On NPR's Diane Rehm show this morning, Congressman Chris Smith said he hopes to have some draft legislation out later this week or early next. Audio is here. The State Department has announced the formation of a new task force that will examine the foreign policy aspects of internet freedom. See the bottom of this post for a full transcript which a journalist friend kindly forwarded along.
Meanwhile, the NYT reports that the Chinese government has defended its policy of censoring and filtering the internet, saying what they do is standard international practice. Note that the Chinese spokesman had great praise for the Bush administration's approach to surveillance, The NYT quotes: "It is clear that any country's legal authorities closely monitor the spread of illegal information," he said. "We have noted that the U.S. is doing a good job on this front." EEP!!!
Yet a number of former Chinese officials, including a former aide to Chairman Mao are upset with the Chinese government's recent crackdown on information and have issued an open letter. "History demonstrates that only a totalitarian system needs news censorship, out of the delusion that it can keep the public locked in ignorance," they said. They also said: "Depriving the public of freedom of expression so nobody dares speak out will sow the seeds of disaster for political and transition." [Note to self: check that translation] It's interesting to note that Li Rui, the former Mao aide, has been outspoken on many issues over the past decade, including on the Three Gorges Dam ( I actually interviewed him once). The government ignored him and made sure his voice was not heard in the media. So it's unclear whether this letter will have much political traction inside China or not - whether it indicates factional battles amongst different parts of the leadership, or whether these guys are taking a lone stand. Stay tuned.
STATE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL BRIEFING
SUBJECT: INITIATIVE ON GLOBAL INTERNET FREEDOM
BRIEFER: JOSETTE SHINER, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC, BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL AFFAIRS; AND PAULA DOBRIANSKY, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR
STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM, WASHINGTON, D.C.
9:46 A.M. EST, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006
China--
Q Just recently a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said that according to the Chinese law, U.S. e-mail and Internet content providers should help China stop (harmful ?) content. I wonder if the U.S. has --
MS. SHINER: Should help what? I'm sorry.
Q Should help China to stop (harmful ?) content. And I wonder if the U.S. has talked with the Chinese government about this and expressed your level of concern. And at the same time, Representative Chris Smith is drafting a bill that will force Internet companies, including Google and Yahoo, to keep (vital ?) computer service out of China and other nations that State Department deems repressive to information freedom.
Would the administration support such a bill?
MS. SHINER: Well, we haven't seen a final copy of the proposed legislation, but we will be studying that. I will say that we have very serious concerns about the protection of privacy and data throughout the Internet globally, in particular some of the recent cases raised in China.
And we will continue to press our concerns with the government of China.
We will continue to work with our companies. And we applaud their efforts to take voluntary steps that would help ensure privacy of data and protection of data on the Internet. And so we think this is a serious area of concern and one that we plan to engage in robustly.
Q Does the U.S. government have the power to prevent U.S. companies from complying with laws in other countries? For example, can you say to Google or Yahoo or anybody else, "We don't like how you're operating in China," even though that there's laws of China? What tools do you have available?
MS. SHINER: Well, as you know, the United States government does not make investment decisions for companies. There are whole globally recognized areas of illegal activity that take place throughout the globe, including sometimes on the Internet, whether it's stealing credit card information or preying upon children or other areas that are globally recognized as criminal activity.
We certainly, however, applaud the efforts by our companies to look at technological means and other voluntary means to ensure the greatest access to information possible, which certainly is in the core founding principles of these companies, and to ensure the least ability to use the Internet and technology to try to repress dissent.
And so we obviously feel that the core principles of human rights recognize the ability of individuals to express their opinion. We don't feel that expressing opinion is a criminal activity. And so we plan to continue to engage in this topic in a robust way. And we, again, applaud efforts. We know that, you know, the Internet -- in many ways, like a flood, it's very hard to control, and the fact that billions of people or certainly over a billion people that did not have access to information before now have access to all kinds of information that they didn't have before. This is a good thing.
It is our policy goal to ensure that the maximum amount of information can be accessed through the Internet, and with the minimum amount of control on legitimate debate over the issues of our day.
And so we're seeing this throughout the globe. We think this is a welcome opportunity. We applaud the efforts of our companies to get technology into countries that can't afford it, to make sure that there's broadband access in countries in Africa and elsewhere, so that we get an informed global citizenry.
As a general principle, we think this is one of the greatest forces for global peace and stability.
It's access to the kind of information that makes an informed global citizenry, and we'll stand behind that principle in every way possible that we can.
Q A quick follow-up. Would it be within your power to classify technology use by Google, Yahoo or any other company as sensitive technology that can't be exported without permission?
MS. SHINER: Well, there's certainly a lot of ideas out there on how to address the challenges that we face, and part of the task force, what the secretary wanted to ensure, is that we're looking at this in a multidisciplinary fashion. So we'll pull together all the offices and all the expertise that we have at State. In addition, we have some really great expertise at Commerce and elsewhere on all of these issues, and we'll be looking at the range of ideas that people have. We'll be engaging with stakeholders. We feel that this is a top priority to look at the new policy challenges here. So we're not ready today to make any declarations on particular kinds of solutions or particular kinds of challenges. We know that we've had some affect and been able successfully see the Internet now virtually, globally rooted around the world, but we have current challenges that are pretty challenging, and those are the kinds of things that we'll be discussing in the task force.
Q Two questions. First, should American companies keep their Internet service out of mainland China before you make any sort of recommendations? I mean, what's your sort of initial view on that as a solution, which a few companies have agreed to?
And my follow-up is, you say you applaud American companies, but what's your view on Yahoo and its previous decisions? We know of two incidents where our Chinese dissidents have been jailed as a result of Yahoo giving information to the Chinese government. Was that the correct call?
Did Yahoo have any other means? Should they have reached out to the State Department perhaps earlier on to deal with that problem?
MS. SHINER: We plan to continue to engage our companies across the board at the kind of challenges that they face. We know throughout the world, we've seen for many, many decades this is not due, that the tools of repression, the tools of censorship are many and varied. Certainly, in the technological age we see new manifestations of that. This is a challenge not only for our companies, but for our citizens abroad, for American government as we seek to affirm the principles of human rights and access to information, human dignity, human freedom. And all I can say is that we will have a robust dialogue with our companies, with the Congress, with the stakeholders, with our NGOs who have a range of ideas; many that seem interesting on how to address these challenges.
So certainly, as I mentioned earlier, there's been a lot of good works in Africa and elsewhere to make sure that technology is universally available or to help ensure that, including efforts to get access to laptops throughout the world where people can't afford them. All these efforts are important in breaking down the barriers to access to information. So our general principle is ensuring maximum access to information, minimum ability to control that, and while recognizing that, you know, there are legitimate law enforcement areas that all of us are familiar here at the United States, whether, again, it's stealing credit card information or other means that can be used, and making sure we have a robust dialogue with all the stakeholders that have a piece of this debate.
MS. DOBRIANSKY: I would want to underscore, as Undersecretary Shiner pointed out, that this task force will bring together a forum which will enable all the stakeholders to look at what are the most effective options forward; bringing companies together with human rights organizations, with democracy-related groups, with us in government, with interested parties in Congress and others. And I think that one can expect that by having that vibrant discussion, by having that focus on a range of ways forward, I think that we will be, I think, breaking important ground in addressing these vital issues and preserving freedom of information.
Any idea where the text of the open letter from the Mao-era officials can be found?
Posted by: Ian Lamont | February 15, 2006 at 06:12 AM