Hillary Clinton: All For Vague, Undefined Surveillance Reform, But Screw That Snowden Guy

from the because-that's-how-politics-work dept

Hillary Clinton is, of course, making her big Presidential campaign book tour, commenting on all sorts of big issues, as she gears up for the real campaign. It's causing some controversy, of course, including her wacky, angry response to Fresh Air host Terry Gross simply asking if she had changed her opinion on gay marriage (Clinton refused to directly answer the question, and when Gross called her on that, Clinton accused her of trying to claim she changed her opinion for political reasons, even though that was pretty clearly not Gross' intent). However, in that same interview, Clinton also took some ridiculous and uninformed shots at Ed Snowden. After Gross pointed out that Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, had called Snowden an "imperfect messenger" but also suggesting that perhaps the national security state has gone too far, Hillary said:

Well, I usually agree with my husband, but let me say on this point that there were many ways to start this conversation. And in fact, the conversation was starting. Members of Congress - a few notable examples like Senator Wyden and Senator Udall and others - were beginning to raise issues that it was time for us to take a hard look at all of the laws that have been passed and how they were implemented since 9/11.

The president was addressing this. In fact, he had given a speech that basically made that point shortly before these disclosures were made. And of course, I think it's imperative that in our political system, in our society at large, we have these debates. So I welcome the conversation. But I think that he was not only an imperfect messenger, but he was a messenger who could have chosen other ways to raise the very specific issues about the impact on Americans. But that's not all he did.

Of course, this is misleading to wrong. Lots of defenders of the President on surveillance like to point to his speech at the National Defense University a couple weeks before the first Snowden revelation, but that speech did not address the issues now being discussed at all. It mostly focuses on fighting overseas, and actually (a few times) praises the work of the intelligence community and how useful that's been. That was not starting any sort of real debate. As for Wyden and Udall -- they'd been making these points for years and having them virtually ignored by most, in both the press and among their colleagues (we wrote about it, but we don't count).

There were other ways that Mr. Snowden could have expressed his concerns, by reaching out to some of the senators or other members of Congress or journalists in order to convey his questions about the implementation of the laws surrounding the collection of information concerning Americans' calls and emails. I think everyone would have applauded that because it would have added to the debate that was already started. Instead, he left the country - first to China, then to Russia - taking with him a huge amount of information about how we track the Chinese military's investments and testing of military equipment, how we monitor the communications between al-Qaida operatives. Just two examples.

Except, of course, the failure of Wyden and Udall's claims to get any attention made it quite clear that reaching out to Senators wouldn't help. And he did reach out to journalists. But, of course, Clinton's former boss has also been using the Espionage Act against leakers and journalists at an astounding rate. If Obama hadn't been doing so, perhaps Snowden would have been more comfortable just sharing a few documents. However, knowing that there was a good chance he was about to disappear for life, it makes sense that Snowden handed over the whole pile of documents to Greenwald and Poitras. And, yes, this is one of the consequences of Obama's use of the Espionage Act. It encourages leakers to leak big while they can.

If Clinton honestly thinks everyone would have "applauded... because it would have added to the debate," she is either clueless about how people have responded to various similar (less explosive) leaks, or trying to rewrite history in her favor.

And the whole "go to China and Russia" bit is tired, old and misleading. As is the suggestion that he took any of that info to Russia. That's been debunked in the past, no need to do so again.

Still, what's amazing is that a week later, we now get this headline from the Guardian: Hillary Clinton backs overhaul of surveillance powers in NSA criticism, and then, in the article:

"Laws that were passed after 9/11 gave the executive very broad authority ... what has happened is that people have said, OK, the emergency is over and we want to get back to regular order," she said.

"It's a really difficult balancing act, but you are absolutely right that we need to make some changes to secure that constitutional right to privacy that Americans are due."

Wait, what? If it weren't for Snowden, we wouldn't even be having the debate about the PATRIOT Act, and there wouldn't be a discussion about "the emergency is over." Hell, to hear Keith Alexander talk about it, the "threat" is bigger now than ever before. Because fear is the key.

Separately, notice that Clinton doesn't actually back any real proposal for reform, but just sorta dances around the idea that maybe reform is good. It's the ultimate in political nothingness. Stake out a bunch of vague positions without anything concrete that can come back to haunt you later, and do it all while bizarrely attacking the guy who made the issue an issue in the first place. And people wonder why the public is so cynical about politicians.

Filed Under: ed snowden, hillary clinton, nsa, politics, surveillance, surveillance reform

Hillary Clinton PAC Sends Bogus Takedowns Over Parodies On Zazzle And CafePress

from the where-does-hillary-stand-on-parody? dept

Not this again. We've noted many times in the past that the two popular "print on demand" t-shirt/merchandise operations online, CafePress and Zazzle, too frequently seem to quickly take down content based on bogus legal threats. Last year, after Zazzle caved in to threats from Homeland Security and the NSA over parody logos, a lawsuit was filed by Dan McCall, whose designs were taken down. The geniuses in the US government realized they were in trouble and admitted that there is no violation in parody logos.

You would think, therefore, that when these sites received demands to take down more designs posted by McCall, they'd think twice. But no such luck. Both Zazzle and CafePress took down the following design that McCall had posted: Even more ridiculously, at first neither site would tell him why or even who complained (Zazzle eventually did, but refused to say what the legal reasoning was, citing non-existent "confidentiality"). But it wasn't too difficult to guess. That's the design for Ready For Hillary, a political action committee (PAC) that is obviously working on the pre-campaign for Hillary Clinton's all-but-certain run for the President in 2016. Following a request for more information, both CafePress and Zazzle appeared to take a rather generic form-letter approach to the situation.

Thankfully, Paul Alan Levy from Public Citizen (again, who has represented us in the past as well) has sent one of his masterful demand letters to Ready For Hillary explaining to the PAC why this situation is ridiculous, why it has no legitimate claim for a takedown, and giving the PAC three days to retract the takedowns or face a legal action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement -- including seeking damages for lost sales and attorneys fees for frivolous takedowns.

The communications from Zazzle and CafePress do not reveal whether your client's claims are based on copyright or trademark; Ready for Hillary could have threatened these companies with either to take advantage of the fact that, although 47 U.S.C. § 230 generally gives providers of interactive web sites statutory immunity for content provided by another, the immunity does not apply to intellectual property claims. However, the difference does not matter, because in either case McCall's use is plainly parody. McCall uses the "I'm Ready for" words and design derisively, replacing the word "Hillary" with the word "oligarchy." This is a reference, in part, to the recent discussion of the increasing tendency of American politics to reflect rule by oligarchy, rather than by true democracy, as reflected in a recent paper by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. The parody refers more specifically to the prospect that the 2016 presidential election may be a contest between a member of the Clinton family and a member of the Bush family. Nobody could possibly look at McCall's design and think that it is sponsored by your committee or, indeed, by its candidate, so there is no actionable likelihood of confusion. Moreover, even assuming that you had a registered copyright in the Ready for Hillary design, McCall's product represents non-commercial commentary on the copyright holder and cannot possibly interfere with sale of the copyrighted work.

Moreover, critical speech directed at a candidate for president is squarely protected by the First Amendment, hence any application of trademark law to quash such uses is highly suspect. Although McCall's products are sold, their contents are noncommercial speech, which qualifies for full First Amendment protection....

The staff of Ready for Hillary should know better than to send frivolous takedown demands like these. We would, however, prefer to resolve this controversy without litigation. We are, therefore, giving Ready for Hillary three days to retract its takedown demand. Absent a retraction, we will file an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, seeking damages for lost sales and an award of attorney fees for the issuance of a frivolous takedowns.

Levy, in the blog post linked above, also has harsh words for Zazzle and CafePress for caving to the takedown demand:

Although Ready for Hillary bears the main responsibility for the takedown, the spineless response from Zazzle and CafePress is disappointing – both companies removed the design without any apparent consideration for the rights of its customers to comment on prominent political figures through parody. When McCall asked for an explanation, both companies responded with generalities (here are the emails from Zazzle and CafePress). The companies' unwillingness to provide copies of Ready for Hillary’s actual takedown demands prevented McCall from focusing his arguments on the PAC’s actual claims. CafePress simply ignored a request for a copy; Zazzle outright refused on the ground that takedown communications are “confidential” (because caving in to frivolous takedowns is so embarrassing?).

In past years, we have found CafePress to be tougher in its responses to foolish trademark claims, refusing to remove designs and going so far as to bring its own declaratory judgment action against the Republican National Committee when it persisted in claiming that designs using its elephant logo to comment for or against various candidates in the primary, and for or against the Republican Party itself, violated its trademark rights. That both companies have been so supine in their responses to takedown demands as we begin the 2016 presidential election season is a discouraging sign for the vitality of free debate about the major candidates.

Filed Under: copyright, dan mccall, free speech, hillary clinton, pac, parody, paul alan levy, ready for hillary, ready for oligarchy, takedowns, trademark
Companies: cafepress, ready for hillary, zazzle

Senator Hatch Says Global Fund Advocating For Generic Drugs To Solve Healthcare Crises Is Abusing Funds

from the also-he's-lying dept

We've written a few times about governments around the globe seeking to make use of lower-priced (and often more widely available) generic medicines for responding to serious diseases, rather than sticking with the more expensive name brand. Current international agreements, like TRIPs, allow countries to effectively "opt-out" of promises to respect other country's patent laws for the sake of supplying such medicine and, you know, saving lives. It's pretty clear that breaking the patent on these drugs is quite effective, driving costs down on a massive scale, making this part of healthcare much more cost-effective.

Of course, the pharma companies don't like this at all. So it should hardly be that big of a surprise that Senator Orrin Hatch directly tried to put pressure on Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration to stop efforts to promote more widespread use of generics in the developing world using these methods. The link above highlights that Hatch sent then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a letter that suggested he's quite upset that the US-funded "Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria" was training people in different countries to explore compulsory licenses of drugs or other ways to make use of generics.

Of course, if you just read Hatch's letter (embedded below), you'd be forgiven for being confused. In it, he claims to be outraged that the Global Fund is encouraging various countries to buy more expensive generics of "cheaper" brand name drugs. Huh? In what environment do generic drugs cost more than the brand name? Also, he appears to just be wrong. Part of the data that he based his complaint on comes from a presentation (embedded with the letter) from the Global Fund, in which they have a few graphs showing that (as you would expect if you were anyone but Orrin Hatch) the generic versions are, in fact, cheaper, which is obviously why they were recommending making use of the option.

So, even as Hatch's letter is full of bluster about misspending money, the details actually seem to suggest that they saved money.

In the letter, Hatch also claims that the presentation directly calls on countries to "disregard" the TRIPS Agreement. But, again, the attached presentation appears to tell the opposite story, with a specific call to seek solutions that comply with TRIPs.

Recipients must procure their products in accordance with national and international laws. The Global Fund encourages recipients to apply the flexibilities provided within national laws and in the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPS)...

In other words, directly contrasting Hatch's claims, the Global Fund appeared to tell countries to comply with TRIPs, but (correctly) noted that there were some exceptions built within the law that allowed them to seek compulsory licensing and the use of much cheaper generics. Still, there may have been some behind-the-scenes maneuvering as well. As the IP-Watch report notes, soon after all of this, the executive director of the Global Fund, Michel Kazatchkine, resigned. The report suggests this was due to US pressure over Global Fund's daring effort to tell developing countries what their international agreements actually allow. Also: the replacement, Mark Dybul, is a US official, likely to make sure that the Global Fund works in the same manner as Hatch would like -- artificially keeping the big drug makers happily without competition and with artificially high profits, even as healthcare in the developing world might suffer.

Incredibly, Hatch actually seems to be arguing that by suggesting developing countries explore generics, it's putting people at risk because... well, there's a gap in the explanation, but it appears to be due to big pharma companies feeling they need such subsidies to make the drugs in the first place. From the letter:

By advocating for developing countries to disregard the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) through issuing compulsory licenses to gain access to Global Fund grants, we are abusing the system. Access to these products is vital to our success in fighting the war on HIV/AIDS and actions inconsistent with patent law such as these will only hinder our ability to work in partnership with the companies that have provided the intellectual property rights to develop generic versions of their products.

Got it? If you're a developing nation seeking to stem the AIDS epidemic by making AIDS drugs actually available to those with the disease, you are are actually decreasing the success of the war on AIDS because [something, something, something] big pharma will take their ball and go home. Of course, there's no actual evidence to support this, and tons of evidence that shows that developing countries who actually set a compulsory license on drugs related to critical diseases, actually do help deal with serious problems. There is no evidence that this suddenly scares companies into not making the drugs at all. They still make plenty of money in the developed world off of those drugs.

Just to summarize, though, an actual US Senator, Orrin Hatch argued that, by having the Global Fund advocate for better, cheaper generic medicines, as clearly allowed under international agreements, that the Global Fund is somehow paying more for medicines (they're not) and convincing big pharma to fail in the war against these diseases (they're not). It's no secret that politicians aren't always in sync with the truth, but this is significantly more blatant a misrepresentation than is normal.

Filed Under: developing nations, drugs, generic drugs, global fund, healthcare, hillary clinton, orrin hatch, patents, trips

Just As US Gov't Was Giving Back The Blog It Illegally Censored For Over A Year, Hillary Clinton Speaks Out Against Internet Censorship

from the left-hand,-right-hand? dept

At nearly the exact time that Dajaz1 was getting its domain back, after the US government wrongly censored its domain for over a year with absolutely nothing resembling due process (and actively stifling attempts by the site to get its day in court and get its domain back), US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was giving a speech in Europe about the evils of internet censorship. Let's take a look at some of the quotes, and remember that she's saying this just as Dajaz1 was coming back online after a year.

This is an urgent task. It is most urgent, of course, for those around the world whose words are now censored, who are imprisoned because of what they or others have written online, who are blocked from accessing entire categories of internet content, or who are being tracked by governments seeking to keep them from connecting with one another.

Of course, we don't even have to look "around the world." We can just look right here at home in the US, where ICE and the Justice Department seem to have no problem doing the same thing. Or we can look to SOPA and PIPA and their plan to expand the ability to censor the web in the US.

In Syria, a blogger named Anas Maarawi was arrested on July 1st after demanding that President Asad leave. He’s not been charged with anything, but he remains in detention. In both Syria and Iran, many other online activists – actually too many to name – have been detained, imprisoned, beaten, and even killed for expressing their views and organizing their fellow citizens. And perhaps the most well known blogger in Russia, Alexei Navalny, was sentenced on Tuesday to 15 days in jail after he took part in protests over the Russian elections.

In America, a blog named Dajaz1, was seized last November after posting music sent to it by various copyright holders for the purpose of promotion. It was never brought up under forfeiture rules, but the domain remained in detention... Now, clearly, having a site seized is not in the same category as being "detained, imprisoned, beaten or even killed" but if we're against censorship abroad, it seems pretty crazy to be ignoring it when it happens at home.

It seems like the State Department should issue a message calling out ICE and DOJ for doing the exact same thing Clinton is complaining about in other countries.

But when ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished for all of us. What we do today to preserve fundamental freedoms online will have a profound effect on the next generation of users. More than two billion people are now connected to the internet, but in the next 20 years, that number will more than double. And we are quickly approaching the day when more than a billion people are using the internet in repressive countries. The pledges we make and the actions we take today can help us determine whether that number grows or shrinks, or whether the meaning of being on the internet is totally distorted.

Well, given the blatant wrongful censorship of Dajaz1, do we include the 245 million or so online Americans in the count of the number of people using the internet in repressive countries? I certainly want to believe that we're not a repressive country, but with a story that horrifying...

So right now, in various international forums, some countries are working to change how the internet is governed. They want to replace the current multi-stakeholder approach, which includes governments, the private sector, and citizens, and supports the free flow of information, in a single global network.

Not just in international forums....

The United States wants the internet to remain a space where economic, political, and social exchanges flourish. To do that, we need to protect people who exercise their rights online...

Unless you promote hip hop music. Then, too bad.

... and we also need to protect the internet itself from plans that would undermine its fundamental characteristics.

Unless it means protecting campaign donations from Hollywood. Then we can change the fundamental characteristics of the internet with a snap.

Our government (inaudible) will continue to work very hard to get around every barrier that repressive governments put up.

But will it still censor at will at home?

Honestly, it's tough to see how Hillary and the State Department can legitimately support SOPA and PIPA after that speech and the evidence of direct US censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, hillary clinton, internet freedom, state department
Companies: dajaz1

How Other Parts Of The World View SOPA

from the not-good dept

We keep pointing out just how disastrous SOPA and PIPA look from a diplomatic perspective. Just as the US is going around talking about the importance of internet freedom, to start pushing a bill that involves censorship (and yes, it is censorship) looks really bad. SOPA supporters like to point to Hillary Clinton's letter that said there's no conflict between internet freedom and copyright enforcement. But she did not comment specifically on the bills at issue -- and furthermore her statement is wrong. There doesn't have to be conflict between the two, but you can't say there's never conflict between the two, because you could easily design a rule that proves otherwise (e.g., "we shut down the entire internet to prevent infringement.") The State Department, frankly, is having a really tough time straddling both sides of this debate, because everything they say about the importance of internet freedom acts as the perfect arguments against SOPA.

But, really, the true test of the diplomatic impact of SOPA on the international community is not what the State Department says... it's what those other countries say. And they seem pretty shocked that this is the path the US is going down. Here are two examples. First up, we have the Voice of Russia, noting that the US is joining China in censoring the internet:

The US and the West have long criticized China for stifling dissent and for censorship but now they are not only joining China but they are taking censorship even further and attempting to censor the whole world.

The international implications of SOPA are worrying for as experts claim: it appears that the US is taking control of the entire world. The definitions written in the bill are so broad that any US user who uses a website overseas immediately gives the US the power to potentially take action against it and enable them to force ISPs to DNS-block any foreign site.

On a global scale it grants the U.S. Government far-reaching powers to go after Web sites which it claims are hosting copyrighted content.... Not long ago the U.S. admitted that it was in a state of information warfare and that it was losing the war. So what do you do if you are losing the information war? You muzzle the messenger.

Considering Russia has a bit of a history using copyright law to stifle political critics... folks there certainly know exactly how censorship via copyright can lead to much more than just protecting a few companies.

Now, let's jump over to the Middle East, where Al Jazeera is pointing out the State Department's rank hypocrisy on this subject, assuming that Clinton's letter was, in fact, in support of SOPA, and showing how that seems to undermine the rest of the State Department's arguments for internet freedom around the globe -- especially when it comes to circumvention tools:

In the year and a half since, the State Department has had limited success promoting online awareness and circumvention tools in foreign countries. But given SOPA's incredibly broad definitions of which sites are liable under its censorship provisions - merely claiming the site "engages in, enables or facilitates" infringement is enough - it won't be long until the bill destroys social networks that spread news of protests and the anonymity software that keep activists protected.

Many tech groups worry social networks such as Facebook - which were instrumental in organising protests in Egypt - would be at risk under SOPA. Brooklyn Law School professor Derek Bambauer also argues YouTube, which hosts countless human rights videos, would be "clearly unlawful", since it allows users to upload videos that may contain copyrighted content. While Google and Facebook may have enough money and lawyers to fend off lawsuits and court orders without being shut down completely, emerging social networks in foreign countries would not. Any site hosting videos, even if they are used to draw attention to human rights abuses, will be easily derailed if an overzealous copyright holder decides to use one alleged violation to strangle the whole site.

But circumvention tools - which allow activists to foil internet censors and evade government surveillance - would be the bill's greatest casualties. While many are developed explicitly for human rights advocates, they can also be used to download copyrighted content. Tor, the anonymising software that masks users' IP addresses that was instrumental during Egypt protests, would be a prime target of copyright holders, despite being funded by the US government.

In fact, most of internet freedom programmes currently funded by State Department are in danger. Hillary has pledged millions of dollars to various companies to create a "shadow" internet "that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments", according to the New York Times. But by endorsing SOPA, Hillary is giving the green light to copyright holders to destroy it. Virtual Private Networks, proxies, privacy or anonymisation software could all potentially be deemed illegal if they can also help get around SOPA's censorship mechanisms.

Even if Clinton truly believes that SOPA doesn't harm the US's diplomatic position on internet freedom around the world, it sure looks like large parts of the rest of the world disagree. The site TorrentFreak recently had a caption contest about a photo showing MPAA boss Chris Dodd sharing a hearty laugh with Chinese Ambassador Zhang Yesui. Perhaps they were laughing about how the bill that Dodd is pushing is the perfect cover for the Chinese the next time the State Department asks them to stop censoring the internet.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, free speech, hillary clinton, hypocrisy, internet freedom, middle east, protect ip, russia, sopa

The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says

from the sort-it-out-later dept

I'm beginning to notice a disturbing pattern in those who defend SOPA (formerly the E-PARASITE Act, until someone realized just how bad that looked). The text of the law makes massive changes to the regulatory framework of the internet, to the point that it raises some serious constitutional questions (should it ever actually pass). However, wherever that happens, they put in a little note insisting that the law doesn't do what the plain language says it does. Take, for example these little bits right at the opening:

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

Of course, you can claim that all you want, but if the actual text of the bill does both of those things... well, then that's a problem isn't it? It's the same thing with the streaming portions of the bill, where it's unclear if the authors of the bill even recognize how their bill will be interpreted. Or, sometimes, it comes in the form of defenders of the bill just outright misstating what's in the bill; such as the repeated claims by people involved with drafting the bill that it solely focuses on foreign "rogue sites," when the bill actually has sections that focus on domestic sites as well -- including ones that clearly are not "rogue."

But, one of the more bizarre situations comes in the growing conflict between the State Department and the rest of the Obama administration on SOPA/PIPA. We've heard from multiple people within the State Department that they're horrified by SOPA, explaining that it will undercut a significant amount of their Internet Freedom efforts around the globe, and completely wipe out any moral high ground (already tenuous) that the US had on the claims of keeping a free and open internet. In fact, we found it odd to see VP Joe Biden (who undoubtedly fully supports SOPA) reading a speech that was probably intended for Hillary Clinton to read, in which he stated a bunch of arguments in favor of not regulating the internet, to avoid stifling innovation and not breaking what works today. Large sections of his speech could be used -- verbatim -- as arguments against SOPA.

Realizing that they were going to run into all sorts of trouble for this, Rep. Howard Berman tried to cut this obvious conflict off at the pass, by asking Hillary Clinton to put forth a statement that the State Department supports enforcement of intellectual property rights, and doesn't see a conflict between internet freedom and enforcing intellectual property. We've already seen some in the pro-SOPA camp use this to claim there's no conflict with SOPA at all. First of all, this isn't true. The text of Clinton's statement makes no direct reference to the overreaching and overly broad nature of SOPA. It just talks in generalities. So, when Clinton says something like:

There is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet.

It's kind of a meaningless statement, because everything depends on the specifics. Can you enforce IP rights without compromising freedom of expression online? Most (though not all) would argue yes. But can you also enforce IP rights in a way that everyone agrees restricts freedom of expression? The answer is clearly yes. For example, if the policy to protect IP rights was to simply "shut down all .com sites," I think everyone would agree that's going too far. Point being: whether or not a particular enforcement scheme violates free speech rights is dependent on the details. And, it's worth noting that Clinton's statement was penned prior to SOPA being released.

But, in the end, we're left with the same situation I described at the beginning of this post. Just because Clinton says there's no conflict, that doesn't mean the actual text of the bill agrees with that. You can't just insist that what the plain text of the bill says isn't in the bill. That's no way to regulate.

Filed Under: copyright, hillary clinton, sopa

Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'

from the conflict-of-interests dept

This following story would be pretty funny if it didn't have such a wide impact. It's pretty much assured that VP Joe Biden is in favor of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA. Since the start of this administration, President Obama has delegated most copyright issues to Biden, and Biden's general view on copyright seems to be "whatever makes Hollywood happier must be fantastic." How else do you describe his continued support of ever more draconian copyright law, contrary to the evidence suggesting that it only makes things worse? How else do you explain his claim that he got "all the stakeholders" concerning copyright into a summit meeting, when it only involved government officials and the big labels and studios (no consumer advocates, no artists, no technologists, no entrepreneurs, etc.)?

At the same time, issues of "internet freedom" have been handed off to the State Department, where Hillary Clinton and her team have actually been doing a pretty good job. The Wikilkeaks response was a bit of a hiccup, but on the whole... they've taken a really strong position on the importance of internet freedom, and they deserve kudos for that. Of course, as we've noted, these two issues appear to come into conflict over copyright policy, and bills like PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE. Those kinds of bills make Biden happy, clearly, but seriously upset people in the State Department, who recognize that it completely undermines their message on internet freedom, being against censorship and allowing the free flow of information online.

So, at the very least, keep an eye out for the growing conflict between Biden and Clinton on this particular issue. What it'll come down to is whether or not Obama recognizes that PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE isn't just a copyright issue, but one of regulating the internet.

Either way, use that as background to understand the awkwardness of what follows. Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak earlier this week at the London Conference on Cyberspace (LCC), in which she was expected to give a speech on the importance of freedom in cyberspace. At the last minute, however, she had to pull out due to her mother falling ill. So, Joe Biden stepped in instead, and gave what looks like a variation on what Clinton's speech was supposed to be... talking up the importance of freedom on the internet and not regulating the internet: You could take a lot of what he says as a clear argument against PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE:

We know that it will take many years and patient and persistent engagement with people around the world to build a consensus around cyberspace, but there are no shortcuts because what citizens do online should not, as some have suggested, be decreed solely by groups of governments making decisions for them somewhere on high. No citizen of any country should be subject to a repressive global code when they send an email or post a comment to a news article. They should not be prevented from sharing their innovations with global consumers simply because they live across a national frontier. That's not how the Internet should ever work in our view -- not if we want it to remain the space where economic, political and social exchanges can flourish.

Indeed. So can we chalk up Biden's support for getting rid of the Great Firewall of America approach found in SOPA? Can we chalk up Biden's support for not doing DNS (and more!) blocking so that people in the US cannot reach certain websites that the rest of the world can reach, based solely on a repressive government code? And, under SOPA, innovators would clearly be hindered from sharing their innovations with global consumers, due to massive liabilities put on them under the law.

Now, there are some who have a different view, as you all know. They seek an international legal instrument that would lead to exclusive government control over Internet resources, institutions and content and national barriers on the free flow of information online. But this, in our view, would lead to a fragmented Internet, one that does not connect people but divides them; a stagnant cyberspace, not an innovative one, and ultimately a less secure cyberspace with less trust among nations.

Again, can we now assume that Biden is coming out against DNS/IP blocking, as found in SOPA? After all, it has been widely established that that, too, would "lead to a fragmented Internet, one that does not connect people but divides them; a stagnant cyberspace, not an innovative one, and ultimately a less secure cyberspace with less trust." Nice to see him say that, though I wonder if he'll ignore all of that when the same arguments are put forth over SOPA.

We have an expression in our country: If it ain’t broke, don't fix it. It would be misguided, in our view, to break with the system that has worked so well for so long.

Indeed. And yet, SOPA clearly tries to break a regulatory and technical framework for the internet that has been in existence for quite some time, and which is likely responsible for the amazing growth and success of the internet industry within the US.

Those countries that try to have it both ways by making the Internet closed to free expression but open for business will find that this is no easy task. They may try to build walls between these different activities, but there isn’t a separate economic Internet, political Internet and social Internet. They are all one. It’s simply the Internet.

The same search engines that help customers find local businesses also point them to websites of bloggers and civil society groups. Social networking sites allow friends to share not only home videos, but also views about the political and social issues within their country.

Trying to build and maintain barriers in cyberspace entails a variety of cost, not just the cost of paying thousands of censors and Internet police to work around the clock, but also the opportunity costs to a nation’s future. And I believe all nations will ultimately determine this. The digital marketplace of ideas that welcomes every blog and tweet is the same one that inspires the next generation of innovators to fuel our economies. And when businesses consider investing in a country with a poor record on Internet freedom, and they know that their website could be shut down suddenly, their transactions monitored, their staffs harassed, they’ll look for opportunities elsewhere.

Yes, yes and yes again. These are wonderful statements, and every one of them -- direct from Biden's mouth -- are clear arguments against SOPA. Last week, when we met with folks in DC about this issue, the fear of many of the entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in our group was that if we put up the Great Firewall of America, as designated in SOPA, leading companies to recognize "that their website could be shut down suddenly, their transactions monitored, their staffs harassed," that they will most certainly "look for opportunities elsewhere." Or, worse yet, they wouldn't start at all.

Honestly, Biden's speech really was an excellent one, and I applaud it. I am just wondering if everything he claimed in that speech will be ignored when it comes to SOPA, which seems to go against nearly every point he made in that speech. And to come out in favor of supporting the Great Firewall of America soon after making a speech like that one... well, that's going to certainly undermine a tremendous amount of credibility on the part of the vice president, while equally making life hard on Secretary Clinton in actually going out to these other countries and pressuring them to keep their internet open, while we lock it up at home.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, hillary clinton, internet freedom, joe biden

Hillary Clinton: We Want Journalism Innovation That Makes Info Easier To Share... Unless It's Wikileaks

from the tone-deaf dept

Jeff Sonderman points us to the odd statement put out by Hilary Clinton and the State Department for World Press Freedom Day, in which she praises the internet for making info easier to share and for holding governments accountable:

We have all witnessed the power that this surge in connectivity can have in shaping society and holding governments accountable. New media empowers individuals around the world to share information and express opinions in ways unimaginable just ten years ago.

Even as we celebrate innovations that make information easier to share, we are reminded that in many places around the world, journalists are still targeted for harassment and abuse, and are sometimes killed. Today, we remember that journalism is a calling of everyday heroes. We must continue to stand up for those who speak out in perilous circumstances as they pursue, record, and report the truth.

And yet, all of this is occurring at the same time that the State Department has continued to condemn Wikileaks and has supported the treatment of folks like Bradley Manning. He doesn't qualify as someone who decided to "speak out in perilous circumstances" as he tried to "pursue, record and report the truth?"

Filed Under: freedom, hillary clinton, journalism, press, state department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Hillary Clinton Talks The Talk On Internet Freedom; Will The Administration Walk The Walk?

from the let's-see... dept

A year ago, Hillary Clinton gave a speech about the importance of "internet freedom" that many of us later pointed out appeared to be in stark contrast with the federal government's (including Secretary of State Clinton's) reaction to the publishing of various State Department cables. So a lot of folks were interested in what Clinton had planned for her followup speech on internet freedoms, which she gave yesterday. I've embedded the full speech below, but you can also read a summary of the speech at Wired.

On the whole, the speech is surprisingly good in many places. It's upfront and doesn't beat around the bush on issues that I expected she would gloss over (if she mentioned at all). It lays out some specific principles, noting that the idea that to have more security you need to sacrifice liberty is a false dilemma. It also notes that transparency and confidentiality need not be in conflict. These are a bit surprising in that the easy political win would have been to just position those as scales that need "balance." But she didn't do that, which I appreciate.

On top of that, she did not ignore or run away from the whole Wikileaks thing, but did actually address the issue head on, noting that the federal government has not officially opposed Wikileaks or put pressure on companies not to work with Wikileaks. Also, she claims that their only main concern was with the initial copying of the documents and the impact it may have on certain people's security, rather than the bigger issue of publishing the documents.

Of course, the obvious response is that these are just words, and the reality of the situation isn't quite as clear. Why the administration may not have officially put pressure on companies, many companies have said that they felt pressure from the federal government, and such pressure can be just as bad, if not worse. On top of that, as a bunch of folks at the Berkman Center laid out, it appears that the the government's actions do not live up to Secretary Clinton's words in many cases. Furthermore, there's clearly an awful lot of rationalization on the part of Clinton in trying to explain how Wikileaks is different, even though she fails to explain how it really is any different.

So, while it's nice to hear her actually take on some of these issues with forthright statements that we agree with, rather than the easy political platitudes, there remains serious problems in how the federal government fails to actually live up to what Secretary Clinton claims the US supports.

Also, as noted by Ethan Zuckerman, one major factor missing from her speech is the high level of involvement by US companies in the tools that can help censor the internet. While the speech talks about encouraging more companies to create tools for freedom, even funding companies that help create anti-censorship tools, this falls far short of making sure that US companies also are not acting as chokepoints and bottlenecks where anyone, even the US government, can seek to censor content online.

Filed Under: censorship, free speech, freedom, hillary clinton, internet freedom

Did The State Department's Support Of 'Internet Freedom' Put A Target On Silicon Valley Companies Around The World?

from the unintended-consequences... dept

Hillary Clinton's famous speech on internet freedom a year ago has received plenty of scrutiny lately, mainly because of the contradictions between that speech and the State Department's more recent reactions to the Wikileaks release of State Department cables. It's easy to be about freedom when that freedom's not directed at you. However, Evgeny Morozov is now arguing that the speech was a lot worse than just being hypocritical, it served to make life a lot more difficult for Silicon Valley companies around the world. That's because, before this, many countries didn't think much of various social networking tools but as soon as the US government started championing them, the inevitable conclusion was that these companies were specific tools of the US government designed to infiltrate foreign countries:

By aligning themselves with Internet companies and organizations, Clinton's digital diplomats have convinced their enemies abroad that Internet freedom is another Trojan horse for American imperialism.

< ...>

Today, foreign governments see the writing on the virtual wall. Democratic and authoritarian states alike are now seeking "information sovereignty" from American companies, especially those perceived as being in bed with the U.S. government. Internet search, social networking, and even email are increasingly seen as strategic industries that need to be protected from foreign control. Russia is toying with spending $100 million to build a domestic alternative to Google. Iranian authorities are considering a similar idea after banning Gmail last February, and last summer launched their own Facebook clone called Velayatmadaran, named after followers of the velayaat, or supreme leader. Even Turkey, a U.S. ally, has plans to provide a government-run email address to every Turkish citizen to lessen the population's dependence on U.S. providers.

It's an interesting argument, but I'm not sure I buy it. Europe has been trying to get out from under US tech companies since long before these moves. Remember Quaero? This was the hugely funded move by a bunch of European countries to create a "competitor" to Google, so that European culture wouldn't be controlled by a US company. Similarly, China has a long history of trying to build its own clones of US tech companies and of keeping the US versions out. It's not clear that these efforts got any stronger after Clinton's speech. It may be true that her speech didn't help matters, but I haven't seen any big shift in policy because of that speech.

Filed Under: free speech, hillary clinton, internet