Hillary Clinton, the United States, and Freedom on the Net

Internet Freedom

The prepared text of U.S. of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech, delivered at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

JANUARY 21, 2010

When I read this (thx George Siemens for the link), I thought Right On! The Department of State is moving into the 21st Century. I figured we were finally edging toward diplomatic relations with the flat world. Here are a few excerpts; I recommend reading the whole speech.

SYNCING PROGRESS WITH PRINCIPLES

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.

---

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 have 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. Beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

A connection to global information networks is like an on a ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. That hasn’t happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today – many 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 to help lift people out of poverty.

THE FREEDOM TO CONNECT

The final freedom I want to address today 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 in cyber space. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate in the name of progress. 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.

…That’s why today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and non-governmental 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 also address deficiencies in the current market for innovation.

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

Then I read this rebuttal by Evgeny Morozov. He thinks Hillary is launching a cyber Cold War.

Overall, I was disappointed with the speech — it lacked depth. I didn’t sense any coherent intellectual vision underpinning the State Department’s digital strategy (sorry, I refuse to buy into “21st Century Statecraft” concept — what other model of statecraft are they expected to work with, the one from the 18th century?).

But that aside, what’s the broader strategy here? I didn’t sense one. All the Cold War-era rhetoric makes me think they are clinging to the old view “let’s make information available and see what happens,” which I think is a very passive (and often dangerous) way of going about it.

My gut tells me Morozov is unduly harsh. Maybe I’m cutting Hillary too much slack, but all-in-all, I support what she had to say. It echoes Braveheart: “FREEDOM!”