Apart from two obvious pieces of momentous news in the past day-and-a-half -- the new junior Senator from Massachusetts, and the new Buckley v. Valeo (by which I mean today's lamentable, straight-party-line Supreme Court ruling that removes limits from direct corporate underwriting of political campaigns) -- there is one other event today that will have big ripple effects. I mean SecState Hillary Clinton's speech this morning about "Internet Freedom," mentioned here and with a prelude discussion here.
I'm not going to take time for a thorough gloss of the speech. Instead I highly recommend reading the full text, here, or watching the official video, here. And for now some of the main points while listening (and noting main points down in real time with the handy LiveScribe pen.)
- In contrast to the dreamy Internet optimism of a decade or so ago -- I'm not naming names, but I remember! -- when many people imagined that info technology, by itself, would undermine oppression and bring the world together, Clinton started off with a very astringent reminder that this technology, like others, was neither good or bad in itself and is already being used in both helpful and destructive ways:
"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."
And a very nice pivot out of this section, effective because it's so blunt and plain:
"On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for
freedom and progress, but the United States does."
- Underscoring the "this is a big deal" tone of the speech, she enumerated the "Four Freedoms" that FDR proclaimed in 1941, as part of the struggle for the world's future, and said there were a comparable set of Four Freedoms for the Internet age. Check out the speech yourself for details.
- The China surprise: the speech was a more frontal challenge to Chinese internet and overall censorship policy than I expected, and than I recall in other US-China interactions in a very long time. For instance, early in the speech, an itemization of the places where suppression is getting worse:
"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."
Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Egypt -- this is not the grouping of countries that the Chinese government, in its recent sense of rise to superpower status, is used to being lumped with. Compared to the US as a financial power, OK; overtaking Japan in economic size, yes; being a crucial player in environmental negotiations... all that is one thing. Bracketed in the same sentence with Tunisia and Uzbekistan is different. Sentences like this don't appear in formal, big-deal SecState addresses by accident.
Other passages to the same effect:
"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....
"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...."
And then the Google section itself.