The Two Policies of Digital Freedom

I'm lagging pretty far behind the news with this post because I've been busy with other things, but I think it's important and still worth writing.

Internet Freedom has been all over the news in the past couple months. Google uncovered a massive Chinese hacking operation that targeted at least 34 companies. Google, already frustrated by Chinese censorship, announced that this was a bridge too far and threatened to shut down its China operation entirely. The complex interplay between the corporate world, states, and national security issues has led Google into consultations with the State Department and now the NSA.

On January 21st, probably in response to the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered her Remarks on Internet Freedom. She struck directly at those states that try to curtail Internet freedom, comparing these censorship operations to the Berlin Wall:

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 ideas through 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."

Here in the Arab world, people aren't impressed by the speech; they're frustrated by US hypocrisy. Two issues have undermined US credibility. The first is the passage of Congressional Resolution 2278, which threatens to sanction Arab television stations inciting terrorism. The second is US laws which deny the populations in sanctioned countries access to key websites.

First, the Congressional Resolution. Marc Lynch covered this in-depth on January 25th. He writes that the resolution "is a perfect example of mindless grandstanding which pleases domestic audiences while hurting American interests in the Arab world." Nonetheless, the resolution passed by an overwhelming 395-3. I have no love for Hamas or Hizballah, but the way to defeat them isn't with intrusive government policies that seek to control information; that kind of policy is partly responsible for the intellectual stagnation in the Middle East in the first place. The best thing we can do is open up the intellectual marketplace, let people learn and grow, and trust that good ideas will win in the long run. I quote Marc Lynch again at length:

In short, H.R. 2278 is a deeply irresponsible bill which sharply contradicts American support for media freedom and could not be implemented in the Middle East today as crafted without causing great damage. Even Arab governments who despise Hamas and Hezbollah and Qaradawi and al-Jazeera could not sign on to it. Instead, such governments proposed a pan-Arab Media Commission which would monitor and regulate political content on satellite TV -- an idea which was floated in spring 2008, and mercifully failed. Fortunately, that proposal has again been shelved. The last thing the Arab world needs right now is more state power of censorship over the media -- whether the Arab League over satellite TV or the Jordanian government over the internet. Hillary Clinton just laid out a vision of an America committed to internet freedom, and that should be embraced as part of a broader commitment to free and open media. Nobody should be keen on restoring the power of authoritarian governments over one of the few zones of relative freedom which have evolved over the last decade.

I've seen this story pop up repeatedly over the past few weeks. The Arabic BBC debated the topic on a call-in talk show. Among the questions discussed was whether or not this meant Arab countries had the right to block US programming. The whole issue severely undermines the freedom agenda Secretary Clinton is trying to promote.

The second issue is the denial of access to US websites. ArabCrunch has been pushing this issue recently. According to its website, "The mission of ArabCrunch.NET is to help accelerate entrepreneurship and technology innovation in the Arab world by delivering an online social platform that connects participants of the technology ecosystem." The ArabCrunch Group supports an entire "Arab centric technology ecosystem." I'm very impressed by these guys and the work they are doing; this is exactly the kind of project the Arab world needs. I'm growing more and more convinced that the development of this region won't come from government initiatives or US foreign assistance; it will come from these motley crews of talented young Arabs who can sip some Arab coffee, push up their glasses, and write business plans or computer code. These guys are the future.

Unfortunately, they're mad--mad because at the same time Secretary Clinton delivered her speech, US laws are blocking access to crucial websites in sanctioned countries. Among these websites are LinkedIn (the Facebook of the professional business world), SourceForge, (the largest open source hosting website in the world), and code.google.com (another open source hosting website). ArabCrunch campaigning has restored partial access to some of these sites, but functionality is still curtailed. I sympathize with their frustrations; as a hobbyist programmer myself, I can't stress enough how important the open source software community is for developers. I use code from SourceForge and Google all the time. If we want to empower these guys to build the future of the Arab world, we need to open up the Internet--as Secretary Clinton said--not play a role in censoring it.