Politicians Decry Fake Torture, Cover Up Real Torture

from the the-nation-cannot-abide-inaccurate-torture-depictions dept

Even if a lifetime of exposure to the continuous hypocrisy of politicians has turned many of us into jaded, cynical shells of human beings reduced to selecting “None of the Above” when voting, every so often something comes along that breaks through our hardened shells… and carves another slice off our dwindling faith in humanity. This is one of those moments.

Senators John McCain, Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin have an issue with Zero Dark Thirty, most specifically its uber-controversial torture scene. Taking to the nearest soapbox, they have decried this horrible act of waterboarding storyboarding, calling it “grossly inaccurate and misleading.” As Spencer Ackerman at Wired points out, it’s a bit rich for these three to be making a bunch of noise about fake torture (and related inaccuracies) when they could be clearing the air about actual, state-ordained torture involving real detainees.

If the problem with Zero Dark Thirty is that it’s not an accurate presentation of the utility of torture (and we shudder at the thought that torture ought to be evaluated according to its utility), the senators could make a major push to declassify a massive report put together by Feinstein’s committee into what the CIA’s torture program did and didn’t do.

Feinstein, in particular, should probably keep her comments on fake torture to a minimum, considering she’s sitting on a classified report that details years of interrogations performed by the CIA, often involving torture of detainees.

Last week, Feinstein announced that the Senate intelligence committee she chairs finally approved a 6,000-page study into the CIA’s treatment of terrorism detainees in its custody that took almost four years to investigate. By reviewing more than “6 million pages of CIA and other records,” Feinstein said, the report details how the detainees were treated, how they were interrogated, and, crucially, “the intelligence they actually provided and the accuracy — or inaccuracy — of CIA descriptions about the program.” Feinstein promised “startling details” and “critical questions” about the program, promising it would “settle the debate once and for all over whether our nation should ever employ coercive interrogation techniques such as those detailed in this report.” Small problem: the report is secret, so you can’t read it.

“Startling details” and “critical questions” that the average US citizen will likely never see. Feinstein won’t declassify the report until the President and other executive branch members review it. At that point, the committee will “consider” declassification. In other words, this has next to no chance of being declassified, at least not during this administration, and very possibly much longer than that. Here’s how Ackerman describes the current situation:

So the report that could settle the debate about torture won’t settle the debate about torture until the self-interested parties who’ve stymied accountability for torture decide it’s safe to settle the debate about torture.

Despite a promising start, Obama and his team have shown very little interest in the openness and transparency that was promised at the beginning of his first term. In fact, many of the administration’s actions have headed in the opposite direction.

After an early and acrimonious decision to partially declassify key Justice Department memos authorizing the torture — for which Obama deserves praise — he’s done nothing. A special prosecutor empowered by Attorney General Eric Holder ended up not indicting any CIA official who abused detainees, and didn’t even consider investigating the top officials who authorized the torture in the first place. There has been even less official public reckoning with what the torture program entailed, something that would fray Obama’s relationship with a CIA that implements his lethal drone program, since a former Bush administration aide described that program as amounting to “war crimes.” And it’s worth noting that under Obama’s watch, the U.S. military placed accused Wikileaker Bradley Manning in conditions that were harsher than those for many Guantanamo Bay detainees.

That’s what makes this particular bit of grandstanding especially nauseating. To publicly berate a movie (and its makers) for being “misleading” in its depiction of torture is more reprehensible than decrying the movie for depicting (or “glorifying,” as other critics have stated) torture. If the torture actually happened and produced no usable results, shouldn’t these three be making some noise about the CIA using horrific tactics to produce questionable results? If, indeed, the torture was “successful” and helped take down Bin Laden, shouldn’t those who either explicitly or implicitly justify torture be praising this film for its accuracy?

Since no one’s taking up that latter offer, we can assume that government officials that approve of torture have no desire to express that in public. And if these three have information disproving the movie’s claims, they should be coming forward with it, rather than keeping it hidden from public view. Unfortunately, this report will stay locked down, as no one in this administration wants to hang out the CIA’s dirty laundry. Chances are the report shows that several horrific acts produced negligible results as the link between torture and usable information has always been extremely tenuous. As Nice Guy Eddie said in 'Reservoir Dogs,' “If you fucking beat this prick long enough, he’ll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don’t necessarily make it fucking so!”

Instead of transparency, we get self-serving complaints about celluloid torture and more state secrets and classification. It’s sad, disgusting and entirely unsurprising.

Filed Under: politics, torture

Another Politician Boards The Bandwagon: Sen. Rockefeller Blames Violent Games And Television For Newtown Tragedy

from the that's-my-drum-and-i'm-going-to-beat-the-hell-out-of-it dept

As Mike covered earlier, politicians are particularly opportunistic beasts, willing to turn any tragedy into a soapbox and a chance to push through pet legislation. Even if the politicians aren’t particularly wed to gun control or censorship, they're more than willing to get on the bandwagon if it will net them a little facetime with the press or the appearance of “doing something.”

The latest addition to the list of opportunists is Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who states that something needs to be done about violent video games and movies, whether or not they had anything to do with last week's tragedy.

“We also need to look at the violence our kids see every day starting at a young age. By the time children reach 18 years old, they have seen tens of thousands of violent images – on television, the internet, or video games. As parents, research confirms what we already know – these violent images have a negative impact on our children’s wellbeing. While we don’t know if such images impacted the killer in Newtown, the issue of violent content is serious and must be addressed.

Rockefeller doesn't specify any particular research, but then, this is a press release, not an editorial. And despite admitting that everything he's worried about may not have affected the Newtown killer, something must still be done because… well, because this is Rockefeller's pet issue.

Back in 2007, Rockefeller led a push to grant the FCC “explicit authority” over violent and indecent programming, including the assessment of heftier fines for violators. Back then, he used his “tens of thousands of violent images” scare quote as well, and mentioned a wealth of research that backed up his assertions… but failed to name a single study in his press release.

Having failed with this initial push, Rockefeller saddled up the hobby horse again in 2009, revisiting the Children's Television Act. He claimed this was just a fact-finding mission and not another attempt to push the FCC to clean up television to his exacting specifications. One is almost tempted to believe him, right up until he details his frustration with the reactions of his fellow senators to his FCC-related effort.

He said he had not been deterred by the reactions of his fellow Senators to a hearing last year at which he featured a clip reel of violent programming. He said he was shot down, mostly by members of his own party, because of concerns over the First Amendment. “There was an automatic mindset that because the First Amendment exists, you cannot even be talking about this so don't waste my time. I was furious, and I was undeterred.”

As everyone knows, the First Amendment only protects speech you 100% approve of.* How dare these so-called Senators express concerns about turning the FCC into a tool of censorship! It's refreshing that Rockefeller remains “undeterred” in his efforts to sacrifice the First Amendment on the altar of “protecting the children.”

*100% not a fact.

He's a few years behind his biannual schedule, but Rockefeller is riding high in the hobby horse saddle yet again, thanks to America's rather more frequent delivery of exploitable tragedies. He may have made a few points on gun control and mental health in this release, but he undoes any forward momentum by opportunistically exhuming his “violent media” platform.

Filed Under: blame, grandstanding, jay rockefeller, movies, newtown, video games, violence

IP Diplomat Sob Story: It's Hard To Push The US Agenda When The World Listens To Reason

from the oh,-the-truth-is-a-nasty-thing dept

We’ve talked in the past about the US State Department’s horrific IP Attache program. These are US government “diplomats” whose sole job is to go around the world spreading copyright and patent maximalist propaganda based on the interests of a few large US companies. There’s been an effort underway to expand this group — and, in fact, one of the many clauses hidden in SOPA was a plan to do so, massively. After SOPA failed, Lamar Smith actually tried to pass a bill that focused just on expanding the IP Attache group, but thanks to a quick outcry, that seemed to get shelved too.

Nearly four years ago, we wrote about the IP Attaches getting together to whine about all of those darn “anti-IP activists” making their lives difficult — and apparently they’re still at it. The US Chamber of Commerce — a giant lobbying group who was one of the major backers of SOPA — apparently hosted the IP Attache annual gathering recently, allowing for more rants about people making their lives difficult by actually telling people that maybe, just maybe, expanding copyright and patent law isn’t such a good thing. And, can we just note how odd it is that no one thinks there’s any conflict of interest at all in a lobbying group hosting an event for these US government employees?

The main target of derision among IP Attaches? NGOs, or non-governmental organizations — who are normally focused on pesky things like the well-being of the public. But, according to the IP Attaches, these darn NGOs and their do-gooding is getting in the way of them getting to spread their Hollywood and US Chamber of Commerce-backed maximalist propaganda:

Karin Ferriter, the IP attache to the World Trade Organization, had particularly sharp words for non-governmental organisations operating in Geneva, where she said there a “number of people working to undermine IP.”

Such opponents are “heavily populated” in Geneva but not typically found in the capitals, she said. She referred to a recent trip she had to Cameroon, where, she said, government officials were “true believers” and want better quality products through IP rights.

“People in Geneva are misinformed by the NGO community to devalue IP,” Ferriter said. And the job of the IP attaches is to remind them of the importance of IP and a strong IP system.

“Unfortunately,” she said, NGOs “are working just as much as possible to weaken the IP system.” There is a disconnect, Ferriter said, “but that’s where we come in, to help them see the value of it.”

Others noted similar issues, even calling such NGOs “the wrong people” spreading “the wrong message.”

Todd Reves, the IP attache to the UN in Geneva, particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization, concurred with Ferriter. He said in Geneva, it is often a case of “the wrong people talking to the right people.” Some diplomats there are not IP experts, and some are given more flexibility to act on their government’s behalf, so they are “more susceptible” to the messages of the NGOs. “They may be hearing the wrong message,” he said.

Notice the tricky use of words here: anyone who looks at the mountains of evidence that show stricter IP laws can have serious limiting impacts on innovation and economic growth isn’t just “wrong” but they’re “not IP experts.” We see this all the time in the comments here. In the maximalist world, your opinion doesn’t matter if you don’t have a history of profiting off of the IP system. That makes you an expert. Those who actually understand, say, the economic, cultural or health impacts of expanded IP programs… they’re just not experts.

Some of the specifics they talked about show how these folks are all about massively increasing patents and copyrights around the globe, no matter what the consequences. One attache complains about how Brazil has all sorts of well educated people, but they’re just not getting enough patents. As if more patents is the end goal. Similarly, another person complains that experts in Southeast Asia have accurately pointed out that patent and copyrights “are equated with products being more expensive.” He seems horrified by this bit of factual information getting out into the world, and suggests that IP Attaches in the area need to focus more on “the positive benefits of IP” and push that. The idea that the people he denigrates are actually right, and perhaps the people in those countries are better served with more affordable products, does not seem to occur to him. That’s not his job, of course. He’s not there to make things better in the world. He’s there to make things more expensive, so big US companies can profit — and he’s getting paid with American taxpayer money to do so.

Not surprisingly, the same guy is really excited about the “ripple effects” the TPP and its ridiculous language on copyrights and patents will have on the region — hopefully forcing many countries to sign onto legislation favored by US corporate interests.

Then there’s this:

Reves summed up: “We’re trying to change the view that IP is bad to IP is good.” He mentioned an enterprise forum that is in the works for the 2013 WIPO General Assembly next October, at which companies will highlight the advantages of IP rights. He said that while “the jury is still out,” he is optimistic that five years from now the debate in Geneva will turn more pro-IP.

The idea that WIPO has not been pro-IP enough is hilarious to anyone who’s actually followed WIPO over the years. The organization has always been ridiculously pro-IP. And, yes, it’s true that in the past few years, they’ve finally (grudgingly) acknowledged claims from some developing countries that expanded patent laws (mainly) have the ability to cause more harm than good, but the organization is now and has always been ridiculously “pro-IP.”

Either way, it’s really ridiculous that the US government employs these people, who so blatantly represent the interests of a very small sliver of corporate America, rather than what’s actually best for innovation, culture, health and economic growth.

Filed Under: copyright, diplomats, fair use, geneva, ip attache, ip policy, ngos, patents
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Who Signed The ITU WCIT Treaty… And Who Didn't

from the the-full-list dept

We already noted this morning that the US, a bunch of European countries, and a sprinkling of other nations around the globe have refused to sign the new ITR agreement put together at the ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), even as ITU officials congratulate themselves on a job well done. Many people have asked who signed and who didn’t. The ITU has an official list of signatures, which seems to slightly conflict with some earlier reports. Here’s their graphic:

Perhaps more useful is this map, in which the signing countries are in black and the non-signing are in red. You might notice a few patterns. Also, reporter Dave Burstein kindly sent along the full list (embedded below), with signatories in green, non-signatories in red and everyone else in white. The “everyone else” apparently includes countries who haven’t paid up their dues and thus can’t technically sign on yet, or who don’t “have their credentials in order.” In other words: bureaucratic blah blah blah. Europe, of course, dominates the non-signing countries. It’s somewhat meaningless, but if you tally up population, the signatories cover 3.8 billion people, while the non-signatories cover 2.6 billion. And there are another ~600 million in play in those other countries.

So, what does it all mean? Very little right now. Even those countries that signed on still need to go through a ratification process — and one hopes that people in some of those countries will realize that it’s bad to be supporting a regime that wants political bureaucrats having anything to do with the internet, even if it’s dipping a toe in the water. However, many of the countries don’t much care about that, and simply want the new rules so they can try to control parts of the internet (and/or profit from it). The rules won’t actually go into effect for a while. While they aren’t binding, it is pretty customary for signatories to eventually adopt such rules locally.

The real story here is a world in which there are two competing visions for the future of the internet — one driven by countries who believe the internet should be more open and free… and one driven by the opposite. Whether or not the ITU treaty is ever meaningful or effective, these two visions of the internet are unlikely to go away any time soon. The next decade is going to be filled with similar clashes as certain countries seek to limit what the internet can do, for their own political needs and desires. Seeing the initial breakdown of who’s in which camp is useful, but this isn’t over yet.

Filed Under: countries, itu, signing, wcit

Julian Assange Moves Forward Plans To Run For Senate And Start A Wikileaks Political Party

from the governing-from-afar dept

It's been a while since we checked in on Julian Assange. Last we heard, the United States had just classified Wikileaks as an “enemy of the United States,” but that was all the way back in September. This, of course, was after Assange had been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK. With what has to seem like the entire world crumbling down around him, I'd have to guess that Assange is keeping a low, mum's the word profile.

Mr Assange said plans to register an Australian WikiLeaks party were ''significantly advanced''. He indicated he would be a Senate candidate, and added that “a number of very worthy people admired by the Australian public” have indicated their availability to stand for election on a party ticket.

Yes, Julian Assange, currently confined to Ecuador's embassy, is going to start his own political party. While many have focused on the news that he’s running for Senate, that’s not actually new — having been previously reported back in March. In case you thought you had somehow slept through news that the US had dropped its investigation of Wikileaks or that Sweden no longer wanted to extradite him, you haven’t: both issues are existing issues that might, possibly, get in the way of Assange actually serving as an elected official. However, as a wider party, what would the Wikileaks party stand for?

He said a WikiLeaks party would advance WikiLeaks' objectives of promoting openness in government and politics, and it would combat growing intrusions on individual privacy.

A laudable goal, and one that might find natural allies with The Pirate Party. Still, while (as with many things Assange-related) this has the feel of a publicity stunt, there’s a chance that the more interesting idea is what will happen if the Wikileaks Party can really find others to be members and run for office:

If Mr Assange were elected but he was unable to return to Australia to take up his position, a nominee would occupy a Senate seat.

So, perhaps the real goal is to have someone high profile, like Assange, spearhead the effort of building out a party focused on these issues, even if there’s little chance he can actually serve. Well, that or this is another example of Assange being a genuine pain in the ass.

Filed Under: australia, julian assange, politics, wikileaks, wikileaks party

White House: We Will Not Support An ITU Treaty That Blurs Telecom Infrastructure With The Info That Crosses Over It

from the good-for-them dept

While the US’s position on the ITU discussions at the World Conference on International Telecommunications has been pretty clear from the beginning, to put an exclamation point on it, the White House put out a statement saying that it will not support an agreement that tries to expand the ITU’s mandate beyond telecom infrastructure and into the world of what happens on that infrastructure. The key paragraph:

But we should not confuse telecommunications infrastructure with the information that traverses it. The global consensus for a free and open Internet is overwhelming. Millions in the United States and around the world have already added their voices to this conversation, and their position is clear: they do not want the WCIT to govern the Internet or legitimize more state control over online content. Our Administration could not agree more – and will not support a treaty that sets that kind of precedent.

This is the key point. Many in the ITU seem to want to blur the distinction between the infrastructure itself and the information that runs over it. They believe that their mandate over “telecommunications” includes the specific “communications” that run over those networks. That’s a massive rewriting of history. Their mandate is supposed to be focused on the technological infrastructure, rather than how it is used.

Filed Under: internet, internet governance, itu, telecom, us, wcit

Entertainment Industry Mourns The End Of 'Hollywood' Howard Berman Being Their Personal Voice In Congress

from the time-to-get-with-the-times dept

We noted after the election that Hollywood’s absolute favorite elected official — “Hollywood” Howard Berman — lost his seat. He was often referred to as “the Representative from Disney” for his unwavering support of passing legislation that helped the big Hollywood studios and record labels over the public interest. For many of us interested in the public benefit, his loss seemed like a good deal — but, of course, for folks at the big movie studios and record labels, it was a disaster. Just witness this unintentionally hilarious Politico piece by former MPAA exec and current Universal Music ‘Executive VP of Public Policy,’ Matt Gerson, which read like a love letter to Berman, where he reveals what everyone knew already: that Berman and the MPAA were apparently in constant communication, with Berman regularly being called into MPAA meetings to help.

I first met Howard Berman when I was with the Motion Picture Association of America. I remember Jack Valenti uttering a phrase that I would hear repeatedly over 20 years: “What does Howard think?” When we have an idea for a compromise, someone runs it by Howard. When we develop a strategy, someone is tasked to get Howard’s reaction. When we speak with his congressional colleagues, the usual response from Democrats and Republicans alike is, “Let me grab Howard on the floor and see what he is thinking.”

The article is also a little wacky, in that it both highlights Berman’s supposed “attention to detail,” as well as his apparently frequent failures to know the names of the people he was talking about.

Either way, you can understand why the legacy entertainment industry companies are sad to be losing such a close “friend,” but aren’t we all a little better off with Representatives who actually pay attention to what’s best for the public, rather than just what’s best for a few companies?

Filed Under: congress, copyright, howard berman, matt gerson, politics
Companies: mpaa, universal music

US Denies That It's Ready To Dump The ITU Over Internet Regulations

from the get-a-backbone dept

Last week, we covered the key fight at the ITU’s World Conference on Telecommunications (WCIT) and it was all over just one word: would any new international telecom regulations apply to “recognized operating agencies” or just “operating agencies.” The difference may sound minor, but it could mean a world of difference. If it’s just recognized operating agencies, then the rules are limited to giant national telcos. If it’s all “operating agencies” then the rules could apply to, well, just about everyone who runs any kind of internet service. This is a huge difference. As the debate rages on — and even as the worst proposal from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and others is now off the table — reports started circulating that the US had announced that it was prepared to walk away from WCIT entirely if there was continued movement towards significant changes in internet governance. That was seen as a pretty big threat, because a US rejection of the overall process might doom it from any sort of acceptance. However, in an emailed statement, US ambassador Terry Kramer is claiming that the reports that he’s made such a threat are simply untrue (and not particularly helpful):

In the past few days, a small number of media reports have characterized the United States as “threatening” to withdraw from the WCIT negotiations. These speculative reports are inaccurate and unhelpful to the Conference. The United States has made no such threat, and it remains fully committed to achieving a successful conclusion to the WCIT.

To be honest, whether or not it’s “helpful,” it seems like it might actually be a lot more effective. As some are beginning to point out, almost everything about the ITU is a mess, and it’s time that the US stood up and told it to stop messing where it doesn’t belong. That article quotes former White House CTO Andrew McLaughlin describing why the ITU has no business regulating the internet.

“What is so bad about the ITU?” Mr. McLaughlin asked in a speech to the New America Foundation in Washington on Nov. 29. “It’s just simple things like the nature, structure, culture, values and processes of the ITU. They are all inimical to a free and open Internet, and they are all inconsistent with the nature of the technical infrastructure that now characterizes our communications networks.” Voting rules let repressive governments “engage in horse trading that has nothing to do with the technical merits of the decisions under consideration.”

Indeed. So why are we even playing the game?

Filed Under: diplomacy, internet governance, itu, negotiations, terry kramer, wcit

No Surprise Here: Congress Passes Unanimous Resolution Telling The ITU: Hands Off The Internet

from the but-of-course dept

One thing that’s been somewhat universal in the US is pretty much everyone’s opposition to the whole ITU WCIT charade going on in Dubai right now. It doesn’t matter what political party they belong to or what general views on technology or the internet they hold, pretty much everyone recognizes, even if there are faults with the system today, giving the ITU more control will inevitably make things worse. So it should come as little surprise that Congress has passed another resolution (they did an earlier one in August that more or less said the same thing) unanimously (397-0) telling the ITU to not even think about trying to take over any aspect of internet governance. This resolution first was approved in the Senate and this is just the House concurring.

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, should continue working to implement the position of the United States on Internet governance that clearly articulates the consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today.

Of course, such a resolution is technically meaningless. It’s mostly just a bit of warning, that if the ITU does actually lead to significant changes in internet governance, the US is unlikely to go along with them. In an age where it’s rare to see bipartisan support of anything, it’s nice to see pretty much everyone recognize the ITU process is dangerous and undesirable.

Filed Under: congress, internet governance, itu, wcit

US Hypocrisy: Supports Open Dialog On Internet Governance At WCIT; But Full Secrecy At Parallel TPP Negotiations

from the hypocrites dept

Back in October, we pointed out how the US delegation to the ITU WCIT (World Conference on International Telecommunications) was pushing for much more openness and transparency for the notoriously closed and secretive process that could impact internet governance. That was certainly refreshing to see. But it also stood in stark contrast to the same US government’s massively secretive and opaque process to the Trans-Pacific Parntership agreement — which could have just as much, if not more, of an impact on internet governance issues.

With negotiations on both issues happening simultaneously (WCIT in Dubai and TPP negotiations in New Zealand) it seems quite crazy to see the US speaking out vehemently in favor of greater openness and transparency in Dubai, while actively trying to prevent similar transparency in Auckland. Here’s the State Department on WCIT:

On the eve of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), we believe that it is the right time to reaffirm the U.S. Government’s commitment to the multistakeholder model as the appropriate process for addressing Internet policy and governance issues. The multistakeholder model has enabled the Internet to flourish. It has promoted freedom of expression, both online and off. It has ensured the Internet is a robust, open platform for innovation, investment, economic growth and the creation of wealth throughout the world, including in developing countries.

[….] The Internet’s decentralized, multistakeholder processes enable us all to benefit from the engagement of all interested parties. By encouraging the participation of industry, civil society, technical and academic experts, and governments from around the globe, multistakeholder processes result in broader and more creative problem solving. This is essential when dealing with the Internet, which thrives through the cooperation of many different parties.

The global community has many serious topics to discuss with respect to the Internet. Collectively, we need to ensure that these matters are taken up in suitable multistakeholder venues so that these discussions are well informed by the voices of all interested parties.

Our commitment to the multistakeholder model is based on the fact that transparency, inclusion and participation are the 21st century standards governing discussions related to modern communications.

Yet, over in New Zealand, US officials, as well as negotiatiors from others countries, are taking the opposite view. They’re doubling down on secrecy, not transparency. They are not using a “multistakeholder” model at all, but rather locking out civil society and public interest groups. They’ve ignored or limited the ability of the innovation industry to have any say in the proceedings at all, and (most ridiculously) they’re enforcing a secrecy policy many times worse than what we see at the ITU with WCIT. Many of the documents from WCIT have leaked out, while precautions mainly driven by the US government have, to date, limited the leaks from TPP negotiations.

It’s really quite incredible that the same government can make those claims about openness, transparency and the importance of a multistakeholder process on the one hand, while going in the opposite direction on basically the same exact issue at the very same time for an event held elsewhere. The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy, which could easily be solved by opening up the TPP process, revealing the negotiating documents for public comment, and allowing the public into the process. After all, in the words of the US government:

We have and will continue to advocate for an Internet that is not dominated by any one player or group of players, and one that is free from bureaucratic layers that cannot keep up with the pace of change. We will work with everyone to ensure that we have a global Internet that allows all voices to be heard.

If only the US government would listen to that important message.

Filed Under: hypocrisy, internet governance, itu, openness, tpp, transparency, ustr, wcit