四月青年社区

 找回密码
 注册会员

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

查看: 5753|回复: 1

The Faster Times:Watching Hillary Clinton’s Internet Freedom Speech in China

[复制链接]
发表于 2010-2-20 01:30 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

Eighteen hours after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her much anticipated speech on Internet freedom in China, I sat among university students, professors and local newspaper correspondents in the Public Affairs Section of U.S. consulate in Shanghai. The crowd was assembled and joined by two others in Beijing and Guangzhou to discuss what impact the new policy will have on China.

美国国务卿希拉里克林顿发表了备受期待的关于中国互网络自由的演说,十八小时后我和大学生、教授、地方记者坐在了美国上海领事馆公共事务部。广州和北京也在举行同样的活动,讨论这一新的政策将对中国产生的影响。

Ten minutes after the scheduled start-time, there was no sign that the event was soon to begin, as panelists in Beijing were still not ready. Audience members were visibly bored and could be seen seeking out distractions. The two girls to my right exchanged gossip about their friend’s love life–their giggles occasionally disrupted by an SMS ringtone. The ringtone was coming from the male student at my left, whose fingers danced on his mobile phone keypad.

预定的开始时间过了10分钟后,北京的演讲嘉宾还有没到位,活动依然没有要开始的迹象。观众看起来都无聊得很,心不在焉。我右边的两个女孩开始八卦她们朋友的情感生活,还咯咯地笑。我左边的男生熟练地在手机键盘上打字,时不时有短信铃声传来。

Beatrice Camp, Consul General in Shanghai, appeared to sense this awkwardness. She apologized for the delay and cracked a joke by saying that several panelists were lost inside the US embassy because the newly finished infrastructure was so huge and winding.

美国驻上海总领事康碧翠似乎感到了这种尴尬,她说很抱歉拖延时间,还开玩笑说美国使馆新修的结构复杂迂回,嘉宾在使馆里迷了路。

Five minutes later, the video finally started to roll. The speech lasted about 40 minutes during which Secretary Clinton reiterated the U.S.’s stance on freedom of information on the internet and unveiled a new State Department initiative to fight Internet censorship.

五分钟后,视频总算开始播放了。有40分钟的演讲。其中,国务卿希拉里重申了美国在网络信息自由上的立场,并表示美国国务院计划与网络审查展开斗争。

For most part, panelist in Shanghai ignored the screen on which the video was showed. They preferred to look at the printed version of the speech provided by the consulate. There were several moments when the audience in the video burst into laughter or gave applause; however, during these moments, there wasn’t any reaction from the panelists in the room.

大多数时候,上海的嘉宾根本不看屏幕上的视频,他们宁愿看领馆提供的纸质材料。视频里的观众有时候会笑或者鼓掌,但是这边嘉宾一点反应都没有。

During the panel discussion that followed the video, Ai Weiwei, an artist and social activist, was the first to speak. He argued that Secretary Clinton’s speech was a strong indication that the U.S. was stepping up its commitment to freedom of speech in China. His admiration for Secretary Clinton was obvious as he lamented the fact that Clinton had lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.

播放视频之后是座谈会,艺术家和社会活动家艾未未第一个发言。他说国务卿希拉里克林顿的讲话有力地表明了美国对中国言论自由的承诺。他对国务卿希拉里很崇拜,还曾因为希拉里在民主党内提名中败给奥巴马而沮丧。

Questions from Guangzhou were much more specific and technical. One panelist pressed U.S. diplomats for a more direct answer as to whether the US would fund other proxy softwares that help prevent Internet censorship. (The U.S. Congress had previously provided 2.5 million U.S. dollars for a VPN software called Freegate.) Responses from US officials were quite diplomatic, as they wouldn’t go into detail about the plan and instead reemphasized the talking points made in Security Clinton’s speech. The U.S., they repeated, is committed to promoting Internet freedom as a cornerstone of human rights.

广州那边提出的问题更加具体和技术性。一个嘉宾施压让美国外交官给出更加直接的回答 美国是否会资助其他有助于对付网络审查的代理软件。(美国国会曾经为一个叫自由门的虚拟专用网软件拨款250万美元。)外交官的回答得相当“外交”,他们不肯谈及具体的计划,而是再次强调了希拉里演讲的观点。他们重申美国致力于促进作为人权基石的互联网自由。

As discussion went on, Chinese panelists continued to ask specific, potentially controversial questions about the U.S.’s stance on China’s Internet freedom. But, each time, U.S. officials disappointed them by dodging the real questions and reciting Clinton’s speech in lieu of an answer.

随着讨论的继续,中国的嘉宾继续就美国对中国互联网自由问一些具体并可能有争议的问题。但是美国官员每次都让他们失望,他们回避真正的问题,不回答问题却去背希拉里的演讲。

The exception to this pattern and also the most dramatic moment of the event came when Rao Jin, of Anti-CNN.com, lashed out for two minutes against the U.S. government, alleging their own involvement in Internet spying. Anti-cnn.com is a nationalistic Chinese website dedicated to exposing false and biased Western news coverage of China. Jin, who is tremendously popular among young Chinese Internet users, is the country’s most vocal opponent of Western media imperialism. During his tirade, Jin claimed that there is an unholy alliance between Google and the CIA and that the U.S. National Security Agency is the largest employer of Internet spies. He concluded his speech by challenging the motives behind the U.S.’s new initiative.

饶谨的到来是一个例外,也是最具戏剧性的一幕。有两分钟的时间,anti-cnn.com的饶谨对美国政府进行了抨击,说美国政府自己就在搞网络监视。Anti-cnn.com是一个中国民族主义网站,致力于揭露西方媒体对中国的偏见和不实报道。饶谨在中国年轻网民中非常有名,他是中国对西方媒体帝国主义口诛笔伐最有力的人。在他的激烈演说中,饶谨说谷歌和美国国家安全局搞起了见不得人的联盟,美国国家安全机构是黑客集团最大的雇主。他讲话的最后质疑了美国新计划背后的动机。

Following Jin’s speech, U.S. officials clamored to respond. While wording varied, the officials’ responses were in accordance: they don’t comment on speculation, and the U.S. government would only engage in activities that promote Internet freedom and privacy.

饶谨发言后,美国官员反应强烈。虽然用词不一样,但大都众口一词:不对推测作出评论,美国政府只会参与促进互联网自由的活动。

The event lasted two hours, during which not a single question was really answered. The two girls beside me were relieved when the meeting came to an end. As they exited, one of the girls turned to her friend and asked: “Where should we go for dinner?”

活动持续了两小时,期间没有哪一个问题真正得到了回答。会议结束时,我身旁的两个女孩又有精神了。她们出去时,一个女孩转过去问她朋友:“晚饭去哪儿吃?”
 楼主| 发表于 2010-2-20 01:33 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 青瓷 于 2010-2-20 01:34 编辑

1月22日我在美国驻华使馆座谈会提的问题和美国官员的回答:

主题是讨论希拉里1月21日关于互联网自由的演讲。

(饶谨)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:"许多国家都在致力于网络间谍活动,尤其是以色列和美国本身,而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)

(饶谨)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、新技术是很推崇的,但google退出事件引起大量的关注,希拉里甚至有把它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美国政府的政治和外交筹码。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,我对它们的公正性的信任度大大降低。Google背后到底有没有和CIA有联系?我在facebook、gmail上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和youtube,(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”,但事实上别的国家并不买你的帐?

    (注:我列举的例子都是西方媒体自己爆出来的有据可查的事实,twitter上说是我在搞阴谋论的请你自己去check一下。我并不是完全支持中国zf管理网络的做法,zf众所周知有很多不得人心的地方,而米国的制衡对中国的舆论环境某种意义上也是一种好事,但是比起tg,西方的虚伪面目和阴险用心更加可憎。那些盲目崇拜米帝的人,醒醒吧)。

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)
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册会员

本版积分规则

小黑屋|手机版|免责声明|四月网论坛 ( AC四月青年社区 京ICP备08009205号 备案号110108000634 )

GMT+8, 2024-4-25 00:47 , Processed in 0.041868 second(s), 23 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2023 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表