我在使馆提的问题和美国官员的回答

问1：我注意到1月15号的《时代周刊》Time上有篇文章，其中有句话是这么说的："网络间谍非常普遍，尤其是以色列和美国本身，全球最大的黑客集团是美国国家安全局（National Security Agency）雇佣的." 请解释。

(source: http://weiurl.com/4463) 

 问2:在上次奥巴马访华吹风会上我就提到过gmail等网站的隐私安全问题，我本人对新媒体是很推崇的，但google退出时间引起大量的关注，甚至有上升到外交层面的趋势，让我感觉google等新媒体工具这次成了的政治和外交筹码。当原本纯粹的商业和技术承载了更多外交和政治的筹码时，我对它们的公正性和信任度大大降低。Google背后到底有没有和CIA有联系？我的信息会不会被被美国的情报机构滥用？毕竟CIA和FBI不是摆设。

最近有消息称意大利政府试图屏蔽facebook(source:http://weiurl.com/4458)同时，我注意到最近德国《明镜》周刊2010年第二期的封面文章是《允许google知道多少？》。文章首先把google定义为一个信息垄断者，甚至叫做信息怪兽，讨论了它对其它国家造成的潜在危害，并呼吁欧洲创建自己的搜索引擎。也因为有明镜这篇文章，让很多德国网民认识到google对一个国家，以及对这个国家的企业，军事，科技造成的安全隐患。 (source: http://weiurl.com/4457)。

所以，基于上述考虑，美国政府在推行这法案的时候有没有想过自己正扮演着一种类似电影《阿凡达》里面的邪恶公司那样的角色——自以为给别的国家送去的是“公平交易”或者一份“厚礼”，但事实上别的国家都不买你的帐？ 

（注:我列举的例子都是西方媒体自己爆出来的，twitter上说是我在搞阴谋论的请你自己去check一下）

 

美国政府官员答： 

 1."对于《时代》周刊的报道，关于情报部门的问题，我无可奉告。 (心虚了？？为什么不直接否认？)我们的国务卿在演讲中提到政府对互联网的有限的管理也是必要的，比如针对宣扬恐怖主义、暴力活动、仇恨、种族注意的。从她的演讲中我们可以得出，我们对互联网的控制应该是透明的、有限的、很少的，如果有出现美国政府试图控制互联网的案例，那应该是在美国法律允许的范围内。

i think if there are cases of U.S goverment exercising controll of the internet, it's within the contexts of the U.S  law."

 （问题来了，美国法律允许政府有权决定什么是有限的管理，别的国家就不能自己决定？）

新闻官Susan补充回答：

Secretary in the speech noted that Precident Obama pointed a new cyber space police called xxx我们的国务卿在报告中提到奥巴马总统颁布了一条新的网络政策叫xxxx，隐私问题的确是个issue，不仅仅是美国的问题，也是各国都担忧的议题。（这不是废话吗？）

  

英文还在完善：

First ,I asked the American diplomat today the following:  I read in Times magazine that the US government's National Security Agency and the government of Isreal together are the world's largest employers of hackers for spying purposes.  The reply from the American diplomat is: No Comment!  This made it clear to me that the US government is probably more guilty than anyone in the area of using the Internet to spy on other nations.

 

secondly, I asked about the privacy issue of google and facebook etc and the U.S. govement's controll on the internet, and if there's U.S. gov's hidden agenda behind  google issue. American diplomat replied that limited government regulations are needed such as in the area of terrorism.  My point is: who gives the US the right to determine what can or can not be regulated by governments?  Why does China as a sovereign nation does not have the right to determine what we can or can not regulated?

thirdly, I believe Secretary Clinton's speech on the Internet will lead to strong resentment by the Chinese public.  Regardless of our political beliefs, we are united on one point:  The Chinese people will not allow any foreign country to impose their ideologies on our country.

 

(“Other countries also engage in cyber espionage, especially Israel and of course the US Government itself with the largest group of hackers in the world employed by the National Security Agency.”

source: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954184,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0cq4nLu5p)

 My opinion on Hillary's Speech: It’s a self righteous speech that paints US as a selfless god while overlooking its own track record. Most of the speech doesn’t stand the test of logic really. I can see Hilary is revelling in the feeling that this speech is going to be remembered by history. She is going to be disappointed.

The speech is structured along the lines of Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech, and Hilary promotes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights heavily. However as long as US can drop a bomb on civilians in Iraq and other countries without taking responsibilities, the most basic form of human right, the right to life, can’t even be guaranteed if you are not a US person. This tells us that sovereign right of a state is the foundation of any form of human right for its citizens. We are not yet living in a global village.

 She talks about freedom from want and uses technologies as ways to facilitate this goal. At the same time, most of these technologies are controlled by US companies making outsized profits selling them to poor countries.

 Roosevelt uses freedom of fear to promote disarmament to a point that no country can commit aggression on other country. We all know that 70 years after the speech US owns the biggest stockpile of weapon in the world, and can invade another country unilaterally. Hilary conveniently reinterpreted this statement.

 Just as the western countries use commerce to advance their national interest in the 19 centuries, human rights and internet become the new “universal” tools that they can use to penetrate another sovereign nation. 

Companies like Google pretend to be global companies that is serving the common interest of all people, until they are defeated by local competitors and needed to be saved by the US government. How can we have the confidence that the US government is not going to ask for our search records and Gmail accounts when the time comes? There is no global company if national interest is concerned.

 Why Internet, as a new form of media, should enjoy super status that is not regulated by sovereign nation? Any other form of media is regulated. Internet domain is managed by ICANN which is a US organization, belonging to the US department of commerce. Who benefits the most if internet can penetrate our lives unfettered? 

 

注：(“Other countries also engage in cyber espionage, especially Israel and of course the US Government itself with the largest group of hackers in the world employed by the National Security Agency.”

source: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954184,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0cq4nLu5p)