top government-affiliated research institution according to the Nature Index. Both also actively market their services to provincial-level government agencies in China, which have specific monitoring needs and dedicated surveillance budgets.

When reached for comment, GoLaxy did not immediately respond to inquiries. In a previous statement to The New York Times, the company denied collecting data targeting U.S. officials and characterized the newspaper’s reporting as misinformation. Vanderbilt researchers noted that the company removed several pages from its website following initial media coverage.

The commercialization of academic research in China follows patterns similar to those in the West. Just as American university researchers often launch startups to monetize their innovations, many key researchers at GoLaxy maintain positions at CAS while pursuing commercial opportunities.

However, these connections don’t guarantee government contracts. The leaked documents show that GoLaxy operated like any private company seeking clients, with sales targets assigned to employees and goals to secure approximately 42 million RMB (about $5.9 million) in contracts with Chinese government agencies in 2020.

A spreadsheet from around 2021 lists GoLaxy’s existing clients, including branches of the Chinese military, state security apparatus, and provincial police departments, alongside potential future customers the company was targeting.

These revelations provide a rare window into how China’s surveillance technology sector operates in practice, suggesting that despite political and ideological differences, the business models and operational structures of surveillance technology firms in China and the West may be more similar than previously understood.