2010.01.21
http://www.america.gov/st/democracyhr-chinese/2010/January/20100121212440eaifas0.9105341.html?CP.rss=true&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
视频：http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1705667530?bctid=62730021001
克林顿国务卿2009年1月21日在华盛顿哥伦比亚特区新闻博物馆（Newseum）发表讲话，阐述互联网自由对社会进步和经济增长的重要性，宣布将把增进“连接自由”作为一项基本外交目标。以下是讲话全文，由美国国务院国际信息局（IIP）翻译。
希拉里∙克林顿（Hillary Rodham Clinton）国务卿
华盛顿哥伦比亚特区新闻博物馆（Newseum）
2009年1月21日（星期四）
非常感谢，艾伯托（Alberto）。不仅要感谢你的赞誉和介绍，而且要感谢你和你的同事们在这个重要机构中发挥的领导作用。很高兴来到新闻博物馆。这个博物馆是一座纪念碑，见证了我们最珍视的一些自由。我十分感谢能有此机会谈谈如何运用这些自由应对二十一世纪的各项挑战。
虽然我并不能看到你们所有的人——因为在这样的场合灯光照射我的眼睛，而你们都在背光处——但我知道在座的有很多朋友和老同事。我要感谢自由论坛（Freedom Forum）的首席执行官查尔斯∙奥弗比（Charles Overby）光临新闻博物馆，以及我在参议院时的老同事理查德∙卢格（Richard Lugar）和乔∙利伯曼(Joe Lieberman)两位参议员，他们两位都为《表达法》（Voice Act）的通过作出了努力。这项立法表明，美国国会和美国人民不分党派，不分政府部门，坚定地支持互联网自由。
我听说在场的还有参议员萨姆∙布朗巴克（Sam Brownback）、参议员特德∙考夫曼（Ted Kaufman）、众议员洛雷塔∙桑切斯（Loretta Sanchez）、许多大使、临时代办和外交使团的其他代表、以及从中国、哥伦比亚、伊朗、黎巴嫩和摩尔多瓦等国前来参加我们关于互联网自由的“国际访问者领袖计划”（International Visitor Leadership Program）的人士。我还要提到最近被任命为广播理事会（Broadcasting Board of Govenors）理事的阿斯彭研究所（Aspen Institute）所长沃尔特∙艾萨克森（ Walter Isaacson）。毫无疑问，他在阿斯彭研究所从事的支持互联网自由的工作中发挥了重要作用。
这是关于一个非常重要的议题的一个重要讲话。但在开始谈这个议题前，我想简要介绍一下海地的情况。过去八天来，海地人民和世界人民携手应对一场巨大的灾难。我们这个半球曾历经磨难，但我们目前在太子港面临的困境鲜有先例。通讯网络在我们抗击这场灾难的过程中发挥了极其重要的作用。不用说，当地的通讯网络遭受了重创，在很多地方被彻底摧毁。地震发生后仅几个小时，我们就与民营部门的伙伴发起“海地”（HAITI）短信捐款活动，使美国的移动电话使用者能通过发短信向救灾工作捐款。这项活动充分展示了美国人民的慷慨。迄今，该活动已为海地的抗震救灾筹集了2500多万美元。
信息网络在救灾现场也发挥了极其重要的作用。星期六，我在太子港会见普雷瓦尔（Preval）总统时，他的重点目标之一是要努力恢复通讯。幸存的通讯设施不足以帮助当地政府官员相互联络，非政府组织以及我们的文职部门和军队的领导人的运作能力都受到严重影响。高科技公司设立了互动地图，帮助确定救灾需要和目标资源。就在星期一，一名年仅七岁的小女孩和两名妇女通过发短信呼救被一个美国搜救队从坍塌的超市的残砖碎瓦下救了出来。这些事例只是一个普遍现象的缩影。
信息网络的扩展正在为我们的星球建立一个新的神经系统。在海地或湖南发生什么情况时，我们其余的人都能从当事者那里实时得知。我们还可以实时作出反应。灾后迫切希望提供帮助的美国人和被困在超市瓦砾下的小姑娘以一年以前乃至一代人以前还想象不到的方式被联系在一起。今天，同样的原则适用于几乎整个人类。我们今天坐在这里，你们中间任何人——或更有可能的是我们孩子中的任何人——都可以拿出很多人每天随身携带的通讯工具，将这次讨论的内容发送给全世界数十亿人。
在很多方面，信息从未像今天这么自由。与过去任何时候相比，今天都有更多的方式把更多的想法传播给更多的人。即使在集权国家，信息网络也在帮助人们发现新的事实，向政府更多地问责。
例如，奥巴马总统11月访华期间与当地大学生的直接对话包含了网上提问，突显了互联网的重要性。在回答一个网上提问时，他强调人民有权自由获取信息。他说，信息流通越自由，社会就越强健。他谈到获取信息的权力如何有助于公民向自己的政府问责，激发新的想法，鼓励创造性和创业精神。我今天来这里发表讲话正是出于美国对这一经过实践检验的真理的信念。
由于人们的相互联系空前密切，我们也必须认识到这些新技术并非无条件地造福人类。这些工具也正被用于阻碍人类进步和剥夺政治权利。正如钢可被用于建造医院也可用于制造机枪。核能可为城市提供动力也可摧毁城市。现代信息网络及其支持的技术既可被用于行善也可被用于作恶。有助于组织自由运动的网络也能使“基地”组织得以煽动仇恨，挑起针对无辜者的暴力。具有开放政府信息和促进透明化潜力的技术也可被政府劫持，用于镇压异见，剥夺公民权利。
过去一年来，我们看到对信息自由流通的威胁激增。中国、突尼斯和乌兹别克斯坦加强了对互联网的审查。在越南，使用广受欢迎的社交网站的权利突然消失。上个星期五在埃及，30名博客作者和维权人士被拘留。这批博客作者中的一位是巴塞姆∙萨米尔（Bassem Samir）。他有幸获释，今天也在这里，同我们在一起。因此，一方面，这些技术的推广明显地正在改变我们的世界，另一方面，尚无法预知这样的改变将对世界人民的人权和幸福产生何种影响。
这些新技术本身不会在争取自由与进步的斗争中选择立场。但是，美国要做到立场鲜明。我们支持一个允许全人类平等享有知识和思想的互联网。而且我们认识到，在世界上建立何种信息基础设施将取决于我们和其他人为之确定的性质。虽然这是一个全新的挑战，但我们确保思想自由交流的责任可追溯至和众国诞生之初。《宪法》第一修正案的内容字字镌刻在这座大楼前那块50吨重的田纳西大理石上。世世代代的美国人都为捍卫刻在那块石头上的价值观付出了努力。
富兰克林•罗斯福（Franklin Roosevelt）在1941年发表“四项自由”演讲时发扬了这些思想。当时，美国人面临着一系列的危机，此外还有信心危机。但是，对一个人人都享有言论表达自由、信仰自由、没有贫困、没有恐惧的世界的憧憬冲破了他那个时代的重重困难。多年之后，我的楷模之一艾琳娜•罗斯福（Eleanor Roosevelt）努力使这些原则成为《世界人权宣言》的奠基原则。这些原则成为继往开来每一代人的北斗，引导我们、鞭策我们、促使我们在险恶的环境中勇于向前。
在科学技术飞跃发展的时候，我们必须反思这个传统。我们需要确保科学技术的进步与我们的原则同步。在接受诺贝尔奖时，奥巴马总统讲到需要建设这样一个世界，让和平建立在每一个人固有的权利和尊严之上。几天后在乔治敦大学关于人权的演讲中，我表示我们必须探索途径，把人权变成现实。今天，我们迫切需要在二十一世纪的电子世界中保护这些自由。
世界上有许多其他的网络，有些帮助人员或资源的流动，有些辅助志同道合的个人之间的交流。但互联网是增强所有其他网络的能力和潜力的一个网络，因此，我们认为确保其使用者享有某些基本自由至关重要。其中最重要的是言论表达自由。这种自由的定义不再仅仅是公民前往市政厅前的广场批评他们的政府，而不担心遭受报复。博客、电子邮件、社交网络和手机短信开启了交流思想的新途径，也为信息审查带来了新目标。
甚至就在我今天向你们讲演的此刻，某些地方的政府审查人员正在竭力将我的话语从历史的记录中删除。但历史早已作出裁决：这些手法注定失败。两个月前，我在德国参加了推倒柏林墙20周年纪念活动。参加这次活动的各国领导人向这个屏障对面那些英勇的男女志士表示敬意，他们曾经通过散发被称为“地下刊物”（Samizdat）的小册子来阐明反对压迫的道理。这些传单对“东方集团”专制政权的宣传和用心提出了质疑。许多人因散发传单受到残酷迫害，但他们的声音帮助穿透了“铁幕”的钢筋水泥和带刺的铁丝网。
柏林墙象征着一个分隔的世界，代表一个时代。今天，这堵墙的一些碎片就陈列在这座它们理应归属的博物馆里。在我们这个时代，具有代表性的基础设施就是互联网。它取代了分隔，象征着联系。但是，就在网络扩展到世界各国的同时，我们发现许多地方以虚拟的墙壁代替了有形的墙壁。
有些国家竖起了电子屏障，阻止本国人民分享世界上的一部分网络。他们从搜索引擎提供的结果中删除字词、名称和短语。他们侵犯了那些发表非暴力政治言论的人的隐私权。这些做法违反了《世界人权宣言》，因为《宣言》告诉我们，人人都有权通过“各种媒体不受疆界限制地寻求、接收和传播信息和思想”。由于这些限制手段的蔓延，一个新的信息帷幕正在世界上许多地方降临。为穿越这种阻隔，个人视频和博客文章正成为当今时代的“地下刊物”。
正如过去的专制政权一样，有些政府正在打击那些利用这些工具的独立思考者。在伊朗总统大选后的游行示威期间，用手机拍摄的一位年轻女子遭血腥屠杀的斑驳画面成为通过数字技术对该政府暴行提出的控诉。我们已看到有报道说，当生活在海外的伊朗人在网上张贴对他们国家领导人的批评时，他们在伊朗的家人便成为报复的目标。尽管政府普遍采取严厉的恐吓手段，但伊朗英勇的公民记者们继续利用技术向全世界及其同胞报道他们国内发生的事件。伊朗人民为自身的人权呐喊，同时也鼓舞了全世界，他们的勇气正在重新诠释如何通过技术传播真理和揭露非正义现象。
所有的社会都承认言论自由有其限度。我们不能容忍煽动他人从事暴力的人，例如此刻正利用互联网在全世界宣扬大规模屠杀无辜百姓的“基地”组织成员。那些以种族、宗教、族裔、性别或性取向为由攻击他人的仇恨言论也应受到严厉斥责。遗憾的是，这些问题均构成日益严重的挑战，国际社会必须共同进行抗击。我们还必须解决匿名发表言论的问题。对于那些利用互联网招收恐怖主义分子或传播被盗窃的知识产权的人，不能让他们将其网络行为与其真实身份脱钩。然而，对于那些为了和平的政治目的利用互联网的人士，这些并不能成为政府有计划地侵犯他们的权利和隐私的托辞。
随着新技术的传播，言论自由可能是最明显会遇到各种挑战的一项自由权利，但并非仅此而已。信仰自由通常涉及个人与造物主对话或不对话的权利。这是一种不需依赖技术的交流方式。然而，信仰自由还体现了与拥有共同价值观和人生观的人一起集会的普遍权利。在我们的历史中，这类集会常见于教堂、犹太会堂、清真寺和寺庙。今天，这类集会也可能在网上进行。
互联网有助于不同信仰的人消除相互间的分歧。正如总统在开罗所说，宗教自由对于人们能否共同生活至关重要。在我们寻求扩大对话之际，互联网蕴涵着巨大的希望。我们已开始使美国学生与全世界穆斯林社会的年青人为讨论全球性挑战相互联络。我们将继续利用这个工具，支持不同宗教社群的个人相互讨论。
然而，某些国家则利用互联网打击和压制宗教人士。例如，去年在沙特阿拉伯，一名男子因在博客上刊登介绍基督教的文章，被捕入狱达数月之久。哈佛大学一项调查表明，沙特政府封锁了许多介绍印度教、犹太教、基督教乃至伊斯兰教的网页。包括越南和中国在内的一些国家也利用类似手段限制获得宗教信息的途径。
这些技术不得用于惩罚和平的政治言论，同样也不可用于迫害或压制宗教少数派。祈祷往往在更高层次的网络进行。然而，互联网和社交网站等通讯技术应该有助于提高人们根据自己的需要进行祈祷的能力，以及与拥有共同信仰的人集会和更多地了解其他人信仰的能力。正如我们促进其他生活领域的自由一样，我们也必须努力促进在网络上祈祷的自由。
当然，还有无数人的生活并没享受到这些技术带来的益处。在我们的世界里，正如我多次指出的，才智有可能普及众人，但机会并非如此。从长期获得的经验来看，我们知道，在人民缺乏途径获得知识、市场、资本和机会的国家，要促进社会和经济发展会十分艰难，有时则徒劳无功。在这种情况下，互联网可发挥调节器的作用。通过向人们提供获得知识和潜在市场的途径，各种网络可为那些缺乏机会的地区创造机会。
在过去一年中，我在肯尼亚亲眼目睹了这种情况。那里的农牧民在开始使用移动银行技术后，收入提高了多达30%。在孟加拉，30多万人报名通过手机学习英语。在非洲撒哈拉沙漠以南地区，妇女企业家使用互联网获得小型贷款并与全球市场接轨。
世界上经济地位最低的亿万人民有可能在生活中效仿上述取得进步的实例。在很多情况下，互联网、手机和其他通讯技术能对经济发展起到绿色革命（Green Revolution）对农业所起的同等作用。现在，小小的投入便能产生巨大效益。世界银行的一项研究显示，在一个典型的发展中国家，手机普及率每增加10%，人均国内生产总值便能增长将近1%。具体而言，如果以印度为例，那将相当于每年近100亿美元。
与全球信息网络连通就好比踏上了通往现代化的阶梯。在这些技术问世的最初几年，许多人以为它们将在世界上的富人和穷人之间划出鸿沟，但那种情况并没有发生。今天共有40亿只手机在使用。手机使用者中有很多是小贩、人力车夫和其他历来缺乏受教育及其他机会的人。信息网络是实现平等的有力手段，我们应共同使用这些技术帮助人们摆脱贫困，不再有匮乏之虞。
我们完全有理由满怀希望：当人们充分利用信息网络和通讯技术时，他们将能取得巨大进步。但毫无疑问，也有些人正在利用全球信息网络实现其阴暗目的，而且将继续这样做。暴力极端主义分子、犯罪集团、性犯罪者和独裁政府都妄图对全球网络加以利用。正如恐怖主义分子利用我们社会的开放性趁机实施阴谋，暴力极端主义分子也要利用互联网进行煽动和恐吓。当我们努力增进这些自由时，我们也必须打击妄图利用通讯网络进行破坏并制造恐惧的人。
各国政府和公民必须保持信心，作为国家安全和经济繁荣核心环节的网络是安全且有韧性的。这不仅仅是几个小黑客污损几个网站的问题，如果我们的信息网络安全得不到保障，我们的网上银行业务、电子商务活动以及保护亿万美元知识产权的能力就全都岌岌可危。
面对破坏这些系统的活动，各国政府、民营部门和国际社会必须协调一致地采取行动。当黑客犯罪分子和有组织犯罪集团为非法牟利攻击网络时，我们需要更多的工具帮助执法机构进行跨辖区的合作。儿童色情以及遭到贩运的妇女和女童所受的剥削通过互联网为整个世界所见并为剥削者借以牟利，对这种社会弊病也应采取同样的应对措施。欧洲理事会在网络犯罪公约（Convention on Cybercrime ）方面的努力及其他方的类似努力促成了对此类犯罪起诉的国际协作，我们对此表示赞赏。我们还希望为此加倍努力。
我国政府及国务院已经采取措施寻求通过外交方式来加强全球网络安全。国务院有大批人员从事这项工作。有关人员一直在协同努力。我们还在两年前设立了一个专门协调有关网络的对外政策的办公室。我们致力于在联合国和其他多边论坛应对这一挑战，并把网络安全问题列入世界性议题。奥巴马总统刚刚任命了一位新的国家网络政策协调员，来帮助我们更紧密地协调工作，以确保每个人的网络都是自由、安全和可靠的。
某些国家、恐怖主义分子以及他们的代理人必须明白，美国将保护我们的网络系统。那些在我们国家或任何其他国家破坏信息自由流通的人对我们的经济、我们的政府和我们的公民社会构成了威胁。从事网络攻击的国家和个人将承担后果并受到国际社会的谴责。在一个靠互联网连通的世界里，对一个国家的网络的攻击就是对所有人的攻击。通过强调这一点，我们可以在国家间建立行为准则，并鼓励尊重全球网民。
最后一项自由或许是罗斯福总统与夫人多年前所思考和论述的自由的必然内含，它源于我前面已提到的四项自由，这就是连接自由：政府不应阻止人民与互联网、与网站或与彼此连接。连接自由如同集会自由一样，只不过它是在网络空间。这一自由允许个人上网，聚集，希望还有合作。一旦上网，你不必是大亨或摇滚乐明星便能对社会产生巨大影响。
对孟买恐怖主义袭击的最大规模的公众反应是由一位13岁少年发起的。他使用社交网络组织了献血运动，并建立了一个大型跨宗教信仰的吊唁簿。在哥伦比亚，一位失业的工程师召集起全世界190个城市的1200万人，向哥伦比亚革命武装力量（FARC）的恐怖活动发出抗议。这些抗议是历史上规模最大的反恐怖主义示威活动。在随后几个星期中，哥伦比亚革命武装力量经历了十年军事行动中人数最多的弃甲和脱队事件。在墨西哥，一位对毒品暴力行径忍无可忍的公民发出的一份电子邮件像滚雪球一般发展成遍及该国所有32个省的大型示威活动。仅在墨西哥城就有15万人上街抗议。因此，互联网能有助于人道社会抵制鼓吹暴力、犯罪和极端主义的人。
在伊朗、摩尔多瓦以及其他国家，网上的组织动员已成为促进民主、使公民对可疑的选举结果表达抗议的重要工具。甚至在美国等已建立民主制度的国家，我们也看到这些工具具有改变历史的力量。你们当中有些人可能还记得这里2008年的总统选举。（笑声）
与这些技术相连接的自由可以帮助转变社会，但同时也对个人极其重要。我最近被一位医生的故事所感动——我不想说出他是哪个国家的人。他千方百计要为女儿的罕见疾病作出诊断。他征询了20多位专家的意见，但仍然没有答案。最后，他是靠互联网搜索引擎得到了确切的诊断并找到了治疗方法 。这就是不受限制地使用搜索引擎技术之所以对个人生活如此重要的原因之一。
我今天概述的这些原则将成为我们对待互联网自由及其技术使用问题的指导方针。我要谈谈我们在实践中是如何应用这些原则的。美国致力于为促进这些自由投入必要的外交、经济和技术资源。美国是一个由来自各个国家、反映全球各种利益的移民组成的国家。我们的外交政策基于这样一种理念：当人民之间和国家之间合作时，美国比任何其他国家都受益。当冲突与误解造成国家间的不合时，美国肩负着比任何国家都更沉重的负担。因此，我们处于有利位置，可以抓住这些随相互连接而来的机遇。我们作为如此众多技术的诞生地，有责任确保它们从善使用。为此，我们需要建立能力，以推行我们在国务院称之为21世纪外交方略的规划。
重新调整我们的政策和我们的工作重点并非易事，而适应新技术也鲜有捷径。当电报技术开始使用时，它给外交界许多人带来严重焦虑，因为天天收到发自华盛顿的指示不是一个百分之百令人欢迎的前景。但正如我们的外交人员最终还是掌握了电报一样，他们也在为掌握这些新工具的潜力而努力。
我引以为豪的是，国务院已经在40多个国家展开努力，帮助那些声音被压制性政府扼杀的人。我们也在努力使这个问题成为联合国的工作重点。我们正在将互联网自由纳入我国重新进入联合国人权理事会（United Nations Human Rights Council）后提出的第一项决议案中。
我们还支持开发新工具，使公民能够避开政治审查而行使其自由表达的权利。我们正在为世界各地的团体和组织提供资金，确保将这些新工具以当地语言版本提供给需要的人，并为他们提供安全上网所需的培训。美国支持开展这些努力已有一段时间，侧重于尽可能切实有效地实施这些项目。美国人民应当知道，对互联网进行审查的国家也应当明白，我国政府致力于促进互联网自由。
我们希望让人们掌握这些工具，用以增进民主和人权，应对气候变化和流行病，为实现奥巴马总统提出的一个没有核武器的世界的目标争取全球支持，鼓励可持续的经济发展，帮助改善底层人民的生活。
因此，我今天宣布，未来一年中，我们将与实业界、学术界和非政府组织的合作伙伴一道，确立发挥联网技术威力的长期努力，利用这些技术推进我们的外交目标。我们可以依靠手机、测绘应用软件和其他新工具来增进公民权能，辅助我们的传统外交。我们能够解决目前创新市场存在的缺陷。
请让我举一个例子。假设我想设计一种手机应用软件，让人们能够对包括我国政府在内的各政府部门的责任心和工作效率打分，并能够发现和报告腐败行为，实现这一设想所需的硬件已在几十亿潜在用户的手中，而且所需软件的开发和应用成本较低。
如果人们利用这项技术，就可以帮助我们有的放矢地使用对外援助经费、改善人民的生活并鼓励外国投资方对负责任的政府投资。但目前的情况是，移动应用技术开发商尚无资金援助来自行开发这项技术，而国务院现在还缺乏使之成为可能的机制。不过，这项行动应当有助于解决这一问题，并且使小笔创新投资能够带来长期回报。我们将与专家共同努力，为这种风险投资项目确定最佳框架。我们还将需要科技公司和非营利机构的人才和资源，才能尽快取得最佳效果。因此，在座各位如有此类才干和专长，我谨在此邀请你们鼎力相助。
与此同时，有些公司、个人和机构正在设计和开发各种已经能够推进我们的外交和发展目标的创意和应用技术，而国务院将展开一项创新竞赛活动，让这项工作立刻得到推进。我们将邀请美国人提交应用软件和有关技术的最佳创意，它们应能有助于消除语言障碍、克服文盲局限、将人们与他们所需要的服务和信息连通。例如，微软公司已经开发出网络医生软件的原型，以便为偏远地区提供医疗服务。我们希望看到更多这样的创意。我们将与竞赛获奖者合作，为帮助他们进一步发展创意提供资金。
这些新的计划将大大充实我们过去一年来的重要工作。为了促进我们的外事和外交目标，我召集了一个有才干而且经验丰富的团队，领导我们就21世纪外交方略展开的努力。这个团队前往世界各地，协助各国政府和团体善用连接技术的益处。他们发起“公民社会2.0行动”（Civil Society 2.0 Initiative），协助基层组织进入数字时代。他们在墨西哥制定了一个协助打击毒品暴力的方案，让民众向可靠的来源作出不露痕迹的检举，以免遭受报复。他们也将移动银行带进阿富汗，现在正在刚果民主共和国进行同样的工作。在巴基斯坦，他们建立了一个首创的移动社交网络，称为“我们的声音”（Our Voice）。这个网络已经产生了数千万条讯息，并将希望抵制暴力极端主义的巴基斯坦年轻人联系在一起。
在短短时间内，我们已经取得了长足的进展，将这些技术的承诺转变成深富影响力的结果。可是仍有许多方面尚待努力。在我们和民营部门及外国政府联手推广21世纪外交方略的工具时，我们必须谨记彼此都有责任捍卫我在今天所谈的自由。我们坚信，信息自由这样的原则不仅是良好的政策，也不仅和我们的国家价值观相连，它还具有普世性，并能产生经济效益。
用市场语言来说，一家在突尼斯或越南的审查环境中运营的上市公司，其交易价格总是低于在自由社会运营的同类公司。如果企业的决策者没有全球性的新闻和信息来源，投资者对其决策的信心终将下降。实施新闻和信息审查的国家必须认识到，从经济角度而言，审查政治言论和商业言论是没有区别的。如果贵国的企业无法获取其中一类信息，其增长必将受到影响。
在制定商业决策时，美国公司日益将网络和信息自由视为更重要的考量因素。我希望他们的竞争对手和外国政府会密切关注这一趋势。最近有关谷歌（Google）的情况引起了广泛的注意。我们希望中国当局对导致谷歌作出日前宣布的网络攻击事件进行彻查。我们也希望调查及结果透明。
互联网已经成为中国取得巨大进步的源泉之一，令人惊叹。中国现在有如此多的人都在上网。但是，限制自由获取信息或侵犯互联网用户基本权利的国家面临着使自己与下一个世纪的进步隔绝的风险。美中两国对于这个议题的看法不同，我们希望在两国积极、合作、全面的关系之下坦诚和持续地处理这些差异。
这个议题不仅关系到信息自由，最终还关系到我们希望有一个什么样的世界以及我们将会生活于一个什么样的世界。它关系到我们生活的地球是有一个互联网、一个全球社会以及一个造福并联系全人类的共同知识体，还是支离破碎、获取信息和机遇要取决于居住地点和审查者的心血来潮。
信息自由有助于维护作为全球进步基础的和平与安全。从历史上看，不对称的信息获取能力是国家间冲突的主要原因之一。在我们面对严重纠纷或危险事件时，当事双方能够了解相同的事实和观点是至关重要的。
目前的情况是，美国人民可以思考外国政府提供的信息——对于这些政府向美国国内传送信息，我们不设置障碍。但是，在实行信息检查的社会中生活的公民却无从得知外界的看法。例如在北韩，政府极力使其公民与外部意见完全隔绝。这种信息流通的不对称不但增加了发生冲突的可能性，也容易使微小的分歧升级。因此，我期待那些希望看到全球稳定的负责政府能和我们携手合作，改变这种不对称的情况。
对公司而言，这个问题所关系的不仅是道德威望，而且涉及公司与用户之间的信任。世界各地的用户都希望自己所依赖的互联网公司会提供全面的搜索结果，并且以负责任的态度守护他们的个人信息。获得这种信赖并且基本上提供这种服务的公司将在全球市场蓬勃发展。我确实相信，那些失去用户信赖的公司，最终将失去用户。住在任何地方的人都希望知道，他们放在网上的东西不会被用来加害于自己。
审查不应被世界任何地方的任何公司以任何形式接受。在美国，美国公司需要采取有原则的立场。这应该成为我们国家品牌的组成部分。我相信全世界的用户都会回报尊重这些原则的公司。
我们正在重振“全球互联网自由小组”（Global Internet Freedom Task Force），作为应对全球网络自由所受威胁的论坛。我们敦促美国媒体公司主动采取措施，质疑外国政府对于审查和监视的要求。民营部门也有责任协助保护言论表达自由。当他们的业务交易有可能破坏这种自由时，他们需要考虑什么是正确的，而不只是寻求短视的利润。
我们对于目前通过“全球网络倡议”（Global Network Initiative）所做的工作倍感鼓舞。“全球网络倡议”是一项由高科技公司与非政府组织、学术专家和社会投资基金共同合作，回应政府审查要求而做出的自愿努力。这项倡议不仅仅是申明原则，更是建立旨在宣扬真正责任感和透明度的机制。我们承诺支持负责任的民营部门参与护卫信息自由，作为我们承诺的组成部分，国务院将在下月召集一次高层会议，由罗伯特•霍马茨（Robert Hormats）和玛丽亚•奥特罗（Maria Otero）两位副国务卿共同主持。会议将召集提供网络服务的公司，共同讨论互联网自由问题，因为我们希望与合作伙伴共同应对这个二十一世纪的挑战。
我相信，追求我今天所说的自由是正确之举，但它也是智慧之举。通过推进这个议程，我们将使我们的原则、我们的经济目标以及我们的战略重点一致起来。我们需要努力创建这样一个世界：在这个世界中，网络和信息使人民之间的关系更加密切，也使我们的全球社区概念得到扩展。鉴于我们面临的诸多巨大挑战，我们需要世界各地的人民汇合他们的知识和创造力，帮助重建全球经济，保护我们的环境，战胜暴力极端主义，建设每一个人都能充分发挥和实现其天赋潜力的未来。
在结束今天的讲话时，我要请你们记住星期一在太子港的废墟中获救的那个小女孩。她还活着，已经与她的家人团聚，并将有机会长大成人，因为网络把一个被埋得很深的声音传播到全世界。我们不能容许任何国家、群体或个人继续被埋在压制的废墟之下。当层层审查墙把一些人与人类大家庭隔离开来的时候，我们不能袖手旁观。我们不能因为听不到那些人的呼喊就对这些问题保持沉默。
因此，让我们重新作出承诺，为这一事业而努力。让我们把这些高科技化作推动全世界取得切实进步的力量。让我们并肩前进，倡导这些自由——为了我们这个时代，也为了应当得到我们所能给予的每一个机会的年轻人。
非常感谢你们。（掌声）
美国国务院国际信息局 http://www.america.gov/mgck
21 January 2010
Secretary of State Clinton on Internet Freedom
Free flow of information strengthens societies, secretary says
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
January 21, 2010
REMARKS
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Internet Freedom
January 21, 2010
The Newseum
Washington, D.C.
http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/January/20100121142618eaifas0.6585352.html
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 Richard Lugar/1 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.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Madame Secretary. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Alberto. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
--------
(1) Senator Lugar was not a co-sponsor of the VOICE Act. Senator Kaufman was one of the co-authors and leading co-sponsors.
Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/January/20100121142618eaifas0.6585352.html#ixzz0dKpgVyiw
