backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by CENGJINYIWEI.. on Jan 31 at 8:59 AM

Speech denounces countries that prevent the free flow of information to citizens

Americans and citizens of other free nations take many of our freedoms for granted. We can do and say what we want without fearing prison. We can get on the internet and get any information we want, even if other people don’t like it. In some countries, citizens can only access the information that their government wants them to see.

The most infamous country in the world for censoring what citizens can see online is China. China isn’t the lone country that censors access to information though; Tunisia and Uzbekistan both censor the internet, and Egypt has detained bloggers who disagree with the government before.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has denounced countries that use technology to prevent citizens from accessing information freely. Clinton delivered the speech on January 21 and outlined the five key freedoms of the internet age that will be used to help build U.S. policy.

Clinton's speech outlined the commitment of the U.S. to freedom of speech and worship online, the freedom to connect to the internet anywhere, and the freedom to live without fear of cyber attacks.

Clinton said, "Countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. 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."

She continued saying, "[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." Clinton added, "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."

The comments come after the U.S. asked China for an explanation for the cyber attacks against search giant Google and 30 other U.S. companies that were targeted in attacks that originated in China. Google has stated that it may consider leaving the Chinese market due to the attacks and the censorship of its search results required by the Chinese government.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: How ironic
By mindless1 on 1/23/2010 2:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
There is a good reason why women were taught to be subservient to their husbands. If there is a disagreement, it is a 1:1 tie vote, nothing can ever get accomplished unless one or the other is the leader.

Now, don't get me wrong in some relationships the women are the better leaders, but that is now with them acquiring leadership skills out in the workforce, you were speaking of how history influences the present and that is all I meant to reply to, BUT what happens today will eventually be considered history too, that changes the culture.

It is still the woman's decision in any reasonable society, whether to marry a man that will not defer to her judgment and question his own when there is an issue strongly disagreed upon, and vice-versa, it takes two to happily co-exist.

Short version: Cultures don't change overnight. China's doesn't either. Somebody has to lead and the rest have to follow. Let every individual have equal say in *everything* and you only have chaos.

So ultimately, Hilary's message didn't need to reach the people, it needed to impress upon their government what our stance is on the issue... a bit of peer pressure, at some point they won't be able to keep a straight face and think of themselves as modern and developed if they starve themselves of information.


RE: How ironic
By snyper256 on 1/23/2010 4:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
We don't need "leaders" and "followers", we are capable of greater understanding so that we can work together toward any common goal. This goes for anyone.

Everyone has intellect.


RE: How ironic
By mindless1 on 1/25/2010 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
False, and especially false when there are only two opposing votes.

THINK about it. Working together when there is difference in opinion still means one way or another, seldom is there some kind of 50% middle ground, only renegotiations and in those, there is still the necessity that either both parties agree, or one be the leader and the other the follower.

It doesn't matter if everyone has intellect but in fact, it is irrelevant because not everyone has equal intellect, not everyone has equal judgement, equal foresight, equal experience, equal risk, equal responsability, equal problem solving skills, equal income when it's a monetary matter,

... or if you like they could just flip a coin, good luck with that.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki