Hillary speech: questions and answers

Hillary speech: questions and answers

Not only the speech. An american friend of mine sent me the questions for Hillary and her answers, you can found at the end





SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Alberto, for not only that kind introduction but your and your
colleagues’ leadership of this important institution. It’s a pleasure to be here at the Newseum. The Newseum is a

monument to some of our most precious freedoms, and I’m grateful for this opportunity to discuss how thosefreedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century.

Although I can’t see all of you because in settings like this, the lights are in my eyes and you are in the dark, I know
that there are many friends and former colleagues. I wish to acknowledge Charles Overby, the CEO of Freedom

Forum here at the Newseum; Senator Edward Kaufman and Senator Joe Lieberman, my former colleagues in theSenate, both of whom worked for passage of the Voice Act, which speaks to Congress’s and the American people’s
commitment to internet freedom, a commitment that crosses party lines and branches of government.

Also, I’m told here as well are Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Ted Kaufman, Representative Loretta Sanchez,

many representatives of the Diplomatic Corps, ambassadors, chargés, participants in our International Visitor
Leadership Program on internet freedom from China, Colombia, Iran, and Lebanon, and Moldova. And I also want
to acknowledge Walter Isaacson, president of the Aspen Institute, recently named to our Broadcasting Board of
Governors and, of course, instrumental in supporting the work on internet freedom that the Aspen Institute has been
doing.

This is an important speech on a very important subject. But before I begin, I want to just speak briefly about Haiti,
because during the last eight days, the people of Haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with atragedy of staggering proportions. Our hemisphere has seen its share of hardship, but there are few precedents forthe situation we’re facing in Port-au-Prince. Communication networks have played a critical role in our response.

They were, of course, decimated and in many places totally destroyed. And in the hours after the quake, we worked
with partners in the private sector; first, to set up the text “HAITI” campaign so that mobile phone users in theUnited States could donate to relief efforts via text messages. That initiative has been a showcase for the generosity
of the American people, and thus far, it’s raised over $25 million for recovery efforts.

Information networks have also played a critical role on the ground. When I was with President Preval in Port-au-
Prince on Saturday, one of his top priorities was to try to get communication up and going. The government couldn’ttalk to each other, what was left of it, and NGOs, our civilian leadership, our military leadership were severely
impacted. The technology community has set up interactive maps to help us identify needs and target resources. Andon Monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed supermarket by an

American search-and-rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help. Now, these examples are
manifestations of a much broader phenomenon.

The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. When something happens in
Haiti or Hunan, the rest of us learn about it in real time – from real people. And we can respond in real time as well.

Americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in the supermarket are connected in waysthat were not even imagined a year ago, even a generation ago. That same principle applies to almost all of humanitytoday. As we sit here, any of you – or maybe more likely, any of our children – can take out the tools that many carryevery day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world.

Now, in many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more
people than at any moment in history. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people
discover new facts and making governments more accountable.

During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an online

component to highlight the importance of the internet. In response to a question that was sent in over the internet, hedefended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows, thestronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governmentsaccountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States belief in that
ground truth is what brings me here today.

Because 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.

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. One member of this group, Bassem
Samir, who is thankfully no longer in prison, is with us today. So while it is clear that the spread of these
technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and thehuman welfare of the world’s population.

On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United Statesdoes. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we
recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it. Now, this
challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our

republic. The words of the First Amendment to our Constitution are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the


front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.

Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. Now, at the time,
Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all peopleenjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended thetroubles of his day. And years later, one of my heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt, worked to have these principles adopted asa cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They have provided a lodestar to every succeeding

generation, guiding us, galvanizing us, and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty.

So as technology hurtles forward, we must think back to that legacy. We need to synchronize our technological
progress with our principles. In accepting the Nobel Prize, President Obama spoke about the need to build a world inwhich peace rests on the inherent rights and dignities of every individual. And in my speech on human rights at

Georgetown a few days later, I talked about how we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find
an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century.

There are many other networks in the world. Some aid in the movement of people or resources, and some facilitateexchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. But the internet is a network that magnifies the

power and potential of all others. And that’s why we believe it’s critical that its users are assured certain basic
freedoms. Freedom of expression is first among them. This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens
can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, emails, socialnetworks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for
censorship.

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. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate
the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the
courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small

pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern
Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertinawire of the Iron Curtain.

The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this

museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it standsfor connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place ofvisible walls.

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s

networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy
of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideasthrough any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information
curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming

the samizdat of our day.

As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools. In the
demonstrations that followed Iran’s presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman’s bloody
murder provided a digital indictment of the government’s brutality. We’ve seen reports that when Iranians living

overseas posted online criticism of their nation’s leaders, their family members in Iran were singled out for
retribution. And despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, brave citizen journalists in Iran continue
using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening inside their country. In speaking out
on behalf of their own human rights, the Iranian people have inspired the world. And their courage is redefining howtechnology is used to spread truth and expose injustice.

Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to
violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder ofinnocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion,
ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. It is an unfortunate fact that these issues are both growing

challenges that the international community must confront together. And we must also grapple with the issue of
anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot
divorce their online actions from their real world identities. But these challenges must not become an excuse forgovernments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political
purposes.

The freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of newtechnologies, but it is not the only one. The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to
commune or not commune with their Creator. And that’s one channel of communication that does not rely on
technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share

your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples. Today, they may also take place on line.

The internet can help bridge divides between people of different faiths. As the President said in Cairo, freedom of
religion is central to the ability of people to live together. And as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet

holds out such tremendous promise. We’ve already begun connecting students in the United States with young


people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges. And we will continue using this tool
to foster discussion between individuals from different religious communities.

Some nations, however, have co-opted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. Last year, for
example, in Saudi Arabia, a man spent months in prison for blogging about Christianity. And a Harvard study found
that the Saudi Government blocked many web pages about Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam.
Countries including Vietnam and China employed similar tactics to restrict access to religious information.

Now, just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must also not be used to
persecute or silence religious minorities. Now, prayers will always travel on higher networks. But connection
technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals’ ability to worship as they see
fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to

advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life.

There are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. In our world,
as I’ve said many times, talent may be distributed universally, but opportunity is not. And we know from long
experience that promoting social and economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge,

markets, capital, and opportunity can be frustrating and sometimes futile work. In this context, the internet can serveas a great equalizer. By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create
opportunities where none exist.

Over the last year, I’ve seen this firsthand in Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30

percent since they started using mobile banking technology; in Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people havesigned up to learn English on their mobile phones; and in Sub-Saharan Africa, where women entrepreneurs use the
internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect themselves to global markets.

Now, these examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world’s

economic ladder. In many cases, the internet, mobile phones, and other connection technologies can do for economicgrowth what the Green Revolution did for agriculture. You can now generate significant yields from very modest
inputs. And one World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10 percent increase in the
penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost 1 percent increase in per capita GDP. To just put this into
context, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year.

A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity. In the early years of these
technologies, many believed that they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. But that hasn’t
happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today. Many of them are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw
drivers, and others who’ve historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have

become a great leveler, and we should use them together to help lift people out of poverty and give them a freedom
from want.

Now, we have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish when they leverage communication
networks and connection technologies to achieve progress. But make no mistake – some are and will continue to use

global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and
authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of theopenness of our societies to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize and intimidate. As
we work to advance freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools ofdisruption and fear.

Governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economicprosperity are safe and resilient. Now this is about more than petty hackers who deface websites. Our ability to bankonline, use electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if wecannot rely on the security of our information networks.

Disruptions in these systems demand a coordinated response by all governments, the private sector, and the
international community. We need more tools to help law enforcement agencies cooperate across jurisdictions when
criminal hackers and organized crime syndicates attack networks for financial gain. The same is true when social illssuch as child pornography and the exploitation of trafficked women and girls online is there for the world to see and

for those who exploit these people to make a profit. We applaud efforts such as the Council on Europe’s Convention
on Cybercrime that facilitate international cooperation in prosecuting such offenses. And we wish to redouble our
efforts.

We have taken steps as a government, and as a Department, to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber

security. We have a lot of people in the State Department working on this. They’ve joined together, and we created
two years ago an office to coordinate foreign policy in cyberspace. We’ve worked to address this challenge at the
UN and in other multilateral forums and to put cyber security on the world’s agenda. And President Obama has just
appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure thateveryone’s networks stay free, secure, and reliable.

States, terrorists, and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect ournetworks. 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. In an internet-connected world, an attack on one nation’s networks


can be an attack on all. And by reinforcing that message, we can create norms of behavior among states and
encourage respect for the global networked commons.

The final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both President and Mrs. Roosevelt thought about andwrote about all those years ago, is one that flows from the four I’ve already mentioned: the freedom to connect – theidea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The
freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come

together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you’re on the internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have ahuge impact on society.

The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. He used social
networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence. In Colombia, an unemployed

engineer brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities around the world to demonstrate against theFARC terrorist movement. The protests were the largest antiterrorist demonstrations in history. And in the weeks
that followed, the FARC saw more demobilizations and desertions than it had during a decade of military action.
And in Mexico, a single email from a private citizen who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed intohuge demonstrations in all of the country’s 32 states. In Mexico City alone, 150,000 people took to the streets in

protest. So the internet can help humanity push back against those who promote violence and crime and extremism.
In Iran and Moldova and other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy and
enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results. And even in established democracies like the United States,
we’ve seen the power of these tools to change history. Some of you may still remember the 2008 presidential
election here. (Laughter.)

The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important toindividuals. I was recently moved by the story of a doctor – and I won’t tell you what country he was from – who
was desperately trying to diagnose his daughter’s rare medical condition. He consulted with two dozen specialists,
but he still didn’t have an answer. But he finally identified the condition, and found a cure, by using an internet

search engine. That’s one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important in
individuals’ lives.

Now, the principles I’ve outlined today will guide our approach in addressing the issue of internet freedom and the
use of these technologies. And I want to speak about how we apply them in practice. The United States is committed

to devoting the diplomatic, economic, and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. We are a
nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe. Our foreign policy ispremised on the idea that no country more than America stands to benefit when there is cooperation among peoples
and states. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict and misunderstanding drive nations apart. So
we are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of

these technologies, including the internet itself, we have a responsibility to see them used for good. To do that, we
need to develop our capacity for what we call, at the State Department, 21st century statecraft.

Realigning our policies and our priorities will not be easy. But adjusting to new technology rarely is. When the
telegraph was introduced, it was a source of great anxiety for many in the diplomatic community, where the prospect

of receiving daily instructions from capitals was not entirely welcome. But just as our diplomats eventually masteredthe telegraph, they are doing the same to harness the potential of these new tools as well.

And I’m proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silencedby oppressive governments. We are making this issue a priority at the United Nations as well, and we’re including

internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the United Nations HumanRights Council.

We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression
by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure

that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access theinternet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time, with a focus on implementing
these programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. Both the American people and nations that censor the
internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.

We want to put these tools in the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, to
fight climate change and epidemics, to build global support for President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear
weapons, to encourage sustainable economic development that lifts the people at the bottom up.

That’s why today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and

nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies
and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools,
we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market
for innovation.

Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate
government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report
corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And
the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.

If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and


encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application
developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks

a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividendsfrom modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture,
and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results mostquickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited tohelp us.

In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that couldalready advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an
innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas
for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the

services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctorthat could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll
work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.

Now, these new initiatives will supplement a great deal of important work we’ve already done over this past year. In
the service of our diplomatic and diplomacy objectives, I assembled a talented and experienced team to lead our 21st
century statecraft efforts. This team has traveled the world helping governments and groups leverage the benefits of
connection technologies. They have stood up a Civil Society 2.0 Initiative to help grassroots organizations enter the
digital age. They are putting in place a program in Mexico to help combat drug-related violence by allowing people
to make untracked reports to reliable sources to avoid having retribution visited against them. They brought mobile

banking to Afghanistan and are now pursuing the same effort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Pakistan,
they created the first-ever social mobile network, called Our Voice, that has already produced tens of millions of
messages and connected young Pakistanis who want to stand up to violent extremism.

In a short span, we have taken significant strides to translate the promise of these technologies into results that make

a difference. But there is still so much more to be done. And as we work together with the private sector and foreign
governments to deploy the tools of 21st century statecraft, we have to remember our shared responsibility tosafeguard the freedoms that I’ve talked about today. We feel strongly that principles like information freedom aren’t
just good policy, not just somehow connected to our national values, but they are universal and they’re also good forbusiness.

To use market terminology, a publicly listed company in Tunisia or Vietnam that operates in an environment of
censorship will always trade at a discount relative to an identical firm in a free society. If corporate decision makers
don’t have access to global sources of news and information, investors will have less confidence in their decisions
over the long term. Countries that censor news and information must recognize that from an economic standpoint,

there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech. If businesses in your nations aredenied access to either type of information, it will inevitably impact on growth.

Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in
their business decisions. I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend.

The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese
authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we
also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent.

The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous. There are so many people

in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet usersrisk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. Now, the United States and China have different
views on this issue, and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently in the context of our
positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship.

Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what
kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a
common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to informationand opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.

Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress. Historically,
asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes
or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and
opinions.

As it stands, Americans can consider information presented by foreign governments. We do not block your attempts
to communicate with the people in the United States. But citizens in societies that practice censorship lack exposureto outside views. In North Korea, for example, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens fromoutside opinions. This lopsided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability
that small disagreements could escalate. So I hope that responsible governments with an interest in global stability

will work with us to address such imbalances.

For companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground. It really comes down to the trustbetween firms and their customers. Consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies theyrely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as responsible stewards of their own personal information.

Firms that earn that confidence of those countries and basically provide that kind of service will prosper in the


global marketplace. I really believe that those who lose that confidence of their customers will eventually losecustomers. No matter where you live, people want to believe that what they put into the internet is not going to be

used against them.

And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American
companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that
consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.

Now, we are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to internet
freedom around the world, and we are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign
governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help
safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to

consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit.

We’re also encouraged by the work that’s being done through the Global Network Initiative, a voluntary effort by
technology companies who are working with nongovernmental organizations, academic experts, and social
investment funds to respond to government requests for censorship. The initiative goes beyond mere statements of

principles and establishes mechanisms to promote real accountability and transparency. As part of our commitment
to support responsible private sector engagement on information freedom, the State Department will be convening ahigh-level meeting next month co-chaired by Under Secretaries Robert Hormats and Maria Otero to bring togetherfirms that provide network services for talks about internet freedom, because we want to have a partnership inaddressing this 21st century challenge.

Now, pursuing the freedoms I’ve talked about today is, I believe, the right thing to do. But I also believe it’s the
smart thing to do. By advancing this agenda, we align our principles, our economic goals, and our strategicpriorities. We need to work toward a world in which access to networks and information brings people closer
together and expands the definition of the global community. Given the magnitude of the challenges we’re facing,

we need people around the world to pool their knowledge and creativity to help rebuild the global economy, to
protect our environment, to defeat violent extremism, and build a future in which every human being can live up toand realize his or her God-given potential.

So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-

Prince. She’s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up because these networks
took a voice that was buried and spread it to the world. No nation, no group, no individual should stay buried in therubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the human family by walls of censorship.
And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear the cries.

So let us recommit ourselves to this cause. Let us make these technologies a force for real progress the world over.
And let us go forward together to champion these freedoms for our time, for our young people who deserve everyopportunity we can give them.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Thank you. Thank you, Madame Secretary. The Secretary has agreed to answer some questions.
So if you would, there are going to be three microphones in the audience. If you would make your questions short,
we’d appreciate it. And identify yourselves, please.

Yes. Could you wait for the microphone?

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you talked about anonymity on line and how that’s something – oh, I’m sorry. I’mRobert (inaudible). I’m with Northern Virginia Community College. I’m sorry.

STAFF: Could you hold the microphone up, please?

QUESTION: Sorry.

STAFF: Thank you.

QUESTION: You talked about anonymity on line and how we have to prevent that. But you also talk about
censorship by governments. And I’m struck by – having a veil of anonymity in certain situations is actually quite
beneficial. So are you looking to strike a balance between that and this emphasis on censorship?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. I mean, this is one of the challenges we face. On the one hand, anonymity
protects the exploitation of children. And on the other hand, anonymity protects the free expression of opposition to
repressive governments. Anonymity allows the theft of intellectual property, but anonymity also permits people to
come together in settings that gives them some basis for free expression without identifying themselves.

None of this will be easy. I think that’s a fair statement. I think, as I said, we all have varying needs and rights and
responsibilities. But I think these overriding principles should be our guiding light. We should err on the side of
openness and do everything possible to create that, recognizing, as with any rule or any statement of principle, thereare going to be exceptions.


So how we go after this, I think, is now what we’re requesting many of you who are experts in this area to lend yourhelp to us in doing. We need the guidance of technology experts. In my experience, most of them are younger than

40, but not all are younger than 40. And we need the companies that do this, and we need the dissident voices who
have actually lived on the front lines so that we can try to work through the best way to make that balance youreferred to.

MODERATOR: Forty may be (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: Right over here. Yes.

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Courtney Radsch. I’m the Global Freedom of Expression officer at Freedom House.
And I wanted to ask you – you spoke about business and relying on them to do the moral, right thing and not putprofits first. But the goal of business is to make a profit. So what kind of teeth are going to be put into this? What
role does the World Trade Organization play? And how are you going to encourage them to do the right thing?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I think this is one of the issues that we want to have a very vigorous
discussion about. I know that asking business, which is in business to make a profit, to do the right thing is notalways easily translated into practical practice. On the other hand, I think there is a broader context here. It’s –
companies that don’t follow the sanitary and hygiene procedures of a prior generation pay a price for it. And
government and business have to constantly be working together to make sure that the food and other products that

end up on the shelves of consumers around the world are safe, because individual consumers in a globalinterconnected economy can’t possibly exercise that vigilance on their own.

Similarly, when it comes to censorship, we believe that having an international effort to establish some rules over
internet connectivity and trying to protect the basic freedoms I discussed is in the long-term interest of business, and

frankly, I would argue, governments. I used the example from the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is very hard to keep
information out. It was hard to keep it out at a prior age; it is even harder now. And trying to adjust to that, work
with that, and learn from that about what could be done better is going to challenge every single government in theworld.

So I think business, as such a driver of economic growth globally, has to have that in mind, both when they go into
countries and when they confront the kind of censorship that we’re hearing about around the world. It’s particularly
acute for the technology companies, the media companies obviously, but it’s not in any way limited to them. Other
companies are facing censorship as well. So this is an issue that we have to surface and we have to talk about and wehave to try to find as much common ground and then keep claiming more common ground as we go forward.

MODERATOR: We have a question way over here on the left.

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Aly Abuzaakouk. I’m the director of Libya Forum website, promoting
democracy and human rights and civil society in Libya.

We have been attacked and hacked many times. I would like Madame Secretary to tell me how can you help those
voices which do not have, you know, the technology or the money to protect themselves, protect them against the
hackers which are the silencers of voices from outside the countries which lacks freedom and freedom of expression.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is one of the issues that we are debating and we’re looking for ideas as to howwe can answer it in a positive way. We would invite your participation. After I take the last question, Anne-Marie
Slaughter, the Director of my Policy Planning unit inside the State Department and someone – the former dean of
the Woodrow Wilson School who has written a lot about interconnectivity and how we have to begin to look at the
world as the networked reality that it is, will be leading a discussion. And I hope some of you with ideas,

suggestions, cautions, worries will stay and really get into an in-depth discussion about that.

MODERATOR: Thank you. And right here in the mezzanine, right next to the microphone.

QUESTION: Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang with BPSOS. We serve Vietnamese Americans and work with Vietnamese in

Vietnam. While your initiative will take some time to take effect, just recently, in recent months, the Vietnamese
Government sentenced several bloggers to five years all the way to 16 years in prison. So what does your office planto do, and how the U.S. Government can confront such an emergency situation in Vietnam?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have publicly spoken out against the detention, conviction, and imprisonment

of not only the bloggers in Vietnam, but some of the Buddhist monks and nuns and others who have been subjected
to harassment.

Vietnam has made so much progress, and it’s just moving with great alacrity into the future, raising the standard of
living of their people. And we don’t believe they should be afraid of commentary that is internal. In fact, I would

like to see more governments, if you disagree with what a blogger or a website is saying, get in and argue with them.
Explain what it is you’re doing. Put out contrary information. Point out what the pitfalls are of the position that ablogger might be taking.

So I hope that Vietnam will move more in that direction, because I think it goes hand in hand with the progress that

we’ve seen in the last few years there.


MODERATOR: Thank you. Up in the back.

QUESTION: Nora von Ingersleben with the Association for Competitive Technology. Madame Secretary, you
mentioned that U.S. companies have to do the right thing, not just what is good for their profits. But what if I am a

U.S. company and I have a subsidiary in China and the Chinese Government is coming after my guys forinformation and, you know, we have resisted but now my guys have been taken to jail, my equipment is being
hauled away. In that situation, what can the State Department do? Or what will the State Department do?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we obviously speak out on those individual cases. And we are, as I said, hoping toengage in a very candid and constructive conversation with the Chinese Government. We have had a positive year ofvery open discussions with our Chinese counterparts. I think we have established a foundation of understanding. We

disagree on important issues with them. They disagree on important issues with us. They have our perspective; we
have our perspective. But obviously, we want to encourage and support increasing openness in China because we
believe it will further add to the dynamic growth and the democratization on the local level that we see occurring inChina.

So on individual cases, we continue to speak out. But on the broader set of issues, we hope to really have the kind ofdiscussion that might lead to a better understanding and changes in the approach that is currently being taken.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

Up in the very back in the center, if you could come to the aisle so we can get a microphone to you, and then we’ll
come back down here. Thank you.

QUESTION: Imam Mohamed Magid from ADAMS Center in Virginia. My question for you, Madame Secretary:
When you talk about social networking, we’re trying to address the issue of youth in the West, Muslim youth. Would

you be open to the youth forum to speak about foreign policy? Because one of the reason that youth be radicalized,
they don’t have a way to express themselves when they disagree with the United States Government or their own
government overseas. Would you be open to those ideas?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, we would. In fact, we – in the wake of the President’s speech in Cairo, we have

been expanding dramatically our outreach, particularly to Muslim youth. I agree with you completely, sir, that not
only young people in the Muslim world, but young people across the world are increasingly disconnected fromauthority, from government, from all kinds of institutions that have been historically the foundations of society,
because they are so interconnected through the internet, something that my generation can’t really understand.

In America, the average young person spends eight hours a day with media. The internet, cell phones, television – I
mean, you think about that. Eight hours a day. That’s more time than they spend in school, that’s more time than
they spend with their families. It’s often more time than they spend asleep.

So when you think about the power of this information connection to young people, I don’t think it should cause

panic in people my age. I don’t think we should begin trying to stop it and prevent it. We ought to figure out how
better to utilize it. You go back to the millennia; how were values passed around? Sitting around a fire, how were
values communicated? In the homes by parents and grandparents. Now, values are being communicated by the
internet, and we cannot stop it.

So let’s figure out how better to use it, participate in it, and particularly to focus on the needs of young people.
They’re often looking for information. They’re looking for answers. At least until now, in most cultures that I’m
aware of, despite all of the time that young people spend with technology, when they’re asked who do they look to
for guidance about values, they still say their families. But if families increasingly feel disconnected from theirhighly connected young people and don’t know what their young people are doing online, then we see the problems

that can result.

And there are so many manipulators online right now, not just stoking the anxieties and the fears of Muslim youth,
but youth everywhere, defined by all kinds of characteristics.

So we have our own work to do, not just through our government but through our families, through our educationsystems, and every other institution to make sure we understand the power of this technology and to engage withyoung people through it and about it.

MODERATOR: I see a lot of hands going up as you speak. Let’s try over here on the far right.

Yes, the young lady there.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. Bahgi Gilamichael with the Sullivan Foundation. And also,
thank you for inviting us to apply for grants. Now I’m interested in knowing what are the procedures, what is theagency we need to deal with, and if you have someone in the room we can follow up with on that? Thank you so

much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, in addition to our panel, we have a lot of the members of our team
who are working on these initiatives, and we can certainly connect up. If we invited you, we know how to find you.
So we will make sure you get information about all of these programs, the ones that already exist and the ones that

we’re rolling out.


MODERATOR: There’s no anonymity in this room. (Laughter.)

We have actually time for one more question, but I really would encourage you to stay for the panel that Anne-MarieSlaughter will chair on connection technologies and diplomacy immediately following. And I’m sure some of the
questions will get answered.

So let’s do one last question over here on the far left, down below here. Can we get a mike? Thank you.

QUESTION: Hello. Thank you so much. I appreciated your wonderful program speech. I’m Mary Perkins from
Howard University, and at Howard University, we – very much interested in particular aspects of the internet with
respect to the digital divide. Or – in your story about the young girl being pulled out of the rubble because of the text

message she was able to send brings to mind – the question in my mind, how many others could have been savedhad they had that technology?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.

QUESTION: And so we’re very interested in knowing, in terms of access, the – not only internet freedom but freeinternet for all, the universal service aspect, and what can be done, particularly right now for Haiti, with this.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as – thank you for that. As you know, that is a continuing issue for us and for
many countries around the world. We’re at 4 billion cell phones. And certainly, the cell phone is becoming the

principal tool of communication, both through the applications that are on it, through the texting that it enables. And
there are a lot of groups, NGOs, and even businesses that are passing out and providing cell phones at very low cost.
We just have to keep incentivizing and encouraging the technology to be as low cost as possible so it can be as
ubiquitous as possible.

But I think we’ve made enormous progress. Ten years ago, we talked a lot about the digital divide even in our own
country. We are overcoming it, but there are still questions of access, still questions of cost. Now, obviously, we haveto recognize that a lot of the search engines are run by for-profit companies. They’re not – it’s not going to be free.
But there are lots of ways of trying to encourage more universal access. And that’s part of the Obama
Administration’s overall policy on technology, not just the diplomatic and development aspects of it.

Thank you, Professor.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Madame Secretary. Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Alberto. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause)