It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton Says Internet Censorship Harmful to Governments

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Clinton Says Internet Censorship Harmful to Governments


PC World

Even though some countries, including China, are now growing economically while censoring the Internet, that growth is not sustainable, Clinton said during a speech on Internet freedom at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Clinton called on governments in China, Iran, Vietnam, Burma and elsewhere to end Internet censorship while pointing to recent attempts at censorship in Egypt and Tunisia that failed.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.necn.com
www.wsj.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
State Department turns to Twitter to reach Iranians
edit on 2/15/2011 by ~Lucidity because: changed the title and lead link

edit on 2/15/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Secretary of State Clinton says that curbing internet freedom will not hold back demands for reforms seen recently in Tunisia and Egypt. Her stance is that countries who continue to block and censor the internet will suffer economic and social consequences and lead to civil unrest. And she's because we're already seen evidence of this. As in Egypt, cutting them off once they've seen what it is and what it can do, imply infuriates people more and leads them to take action.

The call to action in Egypt is said to have been organized on FaceBook, yet as the al Jazeera correspondent half-jokingly said at the height of the Egyptian revolution, shutting down their cell phones and their internet got people out into the streets. There's no stopping it by cutting things off once it begins. A lesson learned here might be for people who are planning and organizing protests and revolutions via the internet to have a contingency plan should it get cut off.

She also pledgied U.S. support for "cyber dissidents" in these countries who trying to promote (restore and keep?) democracy.


The Obama administration will pump $25 million this year into helping cyber dissidents foil Internet repression in autocratic states and plans to broaden the reach of its online mini-appeals for human rights and democracy by creating Twitter feeds that cater to audiences in China, Russia and India. (See additional news links.)


Currently, her State Department is using Twitter to reach Iranians (see related threads).

So, how do we correlate this stance from the administration with the seemingly contrary "kill switch" that everyone is so concerned about? Could it be that the kill switch is for other purposes, such as protecting American homes and businesses from cyber attacks? Or could it be that this is just lip service and a case of do as we say, not as we do, and we'll support it as long as there is benefit to us? Thoughts?


online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 2/15/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
take away the distractions in everyday life and everyone wakes up...
so of course they don't want to stop free flow of info..... people will read and watch and not do anything



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

"Clinton Calls for Global Standards for Internet Use"

Who would define these "global" standards? The U.S.? The U.N.? NATO?
Standards are fine except when you look at who gets to define them.

In my humble opinion, the internet has done just fine defining its "own" standards. It doesn't need a meddlesome government or group of governments to redefine the "standard".

2 cents.


edit on 15-2-2011 by beezzer because: because Hillary was standardizing my computer.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   


She also pledgied U.S. support for "cyber dissidents" in these countries who trying to promote (restore and keep?) democracy.


Does this apply to US citizens as well?


Its all talk, plain and simple. If given the opportunity to go after these people without looking bad they would.
edit on 15-2-2011 by sm0k3 because: Second line!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I agree to a degree with what you're saying. This headline was not what I would have written and probably doesn't accurately reflect what she said or what the story is here, even that is what led me to read it. She didn't say we needed global standards or control. We agree that it sets it's own controls. She said it should not be blocked or censored. I guess this is going to be an issue with this thread. Sigh...

Edit to Add: I changed the lead article and headline as a result. And used the PC World headline, which more accurately reflects the story.
edit on 2/15/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sm0k3
 

If you read my comments, you will see that I spoke about that twice...once when I mentioned "contingency plans" and then in my closing question. I guess, in a way, you did answer my question? Are you saying you feel they wouldn't hesitate to use this against us? As in the kill switch?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by beezzer
 


I agree to a degree with what you're saying. This headline was not what I would have written and probably doesn't accurately reflect what she said or what the story is here, even that is what led me to read it. She didn't say we needed global standards or control. We agree that it sets it's own controls. She said it should not be blocked or censored. I guess this is going to be an issue with this thread. Sigh...


But according to the article, she is calling for global standards.
Okay.
Who defines those standards?
Is it arbitrary?
The problem with these vague generalizations is that it sounds good, until you see the fine print.

Call me a skeptic, but when I see this, my spidey senses start to tingle.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


She may not want to block or censor it, but they dang well want to persecute us for using it against them. All these "copyrighted" news articles that are getting people sued over just because they quoted the article? They want to restrict how far information travels without blocking it completely. They may not stop everyone from reading it, but the majority will never know. They know if they take steps to actively stop the spreading of info they will get labeled as this or that come next election, and they don't want that!

Bah, caught me on a bad day, I'm off to get some coffee and reread this article and see if I missed anything....



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I think they realized that, by shutting off the internet, the people woke up in Egypt.

The people of Egypt walked out of their homes, rubbed their eyes and had to face the real world for a change. Instead of sittining around griping on some internet board, they had to go out and gripe to their neighbors face to face.

Suddenly, they found out that they weren't alone in their beliefs, impotently typing out their frustrations anonymously on the internet. They began to talk to real flesh and blood people and, finding common cause, decided to take action. They took to the streets, shut down the country and effected real regime change, without bullets.

TPTB want to make sure something like this never happens again; They want us in front of our keyboards, distracted by the mountains of information about how they are stealing away our freedom day after day. They want us to keep griping to other anonymous posters online about the state of the world and how we wish we had the resolve to bring about change like the Egyptians.

Heaven forbid we should ever loose the distraction of the internet, be forced to confront reality, talk to our neighbors and decide to take action.

TPTB have realized the real power of the internet; the power ot pacify and distract. They will make sure it is never shut down again.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Excellent point!

Would the good folks in Egypt gone to the streets if they could have "tweeted" instead?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

I think they realized that, by shutting off the internet, the people woke up in Egypt.



Ive thought that all along, the internet is the steam vent for the people, what happens when you plug a steam vent? you make one hell of a boom, that's what!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

You're right. She's referring to things like WikiLeaks and political supression, and that's the angle the WSJ took on this story, hence their headline. The WSJ is very anti-WikiLeaks, as of course is the administration it seems. They would almost have to be. However, isn't she also saying that we shouldn't block or censor the internet for the people who aren't stealing, spying, or politically suppressing others?

She stressed that nations need to agree on common legal platforms to ensure the Internet isn't used for theft, espionage and political repression.

This might go to the "kill switch" concerns to a degree? What do you think? Is what she's saying is sort of, "We like it being used for things that suit our purposes and goals, but not for what we view as stealing, spying, and keeping people down."

It's a fine line for sure.
edit on 2/15/2011 by ~Lucidity because: messed up the exnews tag



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The Obama Administration has made no secret it wishes to control Internet content. Clinton is attempting to use Egypt in a backhanded way to control the Internet and political speech. They see the public as too stupid to glean truth from fiction.

Progressives always view anyone who does not agree with them as illiterate or irrational. They view things like controlling our speech and information as being for our own good. Obama and Clinton want to be our Mommy and Daddy and tell us what to read, which news sources to watch, what political ideologies to believe in and even what to eat. They view themselves as the elite and Narcissism is the norm among them, not the exception.

I think it's that simple. This site would not exist if they could find a legal way to shut it down.

Of course having the man who is the CEO of the company (GE) that controls NBC and MSNBC as head of Obama's Economic Advisory team is just OK with them. A man who decides which political ideology controls the reporting on those news stations being in Obama's hip pocket is not a problem. Now they seem to have control of Google as well.

I don't think a genuine Free Press is in the cards for the US before long. We will see something like they have in Venezuela or other fake Democracies where those in power control the Press.

On the bright side, this may be the proverbial last straw that will wake people up to what the Progressive Agenda truly entails. A couple of years ago I saw a Poll that only 15% of the people in the US align with the Progressives, but they sure are a loud and powerful 15%. Thank God we have some balance in Congress now, but it may be too late for that to stop these control freaks.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
So they are against wikileaks but want internet freedom??
Sounds like they have a plan to me and this is just spin.

Theres a snake in the grass me thinks.
I wish governments would just quit meddling with things and just stay out of our lives.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 

Could it be that they're viewing WikiLeaks as spying and theft while some don't? Like I said, it's a fine line. We need to figure out what that is. I struggle with this myself as I believe in transparency. So far, I don't view WikiLeaks as having spilled anything that would endanger anything or anyone but egos. They are struggling to define this themselves, and it's their egos involved.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I like how she used "political repression". Politics is often very polar. Who supresses who?

To be honest, I agree with you.

"They" would use the kill switch to justify their own take on freedom of the internet. They HAD to kill it in order for it to remain free of internal/external influences that might have harmed it.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


No chance at all that you might be mistrusting their motives and misinterpreting an effort to guard our companies against cyberterrorism as control? I see what you're saying, but I'm still on the fence about this one, and admit I have more homework to do on the subject.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Internet censorship is inevitable..Wikileaks finalized the process.. And now we know there is a kill switch.. So add these things together and realize this, It is only a matter of time before we lose what little freedom we have left, And I use the term freedom loosely..
edit on 15-2-2011 by TechVampyre because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 

Could it be that they're viewing WikiLeaks as spying and theft while some don't? Like I said, it's a fine line. We need to figure out what that is. I struggle with this myself as I believe in transparency. So far, I don't view WikiLeaks as having spilled anything that would endanger anything or anyone but egos. They are struggling to define this themselves, and it's their egos involved.


I've actually gone against the grain in other sites by stating that wikileaks was a good idea.

Once we start inhibiting one type of free expression, it's just a slippery slope from there on.

I don't know of anyone who is for freedom of speech and against wikileaks.

Strike that, I do. And I call thm hypocrites.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join