Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 10 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 4 (14 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   5 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Reading Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom and Edward Snowden

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H1 7/2/13

Become a Fan
  (1 fan)
- Advertisement -

Reprinted from

In the wake of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations, techPresident's editorial director Micah Sifry wonders, what, if anything, is left of Hillary Clinton's "Internet Freedom" agenda. The answer is not much.

A week ago, during a speech in Los Angeles, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's "outrageous behavior" and criticized China for allowing him to leave Hong Kong.

One wonders how she would square her remarks with her eloquent advocacy in the past of "internet freedom" and the "freedom to connect."

In January 2010, in her first major speech on these topics, she said, "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."

In that speech, she evoked Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms: "freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear" and declared that "we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century." She also decried countries that prevent their citizens from accessing parts of the web, censored search results or blog posts, or violated the privacy of their citizens by snooping on their online conversations, stating that these kinds of actions contravened the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

A year later, Clinton gave another major speech on this topic, renewing and expanding her call: "Together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I've called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same."

In that speech, she wrestled with the delicate balance between liberty and security, arguing that they were not in opposition but in fact reinforced each other. The United States, Clinton said, would take care to combat anyone using the Internet for evil while ensuring that it did not at the same time "constrict[] the openness that is the Internet's greatest attribute."

- Advertisement -

Other less enlightened countries have taken a different approach, she noted:

Security is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on freedom. Now, this tactic is not new to the digital age, but it has new resonance as the internet has given governments new capacities for tracking and punishing human rights advocates and political dissidents. Governments that arrest bloggers, pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens, and limit their access to the internet may claim to be seeking security. In fact, they may even mean it as they define it. But they are taking the wrong path.

And she went further, insisting that the freedom to connect required security for online communication. She said:

"in addition to being a public space, the internet is also a channel for private communications. And for that to continue, there must be protection for confidential communication online. Think of all the ways in which people and organizations rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. Businesses hold confidential conversations when they're developing new products to stay ahead of their competitors. Journalists keep the details of some sources confidential to protect them from exposure or retribution. And governments also rely on confidential communication online as well as offline. The existence of connection technologies may make it harder to maintain confidentiality, but it does not alter the need for it.

[Emphases added.]

- Advertisement -

 German Pirate Party demonstration in Berlin during President Obama's recent visit (Photo by Mike Herbst, Flickr)

Thanks to Snowden's revelations, along with confirming statements by American authorities, we now know that the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been collecting and storing the online and phone communications records of millions of American and foreign people. These activities appear to violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which protect our rights of speech and association, guard us against unreasonable searches or seizures and safeguard our privacy.

If it is acceptable for the United States to conduct these activities, collecting en masse the private communications of its own citizens and others, why is it wrong for any other country to also do so?

So much for protecting the freedom to connect.

Micah L. Sifry is co-founder and editorial director of Personal Democracy Media, which produces the annual Personal Democracy Forum conference on the ways technology is changing politics, and, an award-winning blog on how politicians are using the web and how the web is using them. In addition, he consults on how political organizations, campaigns, non-profits and media entities can adapt to and thrive in a networked world. He is a senior technology adviser to the Sunlight Foundation, which he helped found in 2006, and also serves on the board of Consumer Reports. He is the author or editor of six books, most recently Wikileaks and the Age of the Transparency (OR Books, 2011), and in the spring of 2012 he began teaching at Harvard's Kennedy School.

From 1997-2006, he worked closely with Public Campaign, a non-profit, non-partisan organization focused on comprehensive campaign finance reform, as its senior analyst. Prior to that, Micah was an editor and writer with The Nation magazine for thirteen years. He is the author of Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America(Routledge, 2002), co-author with Nancy Watzman of Is That a Politician in Your Pocket? Washington on $2 Million a Day (John Wiley & Sons, 2004), co-editor of Rebooting America (available online for free download at, and co-editor of The Iraq War Reader (Touchstone, 2003) and The Gulf War Reader (Times Books, 1991). His personal blog is at and you can follow him on Twitter at @mlsif

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Google Content Matches:
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Reading Hillary Clinton on Internet Freedom and Edward Snowden


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Hillary Clinton is simply "more of the same" of wh... by Dennis Kaiser on Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:13:59 AM
I believe that our choice for president should be ... by BFalcon on Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:58:43 PM
You really got it right when you say Elizabeth War... by michael payne on Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:37:01 PM
I agree that Hillary is "more of the same".  ... by JON LARSEN on Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:14:09 PM
What happened in Libya and what is going on in Syr... by Guglielmo Tell on Friday, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:08:15 PM