Kerry Says US Is On the "Right Side of History" When It Comes To Online Freedom 261
An anonymous reader writes "Addressing the audience at the Freedom Online Coalition Conference, Secretary of State John Kerry defended NSA snooping actions saying: 'Let me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy. And we all know this is a difficult challenge. But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad. As President Obama has made clear, just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do it. And that's why he ordered a thorough review of all our signals intelligence practices. And that's why he then, after examining it and debating it and openly engaging in a conversation about it, which is unlike most countries on the planet, he announced a set of concrete and meaningful reforms, including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are terrorists and others who are seeking to do injury to all of us. And finally, transparency – the principles governing such activities need to be understood so that free people can debate them and play their part in shaping these choices. And we believe these principles can positively help us to distinguish the legitimate practices of states governed by the rule of law from the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people. And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.' He added: 'This debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it. All of you at the Freedom Online Coalition are on the right side of this debate, and now we need to make sure that all of us together wind up on the right side of history."
Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
"I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes."
I don't even know where to begin with this one.
Don't worry. The internet will deal with this because there's money on the line, and the US should understand this. If you start with a base assumption everything is being recorded and monitored, then you can build systems that have protections against that designed in from the start. Math is awesome.
The outcome from this will be an even harder to stop internet. This may have be an unintended effect, but may end up being a net positive gain for personal liberty in the long run. History is full of reasons why this is a good thing, and why we must never lower our guard.
Interesting times.
Re:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:1, Interesting)
I just don't know what makes him think that the current administration is on the "respect freedom" side of things.
They are on the "respect freedom" side, its just that you're not. Hes talking to the 1% who count.
Re:Sure, I guess I agree (Score:2, Interesting)
2009 analysis pretty well predicting this mess:
http://www.imi-online.de/2009/01/01/imperial-geopolitics/
OK, so we're all pissed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now what? Are people going to engage in any kind of activism at all or vent on Slashdot? People simply don't give a crap about privacy and the polls show it. Everyone has the "hey, I'm not a terrorist so why should I care?" attitude.
I've been trying to maintain it for my own online experience and the tracking is insanely pervasive. I can't even create a YouTube account without giving out my phone number. I've actually written my representatives to complain about it, but I know I'm in a small, quiet minority in this country. I just get tired of reading all the incensed comments and articles about the loss of online privacy when it amounts to nothing more than another rant.
Re: Sure, I guess I agree (Score:4, Interesting)
Your knowledge of history is poor, but I'll agree that the motives of domestic policy are sincerely suspect. These values are NOT what my ancestors fought for, however, and so this is a change.
We were once tribes and warriors, and now instead of multiple gruesome battlefields, executive play war conquering each other and us on a battlefield called Greed Capitalism.
In the old days, people who played at war died on the battlefield. That was a good thing, because we're better off with such men dead. The problem with modern warfare is that they come home alive. In an ideal war, both sides slaughter each other and the last man standing dies of his wounds before he makes it home.