Fast Net News, DSL Prime, DOCSIS Report

The United States plans a major offensive to change international organizations and treaties in favor of Hillary Clinton's definition of Internet Freedom. The issues need to be understood in depth, but a good place to begin is with what they are actually saying. Clinton is a smart and complicated individual trying to balance many political forces, under the pressure of continuous crisis in U.S. foreign policy and two wars; it wouldn't be surprising if her policy only served some of what most of us believe "freedom" means. 

     Clinton sees things this way: "President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the inherent rights and dignities of every individual. And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown a few days later, I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century.

There are many other networks in the world. Some aid in the movement of people or resources, and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that’s why we believe it’s critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. Freedom of expression is first among them. ...

    Challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet. The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic, and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. ... Realigning our policies and our priorities will not be easy. ... we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. ... Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.

    We should err on the side of openness.

    We just have to keep incentivizing and encouraging the technology to be as low cost as possible so it can be as ubiquitous as possible."

     Here's Clinton's speech, followed by a briefing by Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and Alec Ross,
Senior Advisor for Innovation

Secretary Clinton: January 2010 » Remarks on Internet Freedom
Remarks on Internet Freedom

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
The Newseum
Washington, DC
January 21, 2010
Transcripts: Arabic | Chinese | French | Persian | Russian | Spanish | Urdu
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Alberto, for not only that kind introduction but your and your colleagues’ leadership of this important institution. It’s a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. The Newseum is a monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I’m grateful for this opportunity to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century. 

Although I can’t see all of you because in settings like this, the lights are in my eyes and you are in the dark, I know that there are many friends and former colleagues. I wish to acknowledge Charles Overby, the CEO of Freedom Forum here at the Newseum; Senator Edward Kaufman and Senator Joe Lieberman, my former colleagues in the Senate, both of whom worked for passage of the Voice Act, which speaks to Congress’s and the American people’s commitment to internet freedom, a commitment that crosses party lines and branches of government.

Also, I’m told here as well are Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Ted Kaufman, Representative Loretta Sanchez, many representatives of the Diplomatic Corps, ambassadors, chargés, participants in our International Visitor Leadership Program on internet freedom from China, Colombia, Iran, and Lebanon, and Moldova. And I also want to acknowledge Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute, recently named to our Broadcasting Board of Governors and, of course, instrumental in supporting the work on internet freedom that the Aspen Institute has been doing.

This is an important speech on a very important subject.

     But before I begin, I want to just speak briefly about Haiti, because during the last eight days, the people of Haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with a tragedy of staggering proportions. Our hemisphere has seen its share of hardship, but there are few precedents for the situation we’re facing in Port-au-Prince. Communication networks have played a critical role in our response. They were, of course, decimated and in many places totally destroyed. And in the hours after the quake, we worked with partners in the private sector; first, to set up the text “HAITI” campaign so that mobile phone users in the United States could donate to relief efforts via text messages. That initiative has been a showcase for the generosity of the American people, and thus far, it’s raised over $25 million for recovery efforts.

Information networks have also played a critical role on the ground. When I was with President Preval in Port-au-Prince on Saturday, one of his top priorities was to try to get communication up and going. The government couldn’t talk to each other, what was left of it, and NGOs, our civilian leadership, our military leadership were severely impacted. The technology community has set up interactive maps to help us identify needs and target resources. And on Monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed supermarket by an American search-and-rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help.

     Now, these examples are manifestations of a much broader phenomenon.

The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in Haiti or Hunan, the rest of us learn about it in real time – from real people. And we can respond in real time as well. Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in the supermarket are connected in ways that were not even imagined a year ago, even a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanity today. As we sit here, any of you – or maybe more likely, any of our children – can take out the tools that many carry every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world.

Now, in many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.

During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, he defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that ground truth is what brings me here today.

     Because amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can either energize a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights. 

In the last year, we’ve seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. In Vietnam, access to popular social networking sites has suddenly disappeared. And last Friday in Egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. One member of this group, Bassem Samir, who is thankfully no longer in prison, is with us today. So while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and the human welfare of the world’s population. 

On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

     Now, this challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the First Amendment to our Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone. 

Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. Now, at the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the troubles of his day. And years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted as a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding generation, guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty.

So as technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the inherent rights and dignities of every individual. And in my speech on human rights at Georgetown a few days later, I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century.

There are many other networks in the world. Some aid in the movement of people or resources, and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that’s why we believe it’s critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. Freedom of expression is first among them. This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship. 

As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain. 

The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls.
    Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the demonstrations that followed Iran’s presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman’s bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government’s brutality. We’ve seen reports that when Iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nation’s leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening inside their country. In speaking out on behalf of their own human rights, the Iranian people have inspired the world. And their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread truth and expose injustice.

Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing challenges that the international community must confront together. And we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.

The freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of new technologies, but it is not the only one. The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune or not commune with their Creator. And that’s one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Today, they may also take place on line. 

The internet can help bridge divides between people of different faiths. As the President said in Cairo, freedom of religion is central to the ability of people to live together. And as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet holds out such tremendous promise. We’ve already begun connecting students in the United States with young people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges. And we will continue using this tool to foster discussion between individuals from different religious communities.

Some nations, however, have co-opted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. Last year, for example, in Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity. And a Harvard study found that the Saudi Government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam. Countries including Vietnam and China employed similar tactics to restrict access to religious information. 

Now, just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must also not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities. Now, prayers will always travel on higher networks. But connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals’ ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life.

There are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. In our world, as I’ve said many times, talent may be distributed universally, but opportunity is not. And we know from long experience that promoting social and economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge, markets, capital, and opportunity can be frustrating and sometimes futile work. In this context, the internet can serve as a great equalizer. By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunities where none exist.

Over the last year, I’ve seen this firsthand in Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30 percent since they started using mobile banking technology; in Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn English on their mobile phones; and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where women entrepreneurs use the internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect themselves to global markets. 

Now, these examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world’s economic ladder. In many cases, the internet, mobile phones, and other connection technologies can do for economic growth what the Green Revolution did for agriculture. You can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. And one World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10 percent increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost 1 percent increase in per capita GDP. To just put this into context, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year.

A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed that they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. But that hasn’t happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today. Many of them are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who’ve historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have become a great leveler, and we should use them together to help lift people out of poverty and give them a freedom from want.
   Now, we have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish when they leverage communication networks and connection technologies to achieve progress. But make no mistake – some are and will continue to use global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of the openness of our societies to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize and intimidate. As we work to advance freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption and fear.

Governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilient. Now this is about more than petty hackers who deface websites. Our ability to bank online, use electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if we cannot rely on the security of our information networks.

Disruptions in these systems demand a coordinated response by all governments, the private sector, and the international community. We need more tools to help law enforcement agencies cooperate across jurisdictions when criminal hackers and organized crime syndicates attack networks for financial gain. The same is true when social ills such as child pornography and the exploitation of trafficked women and girls online is there for the world to see and for those who exploit these people to make a profit. We applaud efforts such as the Council on Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime that facilitate international cooperation in prosecuting such offenses. And we wish to redouble our efforts.

We have taken steps as a government, and as a Department, to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security. We have a lot of people in the State Department working on this. They’ve joined together, and we created two years ago an office to coordinate foreign policy in cyberspace. We’ve worked to address this challenge at the UN and in other multilateral forums and to put cyber security on the world’s agenda. And President Obama has just appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure that everyone’s networks stay free, secure, and reliable.

States, terrorists, and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, and our civil society. Countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face consequences and international condemnation. In an internet-connected world, an attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all. And by reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and encourage respect for the global networked commons.
    The final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both President and Mrs. Roosevelt thought about and wrote about all those years ago, is one that flows from the four I’ve already mentioned: the freedom to connect – the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you’re on the internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.
    The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. He used social networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence. In Colombia, an unemployed engineer brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities around the world to demonstrate against the FARC terrorist movement. The protests were the largest antiterrorist demonstrations in history. And in the weeks that followed, the FARC saw more demobilizations and desertions than it had during a decade of military action. And in Mexico, a single email from a private citizen who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed into huge demonstrations in all of the country’s 32 states. In Mexico City alone, 150,000 people took to the streets in protest. So the internet can help humanity push back against those who promote violence and crime and extremism.
In Iran and Moldova and other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results. And even in established democracies like the United States, we’ve seen the power of these tools to change history. Some of you may still remember the 2008 presidential election here. (Laughter.)
    The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important to individuals. I was recently moved by the story of a doctor – and I won’t tell you what country he was from – who was desperately trying to diagnose his daughter’s rare medical condition. He consulted with two dozen specialists, but he still didn’t have an answer. But he finally identified the condition, and found a cure, by using an internet search engine. That’s one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important in individuals’ lives.
   Now, the principles I’ve outlined today will guide our approach in addressing the issue of internet freedom and the use of these technologies. And I want to speak about how we apply them in practice. The United States is committed to devoting the diplomatic, economic, and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe. Our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country more than America stands to benefit when there is cooperation among peoples and states. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict and misunderstanding drive nations apart. So we are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, including the internet itself, we have a responsibility to see them used for good. To do that, we need to develop our capacity for what we call, at the State Department, 21st century statecraft.
    Realigning our policies and our priorities will not be easy. But adjusting to new technology rarely is. When the telegraph was introduced, it was a source of great anxiety for many in the diplomatic community, where the prospect of receiving daily instructions from capitals was not entirely welcome. But just as our diplomats eventually mastered the telegraph, they are doing the same to harness the potential of these new tools as well.
    And I’m proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. We are making this issue a priority at the United Nations as well, and we’re including internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the United Nations Human Rights Council. 

We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time, with a focus on implementing these programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.

    We want to put these tools in the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, to fight climate change and epidemics, to build global support for President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons, to encourage sustainable economic development that lifts the people at the bottom up. 

That’s why today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation. 

Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy. 

If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly.

    So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us.

In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.

Now, these new initiatives will supplement a great deal of important work we’ve already done over this past year.

   In the service of our diplomatic and diplomacy objectives, I assembled a talented and experienced team to lead our 21st century statecraft efforts. This team has traveled the world helping governments and groups leverage the benefits of connection technologies. They have stood up a Civil Society 2.0 Initiative to help grassroots organizations enter the digital age. They are putting in place a program in Mexico to help combat drug-related violence by allowing people to make untracked reports to reliable sources to avoid having retribution visited against them. They brought mobile banking to Afghanistan and are now pursuing the same effort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Pakistan, they created the first-ever social mobile network, called Our Voice, that has already produced tens of millions of messages and connected young Pakistanis who want to stand up to violent extremism.

In a short span, we have taken significant strides to translate the promise of these technologies into results that make a difference.

     But there is still so much more to be done. And as we work together with the private sector and foreign governments to deploy the tools of 21st century statecraft, we have to remember our shared responsibility to safeguard the freedoms that I’ve talked about today. We feel strongly that principles like information freedom aren’t just good policy, not just somehow connected to our national values, but they are universal and they’re also good for business. 

To use market terminology, a publicly listed company in Tunisia or Vietnam that operates in an environment of censorship will always trade at a discount relative to an identical firm in a free society. If corporate decision makers don’t have access to global sources of news and information, investors will have less confidence in their decisions over the long term. Countries that censor news and information must recognize that from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech. If businesses in your nations are denied access to either type of information, it will inevitably impact on growth.

Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend.

     The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent. 

The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous. There are so many people in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. Now, the United States and China have different views on this issue, and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently in the context of our positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship. 

Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors. 

Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress. Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions. 

As it stands, Americans can consider information presented by foreign governments. We do not block your attempts to communicate with the people in the United States. But citizens in societies that practice censorship lack exposure to outside views. In North Korea, for example, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens from outside opinions. This lopsided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability that small disagreements could escalate. So I hope that responsible governments with an interest in global stability will work with us to address such imbalances.

     For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground. It really comes down to the trust between firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their own personal information. Firms that earn that confidence of those countries and basically provide that kind of service will prosper in the global marketplace. I really believe that those who lose that confidence of their customers will eventually lose customers. No matter where you live, people want to believe that what they put into the internet is not going to be used against them.

    

And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles. 

Now, we are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to internet freedom around the world, and we are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit. 

We’re also encouraged by the work that’s being done through the Global Network Initiative, a voluntary effort by technology companies who are working with nongovernmental organizations, academic experts, and social investment funds to respond to government requests for censorship. The initiative goes beyond mere statements of principles and establishes mechanisms to promote real accountability and transparency. As part of our commitment to support responsible private sector engagement on information freedom, the State Department will be convening a high-level meeting next month co-chaired by Under Secretaries Robert Hormats and Maria Otero to bring together firms that provide network services for talks about internet freedom, because we want to have a partnership in addressing this 21st century challenge. 

Now, pursuing the freedoms I’ve talked about today is, I believe, the right thing to do. But I also believe it’s the smart thing to do. By advancing this agenda, we align our principles, our economic goals, and our strategic priorities. We need to work toward a world in which access to networks and information brings people closer together and expands the definition of the global community. Given the magnitude of the challenges we’re facing, we need people around the world to pool their knowledge and creativity to help rebuild the global economy, to protect our environment, to defeat violent extremism, and build a future in which every human being can live up to and realize his or her God-given potential.

     So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She’s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up because these networks took a voice that was buried and spread it to the world. No nation, no group, no individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the human family by walls of censorship. And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear the cries. 

So let us recommit ourselves to this cause. Let us make these technologies a force for real progress the world over. And let us go forward together to champion these freedoms for our time, for our young people who deserve every opportunity we can give them.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Madame Secretary. The Secretary has agreed to answer some questions. So if you would, there are going to be three microphones in the audience. If you would make your questions short, we’d appreciate it. And identify yourselves, please.
Yes. Could you wait for the microphone?
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you talked about anonymity on line and how that’s something – oh, I’m sorry. I’m Robert (inaudible). I’m with Northern Virginia Community College. I’m sorry.
STAFF: Could you hold the microphone up, please?
QUESTION: Sorry.
STAFF: Thank you.
QUESTION: You talked about anonymity on line and how we have to prevent that. But you also talk about censorship by governments. And I’m struck by – having a veil of anonymity in certain situations is actually quite beneficial. So are you looking to strike a balance between that and this emphasis on censorship?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. I mean, this is one of the challenges we face. On the one hand, anonymity protects the exploitation of children. And on the other hand, anonymity protects the free expression of opposition to repressive governments. Anonymity allows the theft of intellectual property, but anonymity also permits people to come together in settings that gives them some basis for free expression without identifying themselves.
None of this will be easy. I think that’s a fair statement. I think, as I said, we all have varying needs and rights and responsibilities. But I think these overriding principles should be our guiding light. We should err on the side of openness and do everything possible to create that, recognizing, as with any rule or any statement of principle, there are going to be exceptions.

So how we go after this, I think, is now what we’re requesting many of you who are experts in this area to lend your help to us in doing. We need the guidance of technology experts. In my experience, most of them are younger than 40, but not all are younger than 40. And we need the companies that do this, and we need the dissident voices who have actually lived on the front lines so that we can try to work through the best way to make that balance you referred to.
MODERATOR: Forty may be (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)
MODERATOR: Right over here. Yes.
QUESTION: Hi, my name is Courtney Radsch. I’m the Global Freedom of Expression officer at Freedom House. And I wanted to ask you – you spoke about business and relying on them to do the moral, right thing and not put profits first. But the goal of business is to make a profit. So what kind of teeth are going to be put into this? What role does the World Trade Organization play? And how are you going to encourage them to do the right thing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I think this is one of the issues that we want to have a very vigorous discussion about. I know that asking business, which is in business to make a profit, to do the right thing is not always easily translated into practical practice. On the other hand, I think there is a broader context here. It’s – companies that don’t follow the sanitary and hygiene procedures of a prior generation pay a price for it. And government and business have to constantly be working together to make sure that the food and other products that end up on the shelves of consumers around the world are safe, because individual consumers in a global interconnected economy can’t possibly exercise that vigilance on their own.
Similarly, when it comes to censorship, we believe that having an international effort to establish some rules over internet connectivity and trying to protect the basic freedoms I discussed is in the long-term interest of business, and frankly, I would argue, governments. I used the example from the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is very hard to keep information out. It was hard to keep it out at a prior age; it is even harder now. And trying to adjust to that, work with that, and learn from that about what could be done better is going to challenge every single government in the world.
So I think business, as such a driver of economic growth globally, has to have that in mind, both when they go into countries and when they confront the kind of censorship that we’re hearing about around the world. It’s particularly acute for the technology companies, the media companies obviously, but it’s not in any way limited to them. Other companies are facing censorship as well. So this is an issue that we have to surface and we have to talk about and we have to try to find as much common ground and then keep claiming more common ground as we go forward.
MODERATOR: We have a question way over here on the left.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Aly Abuzaakouk. I’m the director of Libya Forum website, promoting democracy and human rights and civil society in Libya.
We have been attacked and hacked many times. I would like Madame Secretary to tell me how can you help those voices which do not have, you know, the technology or the money to protect themselves, protect them against the hackers which are the silencers of voices from outside the countries which lacks freedom and freedom of expression.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is one of the issues that we are debating and we’re looking for ideas as to how we can answer it in a positive way. We would invite your participation. After I take the last question, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the Director of my Policy Planning unit inside the State Department and someone – the former dean of the Woodrow Wilson School who has written a lot about interconnectivity and how we have to begin to look at the world as the networked reality that it is, will be leading a discussion. And I hope some of you with ideas, suggestions, cautions, worries will stay and really get into an in-depth discussion about that.
MODERATOR: Thank you. And right here in the mezzanine, right next to the microphone.
QUESTION: Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang with BPSOS. We serve Vietnamese Americans and work with Vietnamese in Vietnam. While your initiative will take some time to take effect, just recently, in recent months, the Vietnamese Government sentenced several bloggers to five years all the way to 16 years in prison. So what does your office plan to do, and how the U.S. Government can confront such an emergency situation in Vietnam?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have publicly spoken out against the detention, conviction, and imprisonment of not only the bloggers in Vietnam, but some of the Buddhist monks and nuns and others who have been subjected to harassment.
Vietnam has made so much progress, and it’s just moving with great alacrity into the future, raising the standard of living of their people. And we don’t believe they should be afraid of commentary that is internal. In fact, I would like to see more governments, if you disagree with what a blogger or a website is saying, get in and argue with them. Explain what it is you’re doing. Put out contrary information. Point out what the pitfalls are of the position that a blogger might be taking.
So I hope that Vietnam will move more in that direction, because I think it goes hand in hand with the progress that we’ve seen in the last few years there.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Up in the back.
QUESTION: Nora von Ingersleben with the Association for Competitive Technology. Madame Secretary, you mentioned that U.S. companies have to do the right thing, not just what is good for their profits. But what if I am a U.S. company and I have a subsidiary in China and the Chinese Government is coming after my guys for information and, you know, we have resisted but now my guys have been taken to jail, my equipment is being hauled away. In that situation, what can the State Department do? Or what will the State Department do?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we obviously speak out on those individual cases. And we are, as I said, hoping to engage in a very candid and constructive conversation with the Chinese Government. We have had a positive year of very open discussions with our Chinese counterparts. I think we have established a foundation of understanding. We disagree on important issues with them. They disagree on important issues with us. They have our perspective; we have our perspective. But obviously, we want to encourage and support increasing openness in China because we believe it will further add to the dynamic growth and the democratization on the local level that we see occurring in China.
So on individual cases, we continue to speak out. But on the broader set of issues, we hope to really have the kind of discussion that might lead to a better understanding and changes in the approach that is currently being taken.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
Up in the very back in the center, if you could come to the aisle so we can get a microphone to you, and then we’ll come back down here. Thank you.
QUESTION: Imam Mohamed Magid from ADAMS Center in Virginia. My question for you, Madame Secretary: When you talk about social networking, we’re trying to address the issue of youth in the West, Muslim youth. Would you be open to the youth forum to speak about foreign policy? Because one of the reason that youth be radicalized, they don’t have a way to express themselves when they disagree with the United States Government or their own government overseas. Would you be open to those ideas?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, we would. In fact, we – in the wake of the President’s speech in Cairo, we have been expanding dramatically our outreach, particularly to Muslim youth. I agree with you completely, sir, that not only young people in the Muslim world, but young people across the world are increasingly disconnected from authority, from government, from all kinds of institutions that have been historically the foundations of society, because they are so interconnected through the internet, something that my generation can’t really understand.
In America, the average young person spends eight hours a day with media. The internet, cell phones, television – I mean, you think about that. Eight hours a day. That’s more time than they spend in school, that’s more time than they spend with their families. It’s often more time than they spend asleep.
So when you think about the power of this information connection to young people, I don’t think it should cause panic in people my age. I don’t think we should begin trying to stop it and prevent it. We ought to figure out how better to utilize it. You go back to the millennia; how were values passed around? Sitting around a fire, how were values communicated? In the homes by parents and grandparents. Now, values are being communicated by the internet, and we cannot stop it.
So let’s figure out how better to use it, participate in it, and particularly to focus on the needs of young people. They’re often looking for information. They’re looking for answers. At least until now, in most cultures that I’m aware of, despite all of the time that young people spend with technology, when they’re asked who do they look to for guidance about values, they still say their families. But if families increasingly feel disconnected from their highly connected young people and don’t know what their young people are doing online, then we see the problems that can result.
And there are so many manipulators online right now, not just stoking the anxieties and the fears of Muslim youth, but youth everywhere, defined by all kinds of characteristics.
So we have our own work to do, not just through our government but through our families, through our education systems, and every other institution to make sure we understand the power of this technology and to engage with young people through it and about it.
MODERATOR: I see a lot of hands going up as you speak. Let’s try over here on the far right.
Yes, the young lady there.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. Bahgi Gilamichael with the Sullivan Foundation. And also, thank you for inviting us to apply for grants. Now I’m interested in knowing what are the procedures, what is the agency we need to deal with, and if you have someone in the room we can follow up with on that? Thank you so much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, in addition to our panel, we have a lot of the members of our team who are working on these initiatives, and we can certainly connect up. If we invited you, we know how to find you. So we will make sure you get information about all of these programs, the ones that already exist and the ones that we’re rolling out.
MODERATOR: There’s no anonymity in this room. (Laughter.)
We have actually time for one more question, but I really would encourage you to stay for the panel that Anne-Marie Slaughter will chair on connection technologies and diplomacy immediately following. And I’m sure some of the questions will get answered.
So let’s do one last question over here on the far left, down below here. Can we get a mike? Thank you.
QUESTION: Hello. Thank you so much. I appreciated your wonderful program speech. I’m Mary Perkins from Howard University, and at Howard University, we – very much interested in particular aspects of the internet with respect to the digital divide. Or – in your story about the young girl being pulled out of the rubble because of the text message she was able to send brings to mind – the question in my mind, how many others could have been saved had they had that technology?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.
QUESTION: And so we’re very interested in knowing, in terms of access, the – not only internet freedom but free internet for all, the universal service aspect, and what can be done, particularly right now for Haiti, with this.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as – thank you for that. As you know, that is a continuing issue for us and for many countries around the world. We’re at 4 billion cell phones. And certainly, the cell phone is becoming the principal tool of communication, both through the applications that are on it, through the texting that it enables. And there are a lot of groups, NGOs, and even businesses that are passing out and providing cell phones at very low cost.
We just have to keep incentivizing and encouraging the technology to be as low cost as possible so it can be as ubiquitous as possible.
But I think we’ve made enormous progress. Ten years ago, we talked a lot about the digital divide even in our own country. We are overcoming it, but there are still questions of access, still questions of cost. Now, obviously, we have to recognize that a lot of the search engines are run by for-profit companies. They’re not – it’s not going to be free. But there are lots of ways of trying to encourage more universal access. And that’s part of the Obama Administration’s overall policy on technology, not just the diplomatic and development aspects of it.
Thank you, Professor.

Briefing on Internet Freedom and 21st Century Statecraft


Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Alec Ross
Senior Advisor for Innovation

Washington, DC

January 22, 2010



MR. TONER: Good afternoon, and welcome to the State Department. We’re very pleased this afternoon to have with us Senior Advisor for Innovation Alec Ross, along with Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner. They’re here to talk a little bit more detail about the context behind the Secretary’s internet freedom speech yesterday.
And with no further ado, I’ll hand it over to Alec.
MR. ROSS: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. What I wanted to do is just take a very couple – very few minutes to frame and give a little bit of historic context to the remarks yesterday by Secretary Clinton.
Since the – I thought it was appropriate that, if it wasn’t the day, it was off by one day. It was basically a year and – as Secretary of State to a day that she gave that speech. And for me that was significant, because one of the things that, in my opinion, has defined her tenure as Secretary of State is figuring out the way in which we can modernize our statecraft. And we’ve learned a lot in – over the course of this year, and we’ve learned some things that are very positive about the role that technology can play in our foreign policy, and we’ve learned some things that are significantly less positive.
Among the positive things we’ve seen most recently that we have nothing to celebrate right now as it relates to Haiti, I think it should be noted that it was at the Secretary’s direction that the State Department set up the text Haiti to 90999 program, which has now raised more than $26 million. We also saw, looking back a little further, the role that digital communications networks could play getting America’s message out. I think it’s notable that the President’s speech in Cairo was able to reach so many people and reach them so effectively because living in a digital age, we are no longer bound by the strictures of traditional broadcast area – broadcast-era media, so people were able to get mash-ups of it on their cell phones, people were able to see and hear him over the internet.
But we’ve also learned a number of negative things. The past year has seen a surge in al-Qaida and other extremist organizations using global communications networks to recruit young people into their ranks. And we’ve seen authoritarian governments increasingly use networks and infiltrate them, monitor them, and oftentimes shut them down. And of course, a prominent example of this was in Iran, leading up to, during, and in the aftermath of the election there.
I’m sure that you’ll have a question or two about China, because so many of you keep asking me questions about China as it relates to yesterday’s announcement. And so one of the things that I wanted to point out is that according to the OpenNet Initiative and Reporters Without Borders, 21 countries engage in extreme censorship or filtering of political content on the internet. And notably, this does not include countries that filter or censor content for cultural reasons like pornography or what they consider – in quotation marks – “overly secular content.” And 31 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where government heavily censors the internet for political content.
And we find this data staggering. And that is part of what prompted yesterday’s speech by the Secretary, and it’s part of why we’re elevating internet freedom from a piece of sort of foreign policy arcana to something that’s more central to our statecraft and more central to what we are doing.
One of the key takeaways that I hope you all took from the speech was her point that this doesn’t just go to the issue of information freedom, but it also goes to the issue of what kind of world we want to live in. Do we want to live in a world with one internet, one common knowledge base from which we can all draw? Or do we want to live in a world in which access to information and knowledge is based on what country you live in and the whims of the censors in that country?
A number of you know me – those of you who know me, many know me as Obama’s tech policy guy during the campaign. But what I would point out in a way of sort of giving my own historic perspective on this is point in fact, what I’ve really spent the last 10 years doing is focusing on the digital divide. I started a non-profit in a basement about 10 years ago that grew from being four guys with no money and just a handful of ideas into the world’s largest digital divide organization. And for me, yesterday’s announcement was a shift in the history of the internet from the primary concern of the internet being the digital divide, being an issue of access – can one get access to the internet – to today, where I think now the number one problem, the number one issue that we have to address as it relates to our global communications networks is, is that internet open, is it uncensored.
The last thing that I’ll highlight for you before turning it over to my colleague, Mike Posner, is I want to highlight the role of shared responsibility in this. The Secretary spoke, I think very directly to the private sector, not just America’s private sector but global technology and telecommunications companies. And I think that’s indicative of the fact that this is not just a government-to-government concern. Point in fact, I think that one of the things that’s important about internet freedom is it really lives at the convergence of security issues, human rights issues, and economic issues. It’s not one of those three things; it’s all three of them. And as such, the private sector doesn’t play a secondary role within this; they have a primary role to play within this.
And I thought she spoke very compellingly about some of the initiatives that are out there that are working, which I know Michael described one of them. But what I would highlight here, too, is that this is not something we’re going to be engaging on just on a government-to-government basis but also working closely with the private sector. So with that, Assistant Secretary.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Thanks, Alec. I just want to say briefly before opening up, for me and for us, the speech yesterday is really part of a trilogy. In the last five weeks, the Secretary has spoken about human rights, democracy, and development, and the link between the three, at Georgetown in mid-December. She spoke a couple of weeks ago about development, spelled that out more. And this speech fits within that framework.
And in the democracy and human rights development speech, one – there were really three things the Secretary spoke about that I think are reflected in the discussion of internet freedom. One is that our approach to human rights and democracy promotion and development is one of principled engagement. We’re going to engage with the world, and we’re going to engage in multiple ways. This is one way in which that engagement’s going to take place. Both diplomatically, in terms of technical assistance, in terms of training, we are going to be actively involved in promoting the notion of internet freedom.
We also spoke – she also spoke about universal standards and the fact that there is a global – this is not an American discussion; it’s a discussion of universal human rights standards. And again, the notion of free expression articulated yesterday is part of that notion that there is a – one standard of freedom, one standard of free expression that applies across the board to every government, to every country. Everybody ought to be entitled to the same access to information.
And the third thing was to talk about the fact that it’s very hard to change countries from outside. Countries change from within. And when we talk about democracy, it’s a no – it’s a broad notion that says empowering civil society, strengthening the press, empowering women, creating an environment in which people can change their own societies. These tools, these connective tools of the internet, cell phones, are a prime way now that people are communicating within their own societies and communicating with the rest of the world. So this is really a vital piece of what we’re trying to do when we talk about linking human rights, democracy, and development.
Let me just stop there and let’s open up to questions.
QUESTION: On China, I’m wondering if you guys have any reaction or any response to the Chinese rather hostile reaction to the Secretary’s speech.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I think what the Secretary said yesterday is that we have a range of relations with the Chinese. There’s a lot of issues on the table, and this – there are some issues where we’re working cooperatively together and there are some issues where we disagree. This is an area that will be part of the dialogue going forward, part of the strategic dialogue, and it’s an area where we really have differences.
QUESTION: Well, it’s going to be part of your side of the dialogue, but do you have any indication – and how is the human rights dialogue with the Chinese going? And more broadly, other than just internet.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Well, we’re going to – to my mind, it’s part of a strategic dialogue. It’s part of a broader discussion we’re having on a range of issues.
QUESTION: Yeah, but it doesn’t seem like they’re willing to talk about it.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Well, that’s not true. We’re in the midst of trying to figure out what the – both the form is going to be for those discussions and what the agenda is going to be. There is going to be – there is already a discussion of a range of human rights issues. There is going to be a more formal dialogue in the coming months, which we’re committed to and they’re committed to.
QUESTION: Just one more on the – specifically on Haiti and the internet. I mean, yes, the text messaging donations are all good, but I notice that one thing that the military is doing is that they dropped in or are bringing in 50,000 hand-held radios, AM-FM radios, which is not really internet – it’s kind of old-school technology. Why – or is there any thought being given to building up – I don’t know – cell phone capacity or something there, where you won’t have to rely on a transistor radio?
MR. ROSS: So we have a task force right now that’s focused on technology. We’re working very closely in an interagency process that USAID is leading specifically on this topic. And we believe that it is a priority to be able to restore telecommunications to the island, not just so people can communicate with each other and communicate with loved ones but also be able leverage those mobile platforms to help people connect to services during the recovery.
MR. TONER: Mark.
QUESTION: Sort of a general and specific question, again on China. In terms of carrying out in concrete terms what the Secretary talked about yesterday on internet freedom, there’s been some discussion about whether the U.S. would consider making internet freedom a trade issue in the sense that some of the software that allows the Chinese to do what they do is actually supplied by American companies. Would the U.S. consider putting an export control on that kind of technology?
And the second thing has to do with support for technology that allows people to get around firewalls. I know the State Department has set aside money to support these kinds of efforts. One of the ones that’s gotten a lot of attention is this GIF initiative that’s allied with Falun Gong. It has not yet gotten State Department funding. Are there any – is there any thought being given to giving them some support?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Let me answer the second question first. Our approach – our bureau, DRL, is involved in some of the grant-making and support. And our approach is really that there isn’t one size that fits all. This is a moment where lots of different technologies and lots of different groups and individuals are trying to break the firewall. There isn’t a silver bullet that’s going to solve that. And we’ve encouraged the group you mentioned and others to apply. In fact, we have a request for proposals that’s out that I think closes today or tomorrow. We very much welcome any group that has a piece of this.
But we view ourselves in some ways like the venture firms in California, that try a lot of different things. Everything isn’t going to work. Our approach is we’ve got to try different things in different countries. Technology is a piece. Training is a piece. Diplomacy is a piece. We’ve got to really address this in a multifaceted way, and that’s what we’re trying to do. But they’re welcome, everybody else is welcome to apply, and there’s more money coming down the pike.
MR. ROSS: And to answer your first question, Mark, I think that the Secretary laid out a great vision and series of programs for what we specifically at the State Department are going to do. But we are also now in an interagency process which includes the Department of Commerce. It includes USTR. It includes the White House. So there is going to be a whole-of-government approach to this in addition to what we are doing specifically at the State Department.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) specifically on export controls. I mean, is it – are you saying that because that’s a USTR thing, you’re probably not the right guy to answer? Or would you say as a principle that those kinds of things make sense?
MR. ROSS: What I would say is that what we – what the Secretary made clear yesterday is that we’re elevating internet freedom as a matter of our foreign policy, we’re going to be taking some immediate steps here at the State Department, and we’re going to be working with our partners in the whole of government to make sure that we’re very aggressive in ensuring that there’s a free and open internet.
QUESTION: But does that mean actively subverting the Chinese firewall, the sovereign government’s --
MR. ROSS: I’m not going to expand on the comments that the Secretary made yesterday.
QUESTION: Well, but Mark’s question was to the fact that funding for groups that are trying to get around the firewall – and you are funding that? So in other words, you are – it’s – I mean, it’s --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Let me answer that in a broader sense. We’re working in about 40 countries now with individuals and groups that are, in a range of ways, trying to exert their freedom of expression. In many of those countries – many of those countries, the governments would rather not have a full discussion of their own actions or of human rights or a range of other subjects. It is our intention to continue to work with individuals and groups that are promoting free expression, as the State Department did 35 years ago working with Soviet dissidents who were fighting against governments that wanted to restrict their ability to speak and write and to assemble and to discuss these issues.
QUESTION: So --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Some governments are going to characterize that --
QUESTION: Right.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: -- in a way that you did.
QUESTION: All right. But your --
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: But from our perspective, this is really a question of empowering people in their own societies to speak with one another and to speak to the rest of the world about things that matter.
QUESTION: Well, fair enough, but the Cold War is over and now you seem to be describing the U.S.-China relationship as like, what the U.S.-Soviet relationship was.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I didn’t mention China. I said there are a range of countries in the world where governments have taken the view that they need to constrict, constrain access to the internet. They need to make it impossible for people to get information about – pertaining to those countries, and they need to constrain people within those countries who wish to express their views.
Our view is the internet ought to be open and free, people ought to be able to express their views, and there ought to be a strong society – civil society within those countries that’s able to raise issues of concern.
MR. ROSS: And let me expand on that briefly by just pointing out that we’re focusing on one aspect of internet freedom in the conversation at this point. But point in fact: The Secretary yesterday laid out a broad swath of issues within which she defines internet freedom. So for example, one of the things that causes us a great deal of concern is in countries where young women, for example, who are, quote-un-quote, “caught” using the internet, using social media are then subject to what people call honor beatings and honor killings.
And so while circumvention is one aspect of internet freedom, so too are other aspects of this. So too is ensuring that it isn’t just young men or men who can be a part of the digital age; it’s also the case that, as she pointed out, issues of religious freedom and how that intersects into these issues. So while China and while issues of freedom of expression and censorship are very much topical today, we’re looking at this very broadly, and I think that that speaks to the breadth and depth of the issue.
MR. TONER: Indira.
QUESTION: Just following on that, Assistant Secretary Posner, from our earlier conversation this week, what my understanding was – the $15 million that has already been spent that was from Fiscal Year ’08 goes to these 40 different – has gone to these 40 different countries and circumvention technology is part of that, and these other things that Alec just mentioned as part of that. There’s 5 million additional that’s up for grant now and more that you’re expecting.
How is that – and so circumvention has been part of what you’ve been doing since ’08 – how is that different from the 15 million that the Secretary referred to yesterday? Is that a different pot of money and different from the 10 million that you’re expecting that would allow you to continue these ventures?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Yeah. Let me break that down. On our side, there was in Fiscal Year ’08 a grant from Congress of 15 million. Some of that has been spent, some of it’s in the pipeline, some of it is being developed. There’s another $5 million for Fiscal ’09 that’s being – where there’s a request for proposals – as I say, closes, I think, today or tomorrow. And then in Fiscal ’10, there’s another tranche of money.
That’s the piece of it that I’m involved in. I think the 15 million she referred to is there’s a range of other programs in the government relating to some of the promotional things that Alex worked on. That is – our piece is really – is separate. And it is not just circumvention; it really is, to me, a – it’s not one – not only not one size fits all, it’s a lot about training people. It’s a lot about – it’s some about technology. It’s some about encouraging groups that are in danger. It’s a lot about diplomacy, too, for us getting out there and being sure that when groups are in trouble, we provide a lifeline.
So we have a range of thoughts, a range of approaches, and we’re working with a wide range of groups. It’s also not in their interest often to be identified. And so I want to speak in general terms, because the reality is this is – these are activities that governments are not often thrilled about.
QUESTION: Can you quantify how much of that goes to circumvention technology of the money that you’re in charge of?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I honestly don’t know the answer to that. I can try to find out, but I don’t know.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
MR. TONER: Charlie.
QUESTION: Yes. Can we go back to China and the Google issue? I know we’ve heard all the general language from the podium previously from the Secretary about we’re going to talk to them; we’re going to have negotiations. Can either of you tell us exactly what’s happened as – have there been discussions with the Ambassador here? Has our Ambassador there gone to the Foreign Ministry? Has any – I mean, can you give us nuts and bolts on exactly at what levels this has taken place?
MR. POSNER: Not at this time. What I’ll do is – yeah, I’m going to refer you to P.J. P.J.’s got you.
QUESTION: Waiting in the wings. Okay.
MR. TONER: Goyal.
QUESTION: A follow-up – China is concerned: As far as human rights, religious freedom and all this, you have been talking to the Chinese for many, many years and they – actually tells you that – let this off the table; let’s start something else. That’s what they’ve been telling you.
Now, Chinese are crying out for internet freedom. Internet freedom is a concern. Most of the 76 percent Chinese are saying that they favor freedom of the internet. So as far as freedom through internet in China or human rights is concerned, how much control do you have now – earlier question – as far as technology to China, which is – was provided by the U.S. companies? And now, most of the technology companies are in China, so how much control do you have on them?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I think it’s important to view the human rights –
QUESTION: (Inaudible), I’m sorry.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I think it’s important to view the human rights issue in China in the broadest frame. We have a long agenda, which is an ongoing agenda. These are issues we continue to discuss and will continue to discuss. The internet, cell phones are a means of expressing those issues by Chinese citizens within the country and gathering information about those issues by people in the country, and a way for them to express themselves to the rest of the world. We support their efforts.
We have – we clearly don’t have the control over how that happens. The Chinese Government is very involved in overseeing that, and that’s one of the challenges we face, and it’s an area where we disagree with the Chinese Government. Our view is that there ought to be an open internet, it ought to be global in nature, and people ought to be able to express their views in the freest terms.
So this is going to be a continued diplomatic discussion. As Alec said, it’s also partly the responsibility of companies individually and acting collectively to figure out what their role will be. We need to be working both with companies, but we need also to be clear that this is in the diplomatic and national interests of the United States to be promoting a free internet in China and elsewhere in the world.
MR. ROSS: And that’s part of why one of the things that the Secretary announced yesterday is that there are going to be high level meetings here that are going to be co-chaired by Under Secretary Otero and Under Secretary Hormats.
QUESTION: Are you planning anything at the --
QUESTION: Actually --
QUESTION: -- United Nations level? I’m sorry.
QUESTION: -- to go back (inaudible), just to ask you to speak a little more directly to the Chinese foreign ministry’s written statement in response to Secretary Clinton’s speech. They said flatly that her insinuation that China restricts access to – or restricts the internet or restricts internet freedom runs contrary to the facts. They asked you not to make such groundless accusations. And they also said flatly that it is harmful to China-U.S. relations.
Do you believe that this has been harmful to U.S.-China relations? And do you have any intention of tempering your criticism, even in public, over this matter, given the Chinese unhappiness about it?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Look, I think as the Secretary said yesterday, there are a range of places where the U.S. and China have mutual interests. Those interests are going to continue to be discussed. We’re going to continue to work with them. There are places where we disagree. We’re going to put out a report at the end of the month – at the end of next month, our annual report on human rights conditions. Every year, we put that report out. It makes a range of comments about Chinese human rights violations and problems. Every year, the Chinese Government comes back and says that’s an interference.
It is the nature of the relationship. There are issues where we’re going to disagree, but we’re going to continue to speak out strongly and clearly and we’re going to have those discussions. That’s part of what countries do with one another. This is part of the dialogue.
QUESTION: So you don’t think it’s hurt the relationship? You disagree with that assessment by their foreign ministry?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Yeah. I can’t characterize that. I think it is part – it’s an inevitable part of the conversation that we talk about things where we disagree, and we try to find ways to bridge those differences.
QUESTION: Can I – what exactly do you – the broad range of mutual interests; what exactly are those mutual interests? It seems to me you disagree on the internet, you disagree on Iran, you disagree on Tibet, you disagree on Taiwan, you disagree on human rights. Where are these areas of convergence that you have with the Chinese? Maybe P.J. will when I ask that. If there’s one beyond Afghanistan, I would be very interested in knowing what it is.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Well, obviously, there are a range of economic relationships that are important. There’s a range of strategic and security conversations that are important. It’s – these are two very big, important countries in the world and we talk about a wide range of things, and there’s some areas where we really are working together and importantly working together. The strategic and economic dialogue is about trying to strengthen those parts of the relationship in part. Part of it is also to be sure that we’re talking about the things where we disagree.
MR. TONER: Mark. Just a couple minutes.
QUESTION: This is not about China, actually, although China could be involved in it. Someone who watched the speech was pointing out to me that singling out the Egyptian blogger who had been in prison was significant because this is a guy who’s apparently going to go back to Egypt.
And the question it raised in this person’s mind was whether this was a way of signaling that the U.S. would treat bloggers – dissident bloggers with the same kind of diplomatic status that they treat political dissidents of other kinds, you know, for purposes of lodging a demarche against a country, raising it in bilateral talks. I mean, was that also important in signaling a new way of treating this category of people?
MR. ROSS: Yeah. I think that part of what we now know about the 21st Century is that dissidents oftentimes manifest their dissent on our global communications network. So bloggers are a form of 21st century dissident.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: The case is particularly important to me personally because I was in Egypt last week. I met with a number of bloggers, including one who was arrested the next day at Naga Hammadi. And to me, it is important, as we’ve always done, to be raising the cases of people who are challenging official action by speaking out and who get arrested as a consequence. So this is, to me, part – it’s part of the nature of what we need to be doing. And this happened to be a case that occurred in the last few days.
MR. ROSS: I would point out too that the Secretary referenced twice in her speech yesterday samizdat, which we all know are these small pamphlets that were passed out in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. And she specifically likened blogs and social networks to modern-day samizdat.
QUESTION: Just quickly, wanted to ask you that – if you are planning anything at the United Nations level as far as this – all this thing going on?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: I think one aspect that we haven’t talked about here at all is there’s a – as the Secretary said in her speech, there’s the discussion affirmatively about opening up and making sure that internet is free. And there’s a second piece which is making sure that there are – that the internet is protected – privacy – and it isn’t used in ways that are detrimental to security, et cetera, doesn’t promote crimes.
I think we’re looking at both aspects of that in a UN context. We were involved in Geneva at the Human Rights Council in September in co-sponsoring a resolution on freedom of expression. Part of that resolution made reference to the internet. So we’re very much aware of that piece of it and to continuing to use the UN as a forum to make sure that freedom of expression is reinforced.
But there’s also cyber security. There’s also questions of privacy. And we’ve got to be mindful of the right of privacy, but also finding the right ways on a global scale to find the right rules of the road for dealing with the negative and dangerous aspects of the internet.
QUESTION: Just following up on that, does that mean that the U.S. is going to call on other nations to sign that Council of Europe Convention or whatever it is, the one she was referring to that the U.S. is a signatory to? Is she going to call on more nations? And who’s going to be inflicting these consequences that she referred to, the countries and individuals who are hackers need to face?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: Again, we made reference to it. It’s certainly something we’re looking at. I’m not sure at this stage that I can tell you what the next step is on that, but it’s something we’re looking at very closely.