Clinton: Cyber repression "sows seeds for revolution" - Laura Rozen: Clinton: Cyber repression "sows seeds for revolution"

February 15, 2011

Clinton: Cyber repression "sows seeds for revolution"

Hillary Clinton will assert U.S. support for cyber-dissidents in an address on Internet freedom today.

"History has shown us that repression often sows the seeds for revolution down the road," Clinton will say, according to excerpts of her prepared remarks (below the jump). "Those who clamp down on Internet freedom may be able to hold back the full impact of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever."

Josh Gerstein and I meantime note in a piece that as Clinton addresses Internet freedom today, Justice Department prosecutors will be appearing in federal court a couple miles to defend their subpoeana of Twitter's records in its probe of WikiLeaks' acquisition and disclosure of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables:

The Obama administration is stepping up its drive to promote Internet freedom, hoping that countries like Iran could be swept up by the same kind of Web-driven public demonstrations and political tumult that brought the regime in Egypt to its knees in a matter of weeks.

However, critics say that as the United States calls for unfettered and uncensored access to the Internet around the globe, the Obama administration is stepping on its own message by aggressively pursuing a criminal investigation into the activities of online publisher WikiLeaks and how it obtained hundreds of thousands of classified American government reports.

In an awkward bit of timing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to deliver a major speech on Internet freedom in Washington on Tuesday just hours after Justice Department lawyers are scheduled to be in federal court a few miles away in the first public courtroom showdown over the probe into WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. Prosecutors are expected to urge a federal magistrate in Alexandria, Va., to uphold a court order requiring Twitter to turn over confidential information about the use of its services by three WikiLeaks supporters.

“It’s a typical example of it’s right for thee but not for me,” said Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who recently signed on to advise Assange’s legal team. [...]

Washington Middle East and democracy experts have generally welcomed the U.S. call for uninterrupted access to Facebook, Twitter and the Internet. But they’ve also noted that talking about Web freedom is a lot simpler than untangling conflicted U.S. interests toward the current instability in the Middle East, that threatens both adversaries such as Iran, as well as strong allies as Yemen’s President Saleh, who has backed the fight against Al Qaeda. [...]

“It’s a little bit easier to make democracy-promotion about letting everyone have access to Facebook than it is to confront directly the core elements of an allied police state,” Human Rights Watch’s Tom Malinowski said. “It’s a good thing to be promoting access to Facebook – but it’s also a little easier to do than the other thing.” [...]

Even some in the tech world see problems with the U.S. calling on countries to offer uncensored Web access while selling tear gas and weapons to the same countries’ militaries.

Clinton, “hopefully, will spell out some very concrete actions that the U.S. government can take that would do something to help these folks – dissidents and opposition parties in some of those countries,” a technology policy expert said on condition of anonymity Monday. “The problem you get into then is the whole hypocrisy problem. On the one hand, the U.S. saying, ‘Oh this is so great,’ and on the other hand, it’s training the [repressive regime’s] military.” 

Read more. Clinton will speak to some of those tensions head-on in her speech:

Our allegiance to the rule of law does not dissipate in cyberspace. Neither does our commitment to protecting civil liberties and human rights. ... There are times when these principles will raise tensions and pose challenges, but we do not have to choose among them. And we shouldn’t. Together they comprise the foundation of a free and open Internet…"

Clinton speaks at 12:30 PM at George Washington University (you can watch her remarks here).  More excerpts of her address below the jump.

Overview *

------------

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Clinton will deliver a speech on “Internet Rights And Wrongs: Choices & Challenges In A Networked World,” at George Washington University. The Secretary will discuss the role of 21st century communication technologies in recent events in the Middle East and efforts by some countries to curtail their people’s freedom to connect. She will reaffirm U.S. support for a free and open Internet and underscore the importance of safeguarding both liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, and freedom of expression and tolerance.


Excerpts:

--------

• "There is a debate underway in some circles about whether the Internet is a force for liberation or repression. But as the events in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere have shown, that debate is largely beside the point. The Internet isn’t good or bad. It is both. It is neither. What matters is what people who go online do there, and what principles should guide us as we come together in cyberspace. That question becomes more urgent every day…"

• "Together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I have called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same… "

• "Our allegiance to the rule of law does not dissipate in cyberspace. Neither does our commitment to protecting civil liberties and human rights. The United States is equally determined to track and stop terrorism and criminal activity online and offline, and in both spheres we pursue these goals in accordance with our values... Liberty and security. Transparency and confidentiality. Freedom of expression and tolerance. There are times when these principles will raise tensions and pose challenges, but we do not have to choose among them. And we shouldn’t. Together they comprise the foundation of a free and open Internet…" 

"We are convinced that an open Internet fosters long-term peace, progress and prosperity. The reverse is also true. An Internet that is closed and fractured, where different governments can block activity or change the rules on a whim—where speech is censored or punished, and privacy does not exist—that is an Internet that can cut off opportunities for peace and progress and discourage innovation and entrepreneurship…"

• "History has shown us that repression often sows the seeds for revolution down the road. Those who clamp down on Internet freedom may be able to hold back the full impact of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever… Leaders worldwide have a choice to make. They can let the Internet in their countries flourish, and take the risk that the freedoms it enables will lead to a greater demand for political rights. Or they can constrict the Internet, choke the freedoms it naturally sustains—and risk losing all the economic and social benefits that come from a networked society… "

• "The United States will continue to promote an Internet where people’s rights are protected and that is open to innovation, is interoperable all over the world, secure enough to hold people’s trust, and reliable enough to support their work.… Monitoring and responding to threats to Internet freedom has become part of the daily work of our diplomats and developments experts, who are working to advance Internet freedom on the ground at our embassies and missions around the world… There is no silver bullet in the struggle against Internet repression. There’s no “app” for that. And accordingly, we are taking a comprehensive and innovative approach—one that matches our diplomacy with technology, secure distribution networks for tools, and direct support for those on the front lines… "

###

Reader Comments (6)

Pages
  • 1
  1. The Obama administration must get its own house in order before it lectures foreign nations about internet censorship. Americans who are tagged as “dissidents” or undesirables are subject to draconian, targeted high tech censorship of telecommunications and pervasive surveillance, on-line or in the supposed privacy of their own homes – as reported by this veteran journalist:

    nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-censors-internet-political-speech-fraud-deception

    nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-runs-gang-stalking-vigilantism-says-ex-fbi-official

    Posted By: Vic Livingston | February 15, 2011 at 10:14 AM
    Report Abuse
  2. Hillary is such a hypocrite! What about WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks recently inspired long overdue revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt by documenting the leaders’ duplicity, corruption and rapacious greed. These happenings took us by surprise because we don’t have freedom of the press. Rick Sanchez was fired from CNN because he pointed out that Jews control the US media, and the Jews who control the media want to keep America in the dark about what the rest of the world thinks. Al Jazeera English, which would have alerted us about the situation, is thus blocked because of this US media censorship designed to hide, for instance, the role of Israeli atrocities in inspiring revenge attacks like 9/11. Meanwhile we’re going after WikiLeaks' Assange, but not other publishers of leaked classified information. For instance, as noted in Bob Woodward’s book Obama’s Wars, Woodward got a hold of General McChrystal’s classified report on Afghanistan and published it against our government’s wishes, although some redactions were made, in the September 21, 2009 Washington Post: “McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure.’” On his blog, retired Army Colonel Pat Lang responded, “This highly classified document was artfully leaked by those who wish to ‘bulldoze’ Obama and Gates into accepting an unlimited commitment to a nation building counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.”

    Posted By: willbheard | February 15, 2011 at 10:44 AM
    Report Abuse
  3. If you think it's ok for wiki links to publish private information and hide behind the free speech mantra, what are you going to do when they get a hold of a bank's customer info or a credit card company's data? Can they publish anything they get their hands on?

    Posted By: If you think it's ok for wiki links to publish private information and hide behind the free speech m | February 15, 2011 at 12:58 PM
    Report Abuse
  4. Whatever. She botched Egypt and it hurt the President who was showing great leadership on the issue.

    Posted By: Loyal Obot | February 15, 2011 at 01:03 PM
    Report Abuse
  5. Did Hillary stop to consider the HYPOCRISY of her remarks? All the while, Obama tries to get control of a "kill switch" over all US internet communication.

    Posted By: the rise of tyranny in America | February 15, 2011 at 03:27 PM
    Report Abuse
  6. Which President wants to be able to pull the plug on the internet in times of unrest? Obama, of course.

    Posted By: Paul in NH | February 15, 2011 at 04:17 PM
    Report Abuse
Pages
  • 1
Grab my RSS Get the Clinton: Cyber repression "sows seeds for revolution" - Laura Rozen widget

Archives

Categories

POLITICO44: The Obama Presidency - Minute by Minute

Contact Laura

POLITICO Pro POLITICO 2012 LIVE: The campaign trail starts here

Recent Stories: Laura Rozen