Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday highlighted new U.S. Internet freedom policy that is designed to help democracy movements gain access to open networks and speak out against authoritarian regimes.
According to Clinton, the program will provide $25 million in new grants to support "technologists and activists working at the cutting edge of the fight against Internet repression."
It will help fund efforts like circumvention and encryption services, which enable users to evade Internet blockades, and technology to wipe sensitive data from cell phones when activists are detained by security forces.
Protecting Our Freedom to Connect
In a speech seen as a follow-up to her 2010 address on the issue, Clinton reasserted the administration's belief in our universal "freedom to connect," something the Secretary of State and the White House see as a natural extension of our longstanding rights to free speech, assembly and association.
Her remarks carried a heightened sense of urgency in light of events still unfolding across the Middle East.
Clinton said the Internet was both an "accelerant of political and social change" and a "force for repression." She called for a global commitment to Internet freedom. "The freedoms to assemble and associate also apply in cyberspace," she said.
Clinton urged countries everywhere to bet that "an open Internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries... that open societies give rise to lasting progress."
But her call for unfettered and uncensored access to the Internet around the globe needs to resonate here at home as well.
No Double Standard at Home
The Obama administration's recent failure to stand up for a strong Net Neutrality rules, its slow-footed response to the export of invasive snooping technologies, and apparent reluctance to abandon the idea of an Internet "kill switch" all suggest a double standard in what the administration seeks for foreign governments and what it will accept in the United States.
(Ethan Zuckerman of Harvard's Berkman Center critiques other aspects of Clinton's speech)
At the end of 2010, Obama's FCC distanced itself from the president's prior commitment "to take a back seat to no one" in his support for Net Neutrality. Instead of ensuring openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the FCC exempted the mobile Internet from vital openness protections.
This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of the mobile Web. And both have a checkered past when it comes to protecting our right to connect.
In 2007, Verizon blocked text messages sent by Naral Pro-Choice America to its members. The move put Verizon in the same league as its cohorts at AT&T, which in August that same year censored the live Webcast of a Pearl Jam performance that included criticism of then President George W. Bush.
Comcast, the nation's largest cable Internet provider was caught blocking users' ability to connect to one another and trade files using popular BitTorrent software.
And the issues go beyond the administration's unwillingness to face down corporations that block our connections. Just hours before Secretary Clinton's speech, Justice Department lawyers urged a federal magistrate in Alexandria, Virginia, to uphold a court order requiring Twitter to turn over confidential information about the use of its services by three WikiLeaks supporters.
It's hard to claim the moral high road and presume to lecture other countries on the importance of online freedom when your own promise to defend it at home takes a backseat to corporate meddling and government interference.
And it's even harder to stomach such rhetoric when U.S. companies are exporting deep-packet inspection technology that's used to spy on democracy activists, or the administration seems intent on reserving the power to shut down our communications networks.
While Clinton's call for uninterrupted access to the Internet -- and its now famous offspring Facebook, Twitter and Youtube -- is laudable, we need to be consistent and do better in our policies both at home and abroad.
Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr
Funny, but people wouldn't hesitate to call that fascism if another country did it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/hillary-clinton-internet-freedom
Hillary Clinton's speech: Shades of hypocrisy on internet freedom
Last year, the US secretary of state criticised the 'firewall' approach. Yet after the WikiLeaks affair it is harder to moralise
"........So what about WikiLeaks? State department officials briefing about her remarks made two points behind closed doors. One point is legitimate – that the US will "always oppose the leaking of confidential information". But that fails to explain why WikiLeaks was so heavily penalised, even though the official line remains, rather implausibly, that it suffered no sanction at the behest of the US government. Instead the likes of MasterCard and Visa were simply acting, in the words of her officials, in accordance with their terms of service "without having been called to do by the Obama administration".
In a way this is all a pity and a distraction. Her argument about the importance of internet freedom is fundamental: although the Egyptian revolution carried on despite the brief shutdown of the mobile phone network, the overthrow of Murbarak was certainly enabled by it (and a regime unable to fight back online).
But her argument is tarnished by WikiLeaks, for it is too easy to say that the US failed to maintain the principles of internet freedom at a moment when its own structure of secrecy was threatened."
With Verizon, first, this wasn't the internet. Second, NARAL and Verizon's relationship rose to the level of a business partnership with one party processing payments for the other. Maybe you think that Verizon shouldn't be able to vet business partners, but this is not about net neutrality.
The one example of a net neutrality violation you mention is the comcast/bittorrent dispute. The one where the FCC first showed up to admonish Comcast 4 months after the matter had been successfully resolved by internet users. This is not an argument which supports the need for the FCC to regulate net neutrality.