AllThingsD » track

Will Secretary of State Clinton's "Internet Freedom Agenda" Finally Get Traction?

Kara Swisher — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:09:55 +0000

Yesterday, in a major policy speech in Washington, D.C., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jumped on the Internet bandwagon again, unveiling a $25 million government investment for entrepreneurs to allow dissidents to thwart “thugs, hackers and censors.”

Since that’s about the amount a third-string social photo-sharing site gets while walking down University Avenue in Palo Alto, Calif., from venture capitalists with bags of money to spend, let me just say the money is, well, underwhelming.

Luckily, Clinton’s speech–the latest chapter of the Obama administration’s “Internet Freedom Agenda”–was much better.

In fact, it was a sobering look at the situation, replete with all its conflicts and compromises, including some related to the State Department of late (hello, WikiLeaks!).

While more of a gimmick, Clinton outlined what she called a “venture capital-style approach” to stopping governments from closing down digital communications platforms.

In Egypt, that has included the whole dang Internet after times got tough and protesters tweeted too much.

Even still, said Clinton, such efforts–however effective now–were ultimately useless.

“Those who clamp down on Internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever,” she said.

Still, even though Facebook and Twitter have been lauded as critical tools in the reform protests in the Mideast, those Luddite strongmen did manage to put up a very good fight in shutting them down.

But Clinton advocated pressing on. Along with the seed funding for firewall-piercing and evading technologies, she also announced the creation of a new coordinator for cyber issues and the fact that the State Department had just begun to tweet in Arabic and Farsi and would soon be doing so in Chinese, Hindi and Russian.

All very nice steps, but the overall arrival of the long-promised global “strategy for cyberspace,” which has gotten bogged down in politics, is still to come.

In fact, a GOP-fueled criticism of the State Department was also released yesterday, designed to muck up Clinton’s speech, about how another $30 million in digital investments was being spent or, more precisely, being spent badly.

Clinton answered critics:

“Some have criticized us for not pouring funding into a single technology–but there is no silver bullet in the struggle against Internet repression. There’s no ‘app’ for that.”

Well, actually, since there is an app that turns your Apple iPhone into a hand massager, there certainly should be.

Speaking of that, Clinton was deft at dealing with the obvious delta between pressing for Internet freedom, even as U.S. government lawyers were whacking away at WikiLeaks–and, by association, Twitter itself.

Clinton noted the release of a mass of classified State Department documents “began with an act of theft,” arguing that this was the real issue.

She went on to further argue:

“I said that the WikiLeaks incident began with a theft, just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that WikiLeaks used the Internet is not the reason we criticized its actions. WikiLeaks does not challenge our commitment to Internet freedom.”

Actually, the issue is that the Internet, once it really gets going, doesn’t really want to be controlled by anyone.

Kind of like humanity.

Or as Clinton so correctly noted about the various protests taking place abroad:

“In each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The Internet did not do any of those things; people did.”

In any case, judge for yourself: Here’s the video of the speech at George Washington University from the State Department’s Web site, as well as the full text below:

Thank you all very much and good afternoon. It is a pleasure, once again, to be back on the campus of the George Washington University, a place that I have spent quite a bit of time in all different settings over the last now nearly 20 years. I’d like especially to thank President Knapp and Provost Lerman, because this is a great opportunity for me to address such a significant issue, and one which deserves the attention of citizens, governments, and I know is drawing that attention. And perhaps today in my remarks, we can begin a much more vigorous debate that will respond to the needs that we have been watching in real time on our television sets.

A few minutes after midnight on January 28th, the Internet went dark across Egypt. During the previous four days, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians had marched to demand a new government. And the world, on TVs, laptops, cell phones, and smart phones, had followed every single step. Pictures and videos from Egypt flooded the web. On Facebook and Twitter, journalists posted on-the-spot reports. Protestors coordinated their next moves. And citizens of all stripes shared their hopes and fears about this pivotal moment in the history of their country.

Millions worldwide answered in real time, “You are not alone and we are with you.” Then the government pulled the plug. Cell phone service was cut off, TV satellite signals were jammed, and Internet access was blocked for nearly the entire population. The government did not want the people to communicate with each other and it did not want the press to communicate with the public. It certainly did not want the world to watch.

The events in Egypt recalled another protest movement 18 months earlier in Iran, when thousands marched after disputed elections. Their protestors also used websites to organize. A video taken by cell phone showed a young woman named Neda killed by a member of the paramilitary forces, and within hours, that video was being watched by people everywhere.

The Iranian authorities used technology as well. The Revolutionary Guard stalked members of the Green Movement by tracking their online profiles. And like Egypt, for a time, the government shut down the internet and mobile networks altogether. After the authorities raided homes, attacked university dorms, made mass arrests, tortured and fired shots into crowds, the protests ended.

In Egypt, however, the story ended differently. The protests continued despite the internet shutdown. People organized marches through flyers and word of mouth and used dial-up modems and fax machines to communicate with the world. After five days, the government relented and Egypt came back online. The authorities then sought to use the Internet to control the protests by ordering mobile companies to send out pro-government text messages, and by arresting bloggers and those who organized the protests online. But 18 days after the protests began, the government failed and the president resigned.

What happened in Egypt and what happened in Iran, which this week is once again using violence against protestors seeking basic freedoms, was about a great deal more than the internet. In each case, people protested because of deep frustrations with the political and economic conditions of their lives. They stood and marched and chanted and the authorities tracked and blocked and arrested them. The Internet did not do any of those things; people did. In both of these countries, the ways that citizens and the authorities used the Internet reflected the power of connection technologies on the one hand as an accelerant of political, social, and economic change, and on the other hand as a means to stifle or extinguish that change.

There is a debate currently underway in some circles about whether the Internet is a force for liberation or repression. But I think that debate is largely beside the point. Egypt isn’t inspiring people because they communicated using Twitter. It is inspiring because people came together and persisted in demanding a better future. Iran isn’t awful because the authorities used Facebook to shadow and capture members of the opposition. Iran is awful because it is a government that routinely violates the rights of its people.

So it is our values that cause these actions to inspire or outrage us, our sense of human dignity, the rights that flow from it, and the principles that ground it. And it is these values that ought to drive us to think about the road ahead. Two billion people are now online, nearly a third of humankind. We hail from every corner of the world, live under every form of government, and subscribe to every system of beliefs. And increasingly, we are turning to the Internet to conduct important aspects of our lives.

The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century–the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting. And that presents a challenge. To maintain an Internet that delivers the greatest possible benefits to the world, we need to have a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us, what rules exist and should not exist and why, what behaviors should be encouraged or discouraged and how.

The goal is not to tell people how to use the Internet any more than we ought to tell people how to use any public square, whether it’s Tahrir Square or Times Square. The value of these spaces derives from the variety of activities people can pursue in them, from holding a rally to selling their vegetables, to having a private conversation. These spaces provide an open platform, and so does the Internet. It does not serve any particular agenda, and it never should. But if people around the world are going come together every day online and have a safe and productive experience, we need a shared vision to guide us.

One year ago, I offered a starting point for that vision by calling for a global commitment to Internet freedom, to protect human rights online as we do offline. The rights of individuals to express their views freely, petition their leaders, worship according to their beliefs–these rights are universal, whether they are exercised in a public square or on an individual blog. The freedoms to assemble and associate also apply in cyberspace. In our time, people are as likely to come together to pursue common interests online as in a church or a labor hall.

Together, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online comprise what I’ve called the freedom to connect. The United States supports this freedom for people everywhere, and we have called on other nations to do the same. Because we want people to have the chance to exercise this freedom. We also support expanding the number of people who have access to the Internet. And because the Internet must work evenly and reliably for it to have value, we support the multi-stakeholder system that governs the internet today, which has consistently kept it up and running through all manner of interruptions across networks, borders, and regions.

In the year since my speech, people worldwide have continued to use the Internet to solve shared problems and expose public corruption, from the people in Russia who tracked wildfires online and organized a volunteer firefighting squad, to the children in Syria who used Facebook to reveal abuse by their teachers, to the Internet campaign in China that helps parents find their missing children.

At the same time, the Internet continues to be restrained in a myriad of ways. In China, the government censors content and redirects search requests to error pages. In Burma, independent news sites have been taken down with distributed denial of service attacks. In Cuba, the government is trying to create a national intranet, while not allowing their citizens to access the global internet. In Vietnam, bloggers who criticize the government are arrested and abused. In Iran, the authorities block opposition and media websites, target social media, and steal identifying information about their own people in order to hunt them down.

These actions reflect a landscape that is complex and combustible, and sure to become more so in the coming years as billions of more people connect to the Internet. The choices we make today will determine what the Internet looks like in the future. Businesses have to choose whether and how to enter markets where internet freedom is limited. People have to choose how to act online, what information to share and with whom, which ideas to voice and how to voice them. Governments have to choose to live up to their commitments to protect free expression, assembly, and association.

For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. Now, we recognize that an open Internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And Internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But we believe the benefits far exceed the costs.

And today, I’d like to discuss several of the challenges we must confront as we seek to protect and defend a free and open Internet. Now, I’m the first to say that neither I nor the United States Government has all the answers. We’re not sure we have all the questions. But we are committed to asking the questions, to helping lead a conversation, and to defending not just universal principles but the interests of our people and our partners.

The first challenge is achieving both liberty and security. Liberty and security are often presented as equal and opposite; the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. In fact, I believe they make it each other possible. Without security, liberty is fragile. Without liberty, security is oppressive. The challenge is finding the proper measure: enough security to enable our freedoms, but not so much or so little as to endanger them.

Finding this proper measure for the Internet is critical because the qualities that make the internet a force for unprecedented progress–its openness, its leveling effect, its reach and speed–also enable wrongdoing on an unprecedented scale. Terrorists and extremist groups use the Internet to recruit members, and plot and carry out attacks. Human traffickers use the Internet to find and lure new victims into modern-day slavery. Child pornographers use the Internet to exploit children. Hackers break into financial institutions, cell phone networks, and personal email accounts.

So we need successful strategies for combating these threats and more without constricting the openness that is the Internet’s greatest attribute. The United States is aggressively tracking and deterring criminals and terrorists online. We are investing in our nation’s cyber-security, both to prevent cyber-incidents and to lessen their impact. We are cooperating with other countries to fight transnational crime in cyberspace. The United States Government invests in helping other nations build their own law enforcement capacity. We have also ratified the Budapest Cybercrime Convention, which sets out the steps countries must take to ensure that the internet is not misused by criminals and terrorists while still protecting the liberties of our own citizens.

In our vigorous effort to prevent attacks or apprehend criminals, we retain a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United States is determined to stop terrorism and criminal activity online and offline, and in both spheres we are committed to pursuing these goals in accordance with our laws and values.

Now, others have taken a different approach. Security is often invoked as a justification for harsh crackdowns on freedom. Now, this tactic is not new to the digital age, but it has new resonance as the internet has given governments new capacities for tracking and punishing human rights advocates and political dissidents. Governments that arrest bloggers, pry into the peaceful activities of their citizens, and limit their access to the Internet may claim to be seeking security. In fact, they may even mean it as they define it. But they are taking the wrong path. Those who clamp down on Internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their people’s yearnings for a while, but not forever.

The second challenge is protecting both transparency and confidentiality. The Internet’s strong culture of transparency derives from its power to make information of all kinds available instantly. But in addition to being a public space, the Internet is also a channel for private communications. And for that to continue, there must be protection for confidential communication online. Think of all the ways in which people and organizations rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. Businesses hold confidential conversations when they’re developing new products to stay ahead of their competitors. Journalists keep the details of some sources confidential to protect them from exposure or retribution. And governments also rely on confidential communication online as well as offline. The existence of connection technologies may make it harder to maintain confidentiality, but it does not alter the need for it.

Now, I know that government confidentiality has been a topic of debate during the past few months because of WikiLeaks, but it’s been a false debate in many ways. Fundamentally, the WikiLeaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase. Some have suggested that this theft was justified because governments have a responsibility to conduct all of our work out in the open in the full view of our citizens. I respectfully disagree. The United States could neither provide for our citizens’ security nor promote the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our efforts. Confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise.

Consider our work with former Soviet states to secure loose nuclear material. By keeping the details confidential, we make it less likely that terrorists or criminals will find the nuclear material and steal it for their own purposes. Or consider the content of the documents that WikiLeaks made public. Without commenting on the authenticity of any particular documents, we can observe that many of the cables released by WikiLeaks relate to human rights work carried on around the world. Our diplomats closely collaborate with activists, journalists, and citizens to challenge the misdeeds of oppressive governments. It is dangerous work. By publishing diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks exposed people to even greater risk.

For operations like these, confidentiality is essential, especially in the Internet age when dangerous information can be sent around the world with the click of a keystroke. But of course, governments also have a duty to be transparent. We govern with the consent of the people, and that consent must be informed to be meaningful. So we must be judicious about when we close off our work to the public, and we must review our standards frequently to make sure they are rigorous. In the United States, we have laws designed to ensure that the government makes its work open to the people, and the Obama Administration has also launched an unprecedented initiative to put government data online, to encourage citizen participation, and to generally increase the openness of government.

The U.S. Government’s ability to protect America, to secure the liberties of our people, and to support the rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what’s public and what should and must remain out of the public domain. The scale should and will always be tipped in favor of openness, but tipping the scale over completely serves no one’s interests. Let me be clear. I said that the WikiLeaks incident began with a theft, just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that WikiLeaks used the Internet is not the reason we criticized its actions. WikiLeaks does not challenge our commitment to Internet freedom.

And one final word on this matter: There were reports in the days following these leaks that the United States Government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to WikiLeaks. That is not the case. Now, some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to disassociate from WikiLeaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our country’s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct. Business decisions that private companies may have taken to enforce their own values or policies regarding WikiLeaks were not at the direction of the Obama Administration.

A third challenge is protecting free expression while fostering tolerance and civility. I don’t need to tell this audience that the Internet is home to every kind of speech–false, offensive, incendiary, innovative, truthful, and beautiful.

The multitude of opinions and ideas that crowd the Internet is both a result of its openness and a reflection of our human diversity. Online, everyone has a voice. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the freedom of expression for all. But what we say has consequences. Hateful or defamatory words can inflame hostilities, deepen divisions, and provoke violence. On the Internet, this power is heightened. Intolerant speech is often amplified and impossible to retract. Of course, the Internet also provides a unique space for people to bridge their differences and build trust and understanding.

Some take the view that, to encourage tolerance, some hateful ideas must be silenced by governments. We believe that efforts to curb the content of speech rarely succeed and often become an excuse to violate freedom of expression. Instead, as it has historically been proven time and time again, the better answer to offensive speech is more speech. People can and should speak out against intolerance and hatred. By exposing ideas to debate, those with merit tend to be strengthened, while weak and false ideas tend to fade away; perhaps not instantly, but eventually.

Now, this approach does not immediately discredit every hateful idea or convince every bigot to reverse his thinking. But we have determined as a society that it is far more effective than any other alternative approach. Deleting writing, blocking content, arresting speakers–these actions suppress words, but they do not touch the underlying ideas. They simply drive people with those ideas to the fringes, where their convictions can deepen, unchallenged.

Last summer, Hannah Rosenthal, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, made a trip to Dachau and Auschwitz with a delegation of American imams and Muslim leaders. Many of them had previously denied the Holocaust, and none of them had ever denounced Holocaust denial. But by visiting the concentration camps, they displayed a willingness to consider a different view. And the trip had a real impact. They prayed together, and they signed messages of peace, and many of those messages in the visitors books were written in Arabic. At the end of the trip, they read a statement that they wrote and signed together condemning without reservation Holocaust denial and all other forms of anti-Semitism.

The marketplace of ideas worked. Now, these leaders had not been arrested for their previous stance or ordered to remain silent. Their mosques were not shut down. The state did not compel them with force. Others appealed to them with facts. And their speech was dealt with through the speech of others.

The United States does restrict certain kinds of speech in accordance with the rule of law and our international obligations. We have rules about libel and slander, defamation, and speech that incites imminent violence. But we enforce these rules transparently, and citizens have the right to appeal how they are applied. And we don’t restrict speech even if the majority of people find it offensive. History, after all, is full of examples of ideas that were banned for reasons that we now see as wrong. People were punished for denying the divine right of kings, or suggesting that people should be treated equally regardless of race, gender, or religion. These restrictions might have reflected the dominant view at the time, and variations on these restrictions are still in force in places around the world.

But when it comes to online speech, the United States has chosen not to depart from our time-tested principles. We urge our people to speak with civility, to recognize the power and reach that their words can have online. We’ve seen in our own country tragic examples of how online bullying can have terrible consequences. Those of us in government should lead by example, in the tone we set and the ideas we champion. But leadership also means empowering people to make their own choices, rather than intervening and taking those choices away. We protect free speech with the force of law, and we appeal to the force of reason to win out over hate.

Now, these three large principles are not always easy to advance at once. They raise tensions, and they pose challenges. But we do not have to choose among them. Liberty and security, transparency and confidentiality, freedom of expression and tolerance–these all make up the foundation of a free, open, and secure society as well as a free, open, and secure internet where universal human rights are respected, and which provides a space for greater progress and prosperity over the long run.

Now, some countries are trying a different approach, abridging rights online and working to erect permanent walls between different activities–economic exchanges, political discussions, religious expressions, and social interactions. They want to keep what they like and suppress what they don’t. But this is no easy task. Search engines connect businesses to new customers, and they also attract users because they deliver and organize news and information. Social networking sites aren’t only places where friends share photos; they also share political views and build support for social causes or reach out to professional contacts to collaborate on new business opportunities.

Walls that divide the Internet, that block political content, or ban broad categories of expression, or allow certain forms of peaceful assembly but prohibit others, or intimidate people from expressing their ideas are far easier to erect than to maintain. Not just because people using human ingenuity find ways around them and through them but because there isn’t an economic Internet and a social Internet and a political Internet; there’s just the Internet. And maintaining barriers that attempt to change this reality entails a variety of costs–moral, political, and economic. Countries may be able to absorb these costs for a time, but we believe they are unsustainable in the long run. There are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression–costs to a nation’s education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential.

When countries curtail Internet freedom, they place limits on their economic future. Their young people don’t have full access to the conversations and debates happening in the world or exposure to the kind of free inquiry that spurs people to question old ways of doing and invent new ones. And barring criticism of officials makes governments more susceptible to corruption, which create economic distortions with long-term effects. Freedom of thought and the level playing field made possible by the rule of law are part of what fuels innovation economies.

So it;s not surprising that the European-American Business Council, a group of more than 70 companies, made a strong public support statement last week for Internet freedom. If you invest in countries with aggressive censorship and surveillance policies, your website could be shut down without warning, your servers hacked by the government, your designs stolen, or your staff threatened with arrest or expulsion for failing to comply with a politically motivated order. The risks to your bottom line and to your integrity will at some point outweigh the potential rewards, especially if there are market opportunities elsewhere.

Now, some have pointed to a few countries, particularly China, that appears to stand out as an exception, a place where Internet censorship is high and economic growth is strong. Clearly, many businesses are willing to endure restrictive internet policies to gain access to those markets, and in the short term, even perhaps in the medium term, those governments may succeed in maintaining a segmented internet. But those restrictions will have long-term costs that threaten one day to become a noose that restrains growth and development.

There are political costs as well. Consider Tunisia, where online economic activity was an important part of the country’s ties with Europe while online censorship was on par with China and Iran, the effort to divide the economic internet from the “everything else” Internet in Tunisia could not be sustained. People, especially young people, found ways to use connection technologies to organize and share grievances, which, as we know, helped fuel a movement that led to revolutionary change. In Syria, too, the government is trying to negotiate a non-negotiable contradiction. Just last week, it lifted a ban on Facebook and YouTube for the first time in three years, and yesterday they convicted a teenage girl of espionage and sentenced her to five years in prison for the political opinions she expressed on her blog.

This, too, is unsustainable. The demand for access to platforms of expression cannot be satisfied when using them lands you in prison. We believe that governments who have erected barriers to Internet freedom, whether they’re technical filters or censorship regimes or attacks on those who exercise their rights to expression and assembly online, will eventually find themselves boxed in. They will face a dictator’s dilemma and will have to choose between letting the walls fall or paying the price to keep them standing, which means both doubling down on a losing hand by resorting to greater oppression and enduring the escalating opportunity cost of missing out on the ideas that have been blocked and people who have been disappeared.

I urge countries everywhere instead to join us in the bet we have made, a bet that an open internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries. At its core, it’s an extension of the bet that the United States has been making for more than 200 years, that open societies give rise to the most lasting progress, that the rule of law is the firmest foundation for justice and peace, and that innovation thrives where ideas of all kinds are aired and explored. This is not a bet on computers or mobile phones. It’s a bet on people. We’re confident that together with those partners in government and people around the world who are making the same bet by hewing to universal rights that underpin open societies, we’ll preserve the internet as an open space for all. And that will pay long-term gains for our shared progress and prosperity. The United States will continue to promote an Internet where people’s rights are protected and that it is open to innovation, interoperable all over the world, secure enough to hold people’s trust, and reliable enough to support their work.

In the past year, we have welcomed the emergence of a global coalition of countries, businesses, civil society groups, and digital activists seeking to advance these goals. We have found strong partners in several governments worldwide, and we’ve been encouraged by the work of the Global Network Initiative, which brings together companies, academics, and NGOs to work together to solve the challenges we are facing, like how to handle government requests for censorship or how to decide whether to sell technologies that could be used to violate rights or how to handle privacy issues in the context of cloud computing. We need strong corporate partners that have made principled, meaningful commitments to internet freedom as we work together to advance this common cause.

We realize that in order to be meaningful, online freedoms must carry over into real-world activism. That’s why we are working through our Civil Society 2.0 initiative to connect NGOs and advocates with technology and training that will magnify their impact. We are also committed to continuing our conversation with people everywhere around the world. Last week, you may have heard, we launched Twitter feeds in Arabic and Farsi, adding to the ones we already have in French and Spanish. We’ll start similar ones in Chinese, Russian, and Hindi. This is enabling us to have real-time, two-way conversations with people wherever there is a connection that governments do not block.

Our commitment to internet freedom is a commitment to the rights of people, and we are matching that with our actions. Monitoring and responding to threats to internet freedom has become part of the daily work of our diplomats and development experts. They are working to advance internet freedom on the ground at our embassies and missions around the world. The United States continues to help people in oppressive internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers, and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online.

While the rights we seek to protect and support are clear, the various ways that these rights are violated are increasingly complex. I know some have criticized us for not pouring funding into a single technology, but we believe there is no silver bullet in the struggle against internet repression. There’s no app for that. Start working, those of you out there. And accordingly, we are taking a comprehensive and innovative approach, one that matches our diplomacy with technology, secure distribution networks for tools, and direct support for those on the front lines.

In the last three years, we have awarded more than $20 million in competitive grants through an open process, including interagency evaluation by technical and policy experts to support a burgeoning group of technologists and activists working at the cutting edge of the fight against internet repression. This year, we will award more than $25 million in additional funding. We are taking a venture capital-style approach, supporting a portfolio of technologies, tools, and training, and adapting as more users shift to mobile devices. We have our ear to the ground, talking to digital activists about where they need help, and our diversified approach means we’re able to adapt the range of threats that they face. We support multiple tools, so if repressive governments figure out how to target one, others are available. And we invest in the cutting edge because we know that repressive governments are constantly innovating their methods of oppression and we intend to stay ahead of them.

Likewise, we are leading the push to strengthen cyber security and online innovation, building capacity in developing countries, championing open and interoperable standards and enhancing international cooperation to respond to cyber threats. Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn gave a speech on this issue just yesterday. All these efforts build on a decade of work to sustain an Internet that is open, secure, and reliable. And in the coming year, the Administration will complete an international strategy for cyberspace, charting the course to continue this work into the future.

This is a foreign policy priority for us, one that will only increase in importance in the coming years. That’s why I’ve created the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, to enhance our work on cyber security and other issues and facilitate cooperation across the State Department and with other government agencies. I’ve named Christopher Painter, formerly senior director for cyber security at the National Security Council and a leader in the field for 20 years, to head this new office.

The dramatic increase in internet users during the past 10 years has been remarkable to witness. But that was just the opening act. In the next 20 years, nearly 5 billion people will join the network. It is those users who will decide the future.

So we are playing for the long game. Unlike much of what happens online, progress on this front will be measured in years, not seconds. The course we chart today will determine whether those who follow us will get the chance to experience the freedom, security, and prosperity of an open Internet.

As we look ahead, let us remember that Internet freedom isn’t about any one particular activity online. It’s about ensuring that the Internet remains a space where activities of all kinds can take place, from grand, ground-breaking, historic campaigns to the small, ordinary acts that people engage in every day.

We want to keep the Iternet open for the protestor using social media to organize a march in Egypt; the college student emailing her family photos of her semester abroad; the lawyer in Vietnam blogging to expose corruption; the teenager in the United States who is bullied and finds words of support online; for the small business owner in Kenya using mobile banking to manage her profits; the philosopher in China reading academic journals for her dissertation; the scientist in Brazil sharing data in real time with colleagues overseas; and the billions and billions of interactions with the Internet every single day as people communicate with loved ones, follow the news, do their jobs, and participate in the debates shaping their world.

Internet freedom is about defending the space in which all these things occur so that it remains not just for the students here today, but your successors and all who come after you. This is one of the grand challenges of our time. We are engaged in a vigorous effort against those who we have always stood against, who wish to stifle and repress, to come forward with their version of reality and to accept none other. We enlist your help on behalf of this struggle. It’s a struggle for human rights, it’s a struggle for human freedom, and it’s a struggle for human dignity.

Thank you all very much.

One Down: Spotify Signs Sony to U.S. Deal

Peter Kafka — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:18:03 +0000

This doesn’t get them into the States, but it gets them a lot closer: Music service Spotify has finally signed with Sony for a U.S. distribution deal. Multiple sources tell me the deal, which has been very close since last fall, is now closed.

I’m told the terms call for a U.S. service that more or less mirrors the one Spotify offers in Europe: A certain number of hours per month of free streaming music, with the ability to pay for an ad-free version, or a more popular one that lets users listen on mobile devices like Apple’s iPhone.

Both Spotify and Sony declined to comment.

The deal doesn’t mean a U.S. launch is imminent for the service, which has been trying to make the leap from Europe for a couple of years, and which missed a self-imposed deadline to make it over in 2010. In order to make a credible offer to U.S. customers, it will need at least two of the three other big music labels to sign on.

And practically, at least one of those labels has to be Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, the world’s biggest music label. So Spotify will need to hammer out a deal with UMG and either Warner Music Group or EMI before we can start talking about a U.S. launch date.

The New York Post reported last week that Spotify was close to a Sony deal.

What’s taking Spotify so long to land in the U.S.? Depends on whom you ask.

Some industry sources tell me the big music labels are genuinely worried that Spotify’s free streaming service will increase the decline of CD sales, which have been dropping for a decade, but still make up the majority of the labels’ revenue.

Others have a more cynical take, though it’s not mutually exclusive: The labels, which have already licensed Spotify in Europe, simply want more cash from the company before they do an American deal. There is also muttering that the labels don’t want to upset Apple, which sells tunes on a track-by-track basis via its iTunes store and dominates the market for digital music.

It’s also unclear how close Spotify is to more label deals. Executives at the service have long been hopeful that getting one deal done would convince the other labels to join up. On the other hand, you could argue that it gives the holdouts that much more leverage.

And in any case, even if Spotify signed two more labels tomorrow, it would still take the company some time to cross the Atlantic, as it prepares a marketing campaign, etc.

It might also be nice for the company to have a new slug of cash on hand, something it would have if it goes through with fundraising talks it has been holding recently.

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek talked to me about some of these issues, in a general and noncommittal way, at our D: Dive Into Mobile conference last month. You can see an abbreviated version of our chat below, or you can watch the whole thing here.

[ See post to watch video ]

Early Adopter: The Daytum iPhone App Visualizes Your Life (and Lunch) as Data

Drake Martinet — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:03:40 +0000

For data nerds everywhere, the pinnacle of numerical navel-gazing has, at least since 2005, been Nicholas Felton’s beautifully designed “Annual Reports” on the numbers behind his personal behavior.

He has meticulously recorded, quantified, analyzed and laid out all manner of data from his life in a series that riffs on the annual reports that businesses issue to their shareholders.

Instead of earnings and capital expenditure statements, Felton’s reports are full of numbers like cost-per-mile-run at the gym and how many hours he worked from home versus office.

And now, of course, there’s an app for that.

Daytum, the name under which Felton and his co-creator Ryan Case have released what is essentially a consumer-focused designers’ portfolio project, previously existed only as a Web app to help users track and organize the everyday data of their lives.

The Apple iPhone version, released on New Year’s Eve, puts the sans-serif-chic data collection interface into your pocket and out into the world, where life’s data actually happens.

So, what is it good for?

Felton and Case hope that the app, plus a forthcoming API to their Daytum Web application, will enable more people to see their own data in a new way.

The app is designed to help you begin tagging the pieces of data that you’d like to track.

There’s no automated input. Just tap the screen to create a category of data you are interested in tracking.

Add the category “Lunch” and then set up some recurring fields under lunch. “Sandwich,” for example.

Then, anytime you eat a sandwich, or anything else, for lunch, you can quickly mark it down.

The app allows you to add data points as they happen, even if you don’t have an Internet connection right then.

How else would you track how much money you give to subway musicians each month?

So, we ask again, what’s it good for?

Whether or not you ate a sandwich today, Felton admitted, is not all that interesting. He claims the data of life becomes more compelling in the aggregate.

Maybe you’d like to know how many miles you walked this month, or how your mood correlated with the weather, or if you or your partner changed more diapers this year.

It might not seem like groundbreaking stuff, but the data of a life starts to tell a story when laid out, clean and collected, in Felton’s various visualizations.

Felton said that data’s value comes on may levels.

“It helps you see and share all kinds of stuff about your life–it can be really interesting to people who know you,” he said.

Digitizing the human analog data of the world is certainly a growth area in tech.

Tools have emerged to find out when users are awake via their tweets, there has been major growth in mobile purchase tracking and patents are being awarded to companies that offer deals based on where a person goes.

If the renaissance of this arena is still years off, it might be the perfect time to try to get ahead of the curve and tap the brains of people who are already thinking like it’s 2015.

Felton has spent the last half-decade staring at and organizing his own data and, more recently, the data of others via Daytum.

I asked him what wisdom he might have gained from his unusual pursuit.

“People seem to record binary items really well–things like one drink, or watching one TV show,” he said. “Recording gets harder and less regular when it’s things without a set size or quantity, like when they ate a meal.”

When I asked if he felt suspicious of the businesses that were gathering his data, he came back with something a little deeper.

“I think the walling up of data by businesses is really a missed opportunity, not cause for suspicion,” he said. “Someone knows how long it has been since I called my mother, but I can’t be certain. That information could be valuable to me.”

He added: “Businesses seem to be stuck on the idea of loyalty rewards being about points.”

For Felton, data can be its own reward.

His next data-driven project might bring the whole idea home.

Felton’s father passed away in September, and he’s decided to postpone his 2010 report for something larger and more personal.

So, he will release a single report on all of his father’s 81 years based on data gathered from years of slides, travel postcards, “FasTrak” auto toll payments and myriad other sources.

“I have gotten to know things about him that I never knew while he was alive,” he said. “I’ve learned that he was much better at maths and sciences than English back in school. I can actually quantify that.”

But the question on the minds of so many emerging data-driven businesses is: How well can we know people, our users and consumers based on their data?

Finding that answer seems to be Felton’s personal mission. And in the spirit of his other reports, he will share it, and the tools he uses to find it, with the world.

Still not convinced of what it’s all good for? We’ll let him explain for himself in this video interview:

[ See post to watch video ]

(Early Adopter is a new column on early-stage start-ups and ideas that will be written weekly by Drake Martinet.)

Wishing You a Jazzy Christmas

Arik Hesseldahl — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 21:51:34 +0000

I’m signing off for the day and will be back on Tuesday. Until then, I thought I’d leave you with a brief musical Christmas card, courtesy Grooveshark, with a track from one of the few Christmas albums I actually like, as a nice complement to tracking Santa’s progress around the world.

Hope you have a happy one.

D: Dive Into Mobile: The Full Interview Video of Spotify's Daniel Ek

Kara Swisher — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:05:59 +0000

As promised, All Things Digital will be publishing the full videos of the interviews we did last week at our D: Dive Into Mobile conference in San Francisco.

The first extension of the event, it produced some very newsy sessions. We’ll be posting them all this week and next.

And today, here’s Spotify’s Daniel Ek (pictured here) singing for his supper.

Well, not in the U.S. as yet, where the Swedish CEO and co-founder of the innovative streaming music service has not been able to make good on his promise to strike deals with music labels, which fear the popularity of Spotify could cut back on sales of CDs and digital downloads.

In Europe, the popular service offers unlimited tracks for free, or users can subscribe for an advertising-free version.

Ek talks about all this and more in his interview with MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka.

Here’s the video:

[ See post to watch video ]

Next up: Flipboard’s Mike McCue (who just joined the Twitter board).

What Privacy Problem? Web Ad Targeter Media6Degrees Raises $17 Million

Peter Kafka — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 05:00:45 +0000

One way to gauge what’s really going on with privacy and Web advertising: Follow the money. If investors really think privacy problems are going to weigh the industry down, it’s going to be a lot harder to get checks out of them.

So use that context to think about this news: Media6Degrees, a behavioral advertising technology start-up, has raised a $17 million funding round led by Menlo Ventures.

Earlier investors U.S. Venture Partners and Venrock, which had helped the 2-year-old company raise another $12 million before the new B round, are re-upping.

The money is targeted for general expansion, not M&A, says CEO Tom Phillips, who joined the company in 2009 after a three-year stint at Google.

Phillips says his company will end up booking $20 million in revenue in 2010. And he says that by Q4 it had ramped up to a $30 million annual run rate–that is, it will do about $7.5 million in the last three months of the year.

Media6 describes what it does as “Social Targeting,” which sounds as if it’s trying to find links between your various social networks. But the company’s work has nothing to do with your Facebook or Twitter profiles. While it doesn’t like the term “behavioral targeting,” that’s essentially what it’s doing.

In a nutshell, Media6 Web marketers track the surfing behavior of their existing customers, then try to find similar behavior patterns–a matching “social signature”–for other surfers, so they can show them ads.

Depending on your perspective, that’s either creepy or a common-sense strategy to help advertisers spend their money more efficiently. If it does weird you out, you can go ahead and opt out. But Phillips and his company would like you to know that the company never tracks individuals–only their anonymized browsers.

Still don’t want any part of this stuff? In theory, companies like Media6 will be in trouble if lots of surfers really do start opting out of data collection. They can do that by telling individual Web sites and ad networks not to track them–or, more ominously, by using browsers with “do not track” filters built into them.

But we’re a very long way from that kind of change. And the start-up’s investors seem to be betting that it’s never going to come.

House Committee Asks Professor to Censor Facebook Remarks

Jennifer Valentino-DeVries — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 08:00:07 +0000

In an unusual move, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection asked a Columbia University Law School professor to censor his remarks in a hearing about online privacy legislation.

“We as members of Congress are never inclined to censor testimony in open congressional hearings,” Rep. Zachary Space, an Ohio Democrat, said when introducing the professor, Eben Moglen. “But Congress tries to foster highest level of decorum. I would ask you to avoid personal attacks against any companies or company employees.”

The hearing focused on the possibility of legislation requiring data companies and Web browser makers to provide a “do not track” tool allowing people to opt out of having their Web surfing tracked.

In written remarks submitted before the hearing, Mr. Moglen did not mention “do not track” but talked generally about online privacy. He criticized Facebook Inc. extensively, describing the social networking site’s privacy settings as “mere deception.” Facebook “has uncontrolled access to everybody’s data, regardless of the so-called ‘privacy settings,’” he wrote.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Xbox Kinect: Just How Controlling Can a Body Be?

Katherine Boehret — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:26:29 +0000

This holiday season, the war against couch potatoes wages on with Microsoft’s Xbox Kinect, the latest in motion-sensing video-game consoles. While the Nintendo Wii and Sony PlayStation Move encourage people to stand and play games using familiar gestures and simple controllers, Kinect encourages people to motion their way through games and screens using their bodies as controllers.

[ See post to watch video ]

Kinect (xbox.com/kinect), a rectangular strip of four microphones, a 3-D sensor and a video camera, is $150 for those who own the Xbox 360. It’s sold in a $300 bundle with the 4-gigabyte Xbox 360 console; $400 with a 250-gigabyte console. (Sony’s PlayStation Move is $100 without the console and $400 when bundled with the 320-gigabyte PS3; Nintendo’s Wii costs $200.)All packages include the Kinect Adventures videogame. There are currently 17 games that work with Kinect, and each costs $50, $10 less than a standard Xbox game.

Kinect can sit on top of, below or beside the TV, plugging into a wall power outlet and the Xbox via a USB cord.The concept used by Kinect has potential far beyond games and might even become a new way of controlling computers of all kinds.

Thirteen of the 17 available Kinect games are rated E for Everyone, and the remaining four are rated T for Teens—a sign that Microsoft is going after a different crowd with Kinect than with its regular Xbox games, which offer a wide range of ratings, including violent games.

It automatically identifies who you are and pauses when you leave its vicinity, so it isn’t hard to imagine this ingenuity controlling all kinds of devices, like a PC, smartphone or tablet.

Over the past few weeks, I played a variety of Kinect games with three other people in the room, one other person in the room and completely by myself. I tried it with a 46-inch, 1080p LCD TV as well as using an old standard-definition TV.

My experiences were mixed. Kinect works beautifully for activities that involve only your body, like exercise classes, running, jumping hurdles, yoga and dancing, with the moves feeling natural and fun. The motion sensor detects even slight movements to reflect what you’re doing on the TV screen. I battled my boyfriend in Dance Central while busting out dance moves called Double Dig ‘Ems and Headwrushes. I sprinted down a virtual track, running in place fast enough to earn a game world record. And I toned my arms and abdominals while punching floating boxes in the Your Shape’s kickboxing class.

But when it came to sports that involved holding or throwing objects like bowling, volleyball or discus, Kinect started to feel a little inauthentic, like I didn’t really have control over the object. When I threw a discus far enough in Kinect Sports to prompt the game’s commentator to shout, “Is that discus a part of the space program?” I didn’t know what I did to get that result.

The same was true for driving a car in Kinect’s Joy Ride game: Players are instructed to hold their hands like they would if they were gripping a steering wheel, turning left or right by moving hands accordingly and leaning back and quickly forward to get a burst of speed. But it’s hard to mimic a motion to accelerate, and I found myself jerking my body all around to get results. My arms also got tired after holding them up for awhile.

Other games, like Kinectimals and Kinect Adventures, play to the Kinect’s strengths by using broader gestures and fewer accuracy-focused tasks. With Kinectimals, I moved my hands to virtually scratch a Bengal tiger cub; the cub even became more familiar with me the more it listened to my voice. I rode a raft in Kinect Adventures by leaning left or right to steer through rapids, jumping up to grab on-screen coins for points and ducking to avoid getting clocked in the head with objects.

Dance Central

In certain games, two people can play simultaneously standing in front of Kinect. The system can identify and sign in up to eight people as they step in and out of play. It recognizes those who are signed into Xbox and playing, so only their gestures maintain control of navigation. Its sensor will identify and log you in a few seconds after you step in front of it. If you walk away in the middle of a game, Kinect will sense that you aren’t there and will pause the game.

Kinect isn’t yet fully integrated into the entire Xbox navigation system. Some tasks still require the old Xbox controller, like opening the Xbox Guide, a quick way of launching anything in the system. Xbox’s Dashboard, which is the first menu you see when you turn on the system, also requires the controller. The Dashboard is separate from Kinect Hub, which lets you use your voice and gestures to do things like opening the system’s disc tray, selecting menus or even pausing a movie—just by saying, “Xbox, pause.” A spokesman said Microsoft plans to integrate these commands throughout the Dashboard. For now, it’s tempting—but futile—to want to use voice and gesture on every screen.

Many Kinect games capture videos of you as you play games and then play them back for you at the end. The results are hilarious. Kinect Adventures gives you a heads-up so you can make an extra silly pose at the right moment. Kinect Sports compiles a highlight reel as you go, playing this video back at the end of your athletic events, goofy sport gestures and all. And Dance Central announces a freestyle dance for all players at the end of each round, capturing video snippets of these moves. Users who are signed into Xbox Live can share these videos with others.

Kinect Adventures

Kinect can also be used to video chat with anyone who’s using Windows Live Messenger and a webcam.

I really enjoyed Dance Central—and not just because I won most of my dance battles (the one who gets the most moves correct wins). This game offered a large variety of songs ranging from old-school rap to Lady Gaga. Each dance was taught in a different virtual venue by an instructor who shouted words of encouragement or instruction, and cheers from the crowd spurred me on.

Navigating the menus in Kinect games is usually more enjoyable with gestures, though it takes a little longer than if you were pressing a controller button to skip ahead. In the Your Shape game, I selected from Personal Training, Fitness Classes and Gym Games using my arm to touch my selection and another red icon below that to confirm it. When I started this game, the sensor scanned my body to measure my height, arm length, leg length and shoulder span, thus customizing games just for me.

In the future, Kinect could use be used to recognize communities like a group of fans all wearing the same team colors while watching a game, in which case the system might display extra on-screen data for that supported team. Another example could include playing along with game shows from home, like reality TV for the masses.For now, Xbox Kinect does well with many games that mimic real-life gestures and motions. Games with specific actions using objects, like rolling a bowling ball, need work to feel more authentic.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

A Store, a Cloud Service and Sharing: Here's What Google Music Might Look Like

Peter Kafka — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:13:37 +0000

A download store, a music locker and the ability to share some of your music with your friends, for $25 a year. That’s what Google would like its music service to look like.

So says Billboard’s Ed Christman, who has been talking to label executives familiar with Google’s (GOOG) proposals for its yet-to-be-launched service. The music industry hasn’t agreed to any of this yet, so the gap between “like to” and “will be” could be significant. But it’s worth reading Christman’s piece to get a sense of what the Google guys are looking for.

In short:

Google would like to sell music a track at a time, just as Apple’s iTunes does.
Google would like to give users the ability to listen to any track all the way through, at least once, as MySpace Music does, and Lala did before Apple (AAPL) acquired it and shut it down. Google’s music search service provides free full plays for some songs but not others.
Google would like to offer a $25 a year “locker service,” where any music you own, no matter where you procured it, would be stored on an Internet server. You could then listen to a stream of the song no matter where you where, via a Web player or a mobile phone.
Google would like to let subscribers share their music with their friends, allowing them to listen to a song a single time.

All of which sounds pretty good. And all of which sounds like concepts that the labels would be fine with, in theory–even the part about letting you access songs you “shared” via P2P services.

The sticking point, of course, will be money: How much will the labels demand up front, how much will they charge per user or per use, and how will the money be split up between different rights holders?

The last part is a question that often gets ignored when people start spitballing ideas for music services, but it’s crucial, because music rights are a complicated web that tangles up even the best intentions. Even if the “labels” agree to Google’s terms, that likely won’t be enough, because the “labels” don’t usually own songs outright–any given song or catalog may have multiple owners.

That’s not a problem if you simply want to open up another download store, or even a streaming subscription service, because there’s a broad consensus about how to split up the pennies that those generate. But with something new, like the locker/sharing proposal, there are a lot of cats to herd. Which makes this stuff interesting but far from definitive.

Twitter's New Security Strategy: Rewriting Some Users' Links

Peter Kafka — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:04:53 +0000

Beset by phishing attacks and other scammy behavior, Twitter is taking a step I don’t think I’ve seen anywhere else before: The social messaging service says it may change the text of its users’ messages in order to protect them.

Specifically, Twitter is going to rename links that users send to one another via direct messages, which allows the company to track them and shut them down if they turn out to be malicious. You’ll be able to identify the renamed links, because they’ll be shortened using a “twt.tl” prefix.

In typical Twitter fashion, the company has a blog post that explains the change, but in somewhat vague and hazy terms. As best I can tell, what Twitter is really doing is rewrapping some links that users send with its own code.

This doesn’t appear to change the core characteristics of the link–publishers and marketers who use the bit.ly link shortening service, for instance, will still be able to track the data generated by their links. But it does give Twitter the ability to track bad behavior.

If you want to view the move in a positive light, you can think of it as the tag an airline slaps on your luggage when you check it–the only changes to your message are superficial. Or, if you’re so inclined, you could shiver just a bit at the thought of a messaging service changing any part of your message, no matter how trivial.

Twitter only announced the change this evening, but the company appears to have been testing it for some time: Searching Twitter for “twt.tl” turns up shortened links going back several days. As best I can tell, this one–what appears to be the retweet of a direct message from a marketer–is the first one to show up in public:

There’s a good chance many or most Twitter users won’t see the shortened links–if you’re not sending or receiving direct messages, you may never see one, period. But Twitter seems to leave the door open to expanding the program to regular tweets as well: Its blog post says the company has “focused [its] initial efforts” on direct messages and email.

Just to be clear, I checked with Twitter spokesman Sean Garrett via email. Here’s our exchange:

Q: But to be clear: Do you reserve the right to change links in regular tweets?

A: This is our focus right now.

Confirmed: Apple Buys Music Service Lala, at a Fire Sale Price [UPDATE]

Peter Kafka — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:11:37 +0000

Note: Sources now tell me that Apple ended up paying much more than I had thought for LaLa — around $80 million. That means that some investors could indeed get a return on their investment, thought not all of them will. You can read a full update here, but I’m leaving the rest of this report as is for the time being.

Apple has purchased online music service Lala, I’ve confirmed with a source familiar with the transaction. Both Bloomberg and CNET reported the chats earlier today. If you’d like other confirmation, New York Times also reports that the deal has closed.

Lala’s investors will not get a return on the $35 million they’ve put into the company. Earlier this year, founder Bill Nguyen told me he was working on a deal to get the company more funding in an “up round”–that is, at a higher value than the previous round.

But Warner Music Group (WMG), which had previously invested $20 million in Lala, wrote down $11 million of that. And a source tells me that the Apple transaction reflected a similar discount, meaning that investors will be lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar on this one.

UPDATE: A second source close to the company insists my estimate is “way off” but won’t offer up other details.

What’s unclear is exactly what Apple has bought. Lala offers listeners a streaming music service with one free play and access to replays–not downloads–for 10 cents a track. But while the service recently got a boost via Google’s (GOOG) new music search offering, where it’s one of two featured partners, it doesn’t have a huge customer base to sell, which means Apple (AAPL) could be interested in acquiring its technology and/or team.

The deal is the third acquisition of an online music service in recent months. News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace has already picked up iLike and Imeem at fire-sale prices.

I’ve put in requests for comment to both Apple and Lala.

The Akamai Presidency? [UPDATED]

John Paczkowski — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:20:24 +0000

So much for the “YouTube Presidency.”

The Obama administration is no longer using Google’s (GOOG) video player to deliver the President’s weekly addresses online. Instead, it will use an Akamai (AKAM) player. No reason has yet been given for the abrupt switch, although some speculate it was inspired by privacy concerns over the video-sharing site.

As many privacy advocates noted when the White House first began relying on it, YouTube uses cookies that can track visitors even if they never actually play the video. “Whenever you follow a link, or download an embedded or off-site resource, your browser sends a referer header (sic) that tells the Web site what Web page you came from,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains. “And whenever you load any document, your browser may send cookies that show whether you’ve visited the same site before, and that may even identify you directly. For instance, if you’re logged into YouTube and you watch an embedded YouTube video on some other site, YouTube can still recognize you because your browser will still send a personalized YouTube cookie. This means that loading an embedded video from within a blog could enable the video hosting site (and, in some cases, its advertising partners) to compile a history of which blog entries you were reading and when–even if you didn’t try to play the video.”

And this was the case with the President’s weekly addresses as delivered via YouTube. Not an ideal situation for the administration, and one that it quickly sought to remedy. Shortly after the initial outcry over the issue, the White House rolled out a technical fix that limited that tracking ability only to those who watched the President’s weekly address. But that was really just a band-aid. This latest move seems far more definitive, as the Akamai player uses no tracking cookies whatsoever.

UPDATE: The White House says it has not abandoned YouTube. It’s simply testing a new player.

“As the president continues his goal of making government more accessible and transparent, this week we tested a new way of presenting the president’s weekly address by using a player developed in-house,” a White House spokesman said in a statement. “This decision is more about better understanding our internal capabilities than it is a position on third-party solutions or a policy. The weekly address was also published in third-party video hosting communities and we will likely continue to embed videos from these services on WhiteHouse.gov in the future.”

Goohoo Delayed

John Paczkowski — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:00:33 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

Despite Others' Claims, Tracking Cookies Fit My Spyware Definition

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:01:00 +0000

Suppose you bought a TV set that included a component to track what you watched, and then reported that data back to a company that used or sold it for advertising purposes. Only nobody told you the tracking technology was there or asked your permission to use it.

You would likely be outraged at this violation of privacy. Yet that kind of Big Brother intrusion goes on every day on the Internet, affecting millions of people. Many Web sites, even from respectable companies, place a secret computer file called a “tracking cookie” on your hard disk. This file records where you go on the Web on behalf of Internet advertising companies that later use the information for their own business purposes. In almost all cases, the user isn’t notified of the download of the tracking cookie, let alone asked for permission to install it.

Luckily, the leading Windows antispyware programs can detect and remove these tracking cookies. It is the best defense a user has against this tactic.

Now, though, some of the companies that place these files on your hard disk are complaining about that defense. Some are urging the antispyware software companies to stop detecting and removing tracking cookies. They assert that the secret placement of these tracking mechanisms is a legitimate business practice, and that tracking cookies aren’t really spyware or aren’t harmful.

Unfortunately for consumers, this twisted reasoning is having some impact. In the most notable case, Microsoft disabled the detection and removal of tracking cookies when it purchased an antispyware program from a small company called Giant and turned it into Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware. That is a big reason why I can’t recommend the Microsoft product, which still is in the test phase but is available for anyone to download.

Microsoft says it still is evaluating how to treat tracking cookies in the program’s final release. I believe it is important for consumers to know who is on their side right from the start and who may be being swayed by companies that do things to your computer without telling you.

The antispyware program I currently use and recommend, Spy Sweeper from Webroot Software, still detects and removes tracking cookies. So does another antispyware program derived from some of the same computer code as the Microsoft product — CounterSpy, by Sunbelt Software. I haven’t tested the latter program, but it has received good reviews elsewhere. There are other antispyware programs as well that still treat tracking cookies as spyware.

To understand the tracking-cookie issue, you have to know something about cookies overall, and you have to know what spyware actually is.

Cookies are small text files that Web-site operators — and third-party companies that insert ads into Web sites — place on a user’s computer. Many types of cookies are harmless or even helpful. For instance, a cookie might help a Web site remember your preferences for what news topics you chose to see. With your permission, it might store your login information, so you don’t have to type it in each time you visit a particular site. Antispyware programs aren’t designed to detect or remove these helpful cookies.

Tracking cookies shouldn’t be confused with these other cookies. They have no user benefit except the vague promise that the ads you get as a result may be better tailored to your interests.

What is spyware? There are many definitions, but here is mine, in two sentences. Spyware — and a related category called adware — is computer code placed on a user’s computer without his or her permission and without notification, or with notification so obscure it hardly merits the term. Once installed, spyware and adware alter the PC’s behavior to suit the interests of outside parties rather than those of the owner or user.

Examples of spyware and adware include programs called “browser hijackers,” which reset the home page or search engine used by your browser so the user is diverted to the sites of the spyware and adware companies or their clients. Others record your activities and report them to outside parties. Still others push ads in your face, even when you aren’t using the Web.

Some tracking-cookie purveyors say their cookies aren’t really spyware because they aren’t full-fledged programs and they aren’t as outrageous as spyware programs like “key loggers,” which record and report every keystroke you enter. Others argue that the companies don’t collect personally identifiable data, only aggregate data from many users. To me, tracking cookies clearly meet the obvious definition of spyware.

Rather than trying to legitimize tracking cookies with pressure and marketing campaigns, I suggest that, if they really believe tracking cookies are legitimate, the companies that use them simply go straight. They should ask a user’s permission to install the cookies, pointing out whatever user benefits they believe the cookies provide. They might even offer users compensation for allowing tracking cookies on their machines.

Until that happens, here is my advice: If you don’t like the idea of tracking cookies, run an antispyware program that detects and removes them, along with all the other indefensible computer code some companies think they have the right to install. After all, it is your computer.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at mossberg@wsj.com