france and roosevelt so you have this army federal army federal workers who would go to save lives, save property. and so the difference comes from the fact that we learned from 27 that also we have a very different philosophy of government in place. i think about 2011. we had flood levels on the ohio river that were in some places comparable to 1937 but we didn't have mass evacuations. we didn't have that kind of damage that we had an 37 and that is because of the floodwalls that we put in place after 1937. it's also because there is now a series of reservoirs upstream where the ohio begins and its tributary weekend's that can hold back water, retain water and keep it from adding to the flood. and so really, the modern ohio
valley is a product of 1937. the towns that they are in the river as it is in the flood protection as it is, it all comes from this depression area. >> arkansas literary festival will be held in little rock april 122 the 15th. the yearly festival going on since 2004, features nonfiction and fiction writers from the state and around the country. for more information, visit arkansas litter rorie festival.org. up next on booktv rebecca mackinnon says internet users rights are being infringed upon by governments and corporations. she points to the changes on facebook's privacy policies and the demand by certain governments for google to censor information and pressures users to concede their personal freedoms on line. this is about an hour.
[applause] >> on behalf of the world affairs council i am your moderator and it's my pleasure to introduce today's distinguished guests. before you that i would like to say a word about rebecca mackinnon's book which i think is very valuable. and a real contribution. it's called "consent of the networked" and it is just come out. the closest parallel was the net dilution but that came out a couple of years ago and was more of a polemic really against cyberutopianism and the naïve elites that internet is, the internet is going to free all peoples everywhere. since then at the time i think that was pretty badly needed and i think now with the event that has moved so rapidly and the greater surveillance and monitoring and censorship has become so much the norm and so much of the world that i think it was time for a much more
fact-based on what is going on in the ground everywhere for it and that is what rebecca has done and i found it very valuable. rebecca mackinnon is a journalist and activist and focuses on the intersection of the internet and human rights inform policy. she is co-founder of global voices on line and a founding member of the global network initiative. fluent in mandarin chinese she works as a journalist for cnn in beijing for nine years serving as cnn correspondent and tokyo correspondent. she taught on line journalism and conducted research on chinese internet censorship in hong kong. additionally she was -- on press and public policy. her research fellow at the berkman center for internet society at harvard and a senior fellow at the new america foundation. she is examining u.s. policies related to the internet, human rights and global internet freedom. this is served first book published in january by basic hooks.
director of the international, director of international freedom of expression at the electronic frontier foundation based here in san francisco, long time broadband activists interested in government censorship the policing of content and corporate on line spaces. anonymity and surveillance technologies. prior to joining in may julian spent three years at the berkman center for internet society at harvard. she writes regularly about free expression politics and the internet with a focus on the arab world. she is on the board of directors of local voices on line and is written for a variety of publications including al-jazeera, à la are, the guardian and bloomberg. ladies and gentlemen please join me in welcoming rebecca mackinnon and julian york. [applause] as a professional journalist i get to as the first series of questions before we turn it over to the audience and rebecca i would love to start with you.
you call in your book for a sort of new way of looking at the way internet allah caesar conducted and empowerment on the network users and us regular people who use the internet both to hold their governments accountable wherever they are and also corporations which can be as powerful as nation-states. and i think in the past couple of months, with the on line protests over the rather aggressive anti-copyright measures that recently were withdrawn in congress, people feel that this can actually work, that internet protests and sharing of information can lead to changes in government policy. but it doesn't seem when it comes to corporations. what would it take to get companies to balance their drive for profits with these more moral questions?
>> well, i think we can look to other sectors and how companies change. back in 1970 had milton freedom the economist writing an essay that the only socially responsible activities of business is producing value for its shareholders. that was also the same year we had the first earth day, when i think we had a real social awakening about what sustainability means and the fact that the value that a company long-term is generating for society and for itself is about more than just short-term profit. it is about delivering value to society and it's how you are being sustainable within a larger context and whether your products are ultimately contributing to the kind of life and the kind of planet that we want to have. and so i think, when it comes to the internet, and it comes to telecommunications companies, when it comes to internet companies, service providers and so on i think what we are seeing now is an awakening really that
we need existing sane ability. it is not acceptable for companies to hire 12-year-olds even though that might maximize profits. it's not acceptable for companies to pollute our air and water even though doing so might maximize their profits. socially, the idea that it is acceptable has been, now deemed illegitimate. it was much more controversial sometime back and i think we are now recognizing that unless we, as we have entered now an era in which all aspects of our lives, we depend on these digital platforms and services not only for our personal lives and how we conduct our business or education but also our politics and if the structure, the way in which these networks are structured, the way in which they are managed and the way in which they are governed in terms of their private service is not compatible with the values we want our society to have, the
kind of freedoms that we expect in the kinds of freedoms and rights and ability to hold government accountable that people are risking their lives for around the world every day. if these platforms and services are not contributing in a sustainable manner to the kind of world we want to have, that is not acceptable. >> if i could just follow up on that before he turned to julian. are there any early examples in an on line effort or an effort by consumers in the u.s. to change, that have been successful in changing a company's policy here or in some other country? rebecca that is actually for you. >> well i think we are starting to see for instance recently, goggle + rolled out its new social networking service and they started out with a very similar identity policy to facebook which is that you are required to use your real name. a lot of users did not want that.
they had been hoping that google would be different and people started actually using google's platform to lobby google's management to change the policy. they have now begun to adjust the policy to allow pseudonyms in some cases and not everybody is happy and there is still a lot of looks to be worked out but you have seen executives at least willing to adjust and willing to listen. i think that is an example of when people get organized, at least for some companies, that you can. even with facebook, julian has been involved with trying to get facebook to make certain features more secure so it would be harder for governments, hostile governments to hack peoples accounts or instance and it been kind of advising them okay, here are some things you need to do. so definitely i think there are
cases where, when you get enough people going to the companies in saying here is the right thing to do, it's going to increase trust. is going to increase the value of your service, not just commercial value but the way in which people value and environment as a trustworthy place to be and that is in your interest in the long run. >> tank is for that. julianne, rebecca and her book describes an arms race between surveillance and in particular surveillance and the techniques for avoiding surveillance and i guess, china is probably the acknowledged master of this and there are lots of other countries that are attempting to follow suit, notably recently iran which is picking up its surveillance ability and on the other side you know we have had a couple of scruffy activists
who are cobbling together things that allow people to pervade. i am being maybe i'm kind to the axis crewe. they are by and large motivated by idealism. it doesn't seem like a fair fight. how was that battle going and is there anything that regular people can do? >> so, when it comes to the fight we are having now with surveillance, you are right we have seen increases in iran and more recently in syria which is likely to have been helped by iran. and it is. does really an unfair fight. they are trying to utilize the internet for whatever means, protests and also just ordinary everyday things, but then you have these governments who are basically spying on their citizens. so the way that the fight is right right now, organizations and plenty of organizations in the u.s., can't name them all, and in europe are working to try to
put similar standards as to what rebecca has discussed, the similar standards that exist for some of these social networking companies to surveillance companies and one of my colleagues went to brussels last week testifying to the european parliament about how it has been used and how we think that we can hold these companies accountable. on the other hand, some of the regulations that were posed are problematic in that just as back in the '90s the crypto wars blocked encryption technology from being exported. i'm sorry, the regulations on encryption rather and we have that ability to support encryption technology. there are similar regulations on surveillance technology. right now syrians are prohibited from accessing certain communications tools for existing commerce and treasury departments so they are trying to strike a balance between
ensuring that the surveillance tools don't get in the wrong hands but also ensuring that communication tools are accessible to all. it does seem like an unfair for -- fight. in terms what people can do we should be looking at the same sort of model. users need to be aware, not just users, sorry, obviously multiple users but stakeholders and everyone involved in the process needs to be aware of how these tools are being used. in the past year i think we have seen a lot of excellent awareness raising on the subject not just from rights groups but if you look at bloomberg's coverage it's been has been quite incredible in terms of how and where and what is going on. i do think that people are becoming more aware. >> if i could follow up with you on that, it is nice that they call things like the wire tapper's to be fairly accessible to the general public.
but if we look at that export issue, as i understand it, there are virtually no regulations preventing the export from the u.s. and european countries, some pretty capable equipment to some unpleasant places except the ones we initially have no dealings at all with because it is all dual use and can be used for stopping or catching bad people and they can also be used to spy on everybody. is there any, is there anyway to change that? is there any way to either have greater restriction or do you think there is some chance that public pressure on the company's -- i mean it's hard to imagine, there is a company called merris here and they don't sell machines to ma and pa on the street and i don't think that there is an eff inspired boycott that would really make much difference to their bottom line so how do you impact companies like that?
that can be for both of you. >> there is a big difference in some of the companies to produce tools that are for home use as well and in that case it is much easier but when he of tools like what merris produces eff has advocated familiar customer standards whereupon companies would be required to be transparent about who they are selling to, what they are selling at what it is going to be used for. that is our position at the moment and i've seen other proposals from other organizations that also deal with the more similar ways of handling it. but you know i do think it's a difficult fight and i think ultimately we will have to force these companies to be transparent, without the shareholders. it would be quite difficult to get them to move on that. ..
through their buying power in terms of we are only going to buy products from people who set certain standards of, you know, the human rights standards of the countries they are working with and how they are being transparent and reporting requirements? the u.s. government, even if you don't have a law, they could have standards for their vendors about surveyor for us on technology we need to know certain things about what you're doing and we are going to report that publicly. they could do that if they wanted to and that would have a huge affect so there's a lot that could be done that with at least shed light on what's happening. and while these companies are not consumer products - give the broad investor market come if the information is more regularly in "the wall street journal" which over the past year has begun to be what really
wasn't, i think you might start to see a bit of a shift. islamic let me talk a little bit about the face of activism as we see it. it's been more fitting a lot, the sort of digital activism. it's sort of intertwined with the occupied movement and probably most of their movements from here out it seems to be like the fundamental part of the program but was also very much in evidence in congress but still the thing most people think about which is kind of lavina and does things against the law. because it is so diffuse it is hard you can't have a sit down with the leadership and say why don't you point your guns over
here but for both of you is there much hope of that getting moderated or people -- if people are annoyed with the behavior of companies or governments is that the easiest thing to do to sign up to participate in the service attack against something they don't like? >> it's interesting because we have seen a lot of things done and and we've also seen them hacking the website of the foreign ministry and its very difficult for me to look at something like that. in the case of syria with the of them is deface the site by putting up tips and instructions on how to use the internet safely in serious in that case it was hard for me to look at that and condemn that. i do because i believe while the attacks can be used against governments and huge companies in somewhat positive ways they are more often used against small independent media and
human rights sites that can't defend themselves so why would take the sense i don't think the public that are a good idea but what we saw with the protest over the past almost a month ago now with the stop online piracy act we saw a different kind of action taking. we saw people leaving their voices instead of lobbying and grenades, and i think that that might be something that we will see continue. it's difficult because when we look at what happened on a protester it doesn't necessarily seem like the numbers are replicable so i've gotten a question over the past couple of weeks would we follow the tipping point or with the number of people involved in the number of organizations and companies involved were we barely there and i can't answer that, so i don't know if we will be able to
see that action replicated. >> to speak to the anonymous point and then we can talk more about the stop online privacy act and activism against that, you know, i agree there had been cases the anonymous has some helpful things like a and syria in helping dissidents. however, i think the attitude that the ends justified the means that many members of anonymous has troubles deeply of the russian revolutions. okay if a certain police department does something that violates citizens' rights and the information of their employees and family of the
internet and other home addresses. i'm not sure what problem that solves. barton did not act intelligently and how it handled the shutdown of its cell phone system. bye hacking the site and exposing the account information that everybody having an account what is that achieving exactly? how is that results in the problem of the abuse of power out of the government entities or corporate entities. king john was a bad king so robin hood went amount of lobbying from the rich to feed the poor that's great but he didn't actually solve any problem in a bad governance she was just sticking it to the man and that's about it but he didn't bring anything forward.
it took people who were actually been more constructive about okay we need to come up with a new way of governing other than the divine right, and we need to build new structures to build accountable which eventually led to the american revolution and so on that actually helped solve long-running entrenched problems of that government's if so coming back to what julian was saying what we saw with the protest around that of legislation trying to figure out okay what are the solutions is a positive step in the right direction. but i think we need to be careful because i hear from the
younger folks that makes me sound sold. there are a fully its sense with anonymous with different hacker groups that the ends justify the means and innocent people will get hurt because this is an innocent or lack of a massive abuses of power and there will be collateral damage and that language really scares me. i started my academic career studying the chinese and the soviet revolutions which also had similar language and didn't turn out so well as human rights were concerned. >> i want to ask a broad question. i steered away from copyright because it seems like we spend a lot of ink in the journalistic business and copyright and they're seems to be a lot of mature in the congress about
copyright and they're seems to be dramatically less about human-rights, and maybe that's just because people in america make more money of copyright and human rights. i don't know. but the question is is there a lack of balance in the discussions about not just copyright but security because we have a very big of - cybersecurity bill that is rearing its head in the senate and may or may not pass. there's been lots of smaller efforts, but it seems like if that follows the model of the copyright language, it can be pretty shortsighted technologically and in terms of people's individual rights. i want to ask both of you to take a whack at copyright and security versus privacy in terms of where the government is putting its emphasis. >> if i can just take a crack at
it first we are facing a common problem with internet related legislation not only in the united states, but i think around the space world where legislators are faced the problem. okay, we have a tax on the network or we have theft of intellectual property or we have child pornography or we have cyber bleeding, and constituencies are screaming do something. so they want to do something to resolve that particular problem, but never basket that problem happens to be in so they go for a solution, and without thinking about how that solution is going to affect these other areas, because i think what happens is that legislators -- because the internet is so new they tend to think about the internet like you fix your toaster or a refrigerator or computer and defense fixed.
rather than this is a space in which the society is extending and contains all the same contradictions we have like in the city of san francisco if you want 100% to solve the crime problem and have zero crime you a lot of trade-offs that may be unacceptable because you will turn the city into something like north korea. if you don't want that, you have to think about what kind of solutions balance of their concerns and rights, how do i make sure that all effective stakeholders are consulted that is what you do if you're governing a physical place, but legislators i think are not used to thinking in those terms when they are solving problems in the digital realm, and i think was good about what we saw the stuff online piracy act and the debate about this particular legislation which is trying to solve the problem and it is in response to one constituency that was screaming about the problem without consulting with everybody else the was going to
be affected to see what are the other ways of solving the problem that might not be quite so damaging for the free expression and put technical mechanisms that look like the chinese firewall and legal mechanisms that, you know, in those kind of unacceptable burdens on internet companies to police the users. just have a broad conversation about the solutions, just as you have a broad conversation coming back to security. so that police and physical space. if it's just about kind of backing the criminals and cracking down you're actually not going to solve the crime problem because you don't have the community by in our involvement in fact you might turn people against you and your measures will lack legitimacy. so again how you get the body in from the stakeholders when you are going after resolving the problem and cybersecurity or
copy rights legislation has not taken that approach and that's why it tends to fail and then they keep coming back trying to add more legislation and it doesn't solve the problem it just makes everybody else madd. islamic there's a couple examples about the u.s. similar to this. indonesia it will be announced tomorrow whether or not the government has to filter pornography. this is a long fury of appeal and the final was made to the country's highest court, and tomorrow if it is determined that they will have to, then they will have to be implemented the same systems that existed and what that means for to nisha is the fear the government will overreach coming and i think that is the same thing we saw with the stock online piracy act is the provision would allow the government blocking of website is the same fear that will then be used to over reach the collateral damage and receives
in a number of countries around the world. and again, generally speaking, the digital rights groups are not consulted in these prophecies and that is what we saw with the bills and what we're seeing with to nisha. >> i will turn it over to audience questions now if you have anything else to ask please send them up. this is a question i think is for rebecca and is outside of my expertise. how significant is the experiment with online freedom of speech in iceland and in parentheses immi, can journalists and regular users raise the bar on the online internationally, are there other models that look promising? i have no idea. i am counting on one of you to bail me out.
>> i'm afraid to admit i haven't followed its progression closer in the past year. >> if i'm not sure where it stands. there was the discussion of setting up the set of laws and regulatory structures that would make iceland the kind of haven for the online freedom of expression and so on and kind of iron clad protections against surveillance and what not read the details of which i would have to check, but it is unfair how far they've gotten, so i'm not sure. >> so there is no free speech haven you can host everything and then not worry about? >> there are people talking about creating islands in the
notion that have no legal national jurisdiction and no nation state has the ability to demand access to the servers, but the problem is in any nation state there's law enforcement issues and there are constituencies in demanding that the terror would be fought and so on and so on so it's hard to ironclad things from state access. if you do have law enforcement access even in the space society how do you ensure that is not being abused and have the right kind of checks and you are ensuring that its accountable and this is a problem all of the democracies are struggling with. we haven't worked out the model. there is no model of democracy
that has gotten a right and i know there's a couple people sitting around that work on this full time as well. but there are some countries that have gotten some pieces of it better than other pieces and you have the laws of several countries that say this is ideal i don't know if i've seen anybody put together here is the model of the law and the regulation and political checks and balances, corporate practices all combined tears when you need if you want to have digital infrastructure and corporate behavior that's going to be democracy compatible. free expression, civil liberties come maximized compatibility, here's a few new to the kenneda. here's the model. i haven't seen that anywhere.
islamic here is a broad one. is it possible to have censorship without violating human rights? what is the balance that can be struck between the two? >> that is a tough one to read estimate there are some people who argue that it's not because it's impossible to have censorship because the whole point of censorship is people don't know what you're blocking. i suppose in theory if human beings were perfect you probably could, and if government was perfect and so on. but even in europe where there are a number of countries in europe that have blocking system, censorship systems in place for child pornography.
one is the mission creep and other mistakes made in terms of the sites that end up on the list and based on leaks and other information that's come out pretty much the other cases there is over blocking that happens. so it ends up being what people in the field called collateral censorship. it's hard to do it completely right without accidentally censoring stuff you didn't intend even if you are getting it right. it's also very easy for stuff to get on the list and weird ways. so in the u.k. it's not mandatory but there's a kind of watch list of most of the internet providers use for blocking child pornography and for a long time wikipedia was blocked because there was an oasis cover with a jacinta girl
on the page and put on the list as child porn. so there are borderline cases that ended on the list and then who's deciding and exercising the power. but the other thing too is people have been doing research on this in search of a child pornography specifically and asking the question is it solving the problem and it's the exploitation of children if it's putting a band-aid on the problem. the people and what the material are still finding ways to get and the people going out to dubbing kids and exploiting them are still doing it and so diverting people away from the problem and not enough resources are going to the problem of
human policing so that's the other issue with censorship and other needs to be a lot more research like and what cases it solves the problem you're trying to solve a sewing it is a legitimate problem in the first place like child pornography is a legitimate problem. >> i would agree and i interpreting the question more philosophically but i think when it comes to the blocking of web sites i don't believe it is ever the solution and if we look at the way the u.s. deals with child pornography which is matching photographs in the database taking on the web site i feel like that is a much better solution to what other governments to which is enforcing the problem underground and i would agree with what rebecca said i don't see it solving the problem and the same goes for other issues as well. if we look to the united kingdom where during the rally there
were the pushes to twitter and facebook and censorship and content that was another example of the same thing. by doing that what is solved the problem or just push people to use other tools that a less recognizable to coordinate the means and now the same thing this week the u.k. put out another paper recommending and in the censorship of online extremism and i'm not sure how that is going to solve the problem so i would say that i don't think there's a way to do it while respecting human rights through the stomach with of "the new york times" story this weekend the justice department has raised reporters without approval by a judge how much safer on-line are the u.s. citizens over the chinese? it seems both the u.s. and china, to other citizens when they decide to.
>> that is true in terms of the potential access to it i think the difference is what is done with the information will ultimately. there are a few more controls in terms of with the access under what circumstances and those controls are accessible loose and accountable and not sufficiently subject to constraints. that said, in china you can post a tweet and have a policeman show up at your doorstep and taking into detention and to my knowledge that hasn't happened in this country. the tourist that was coming to the country posted a tweet and wasn't allowed in but it's not so bad as drumming him in jail and torturing him, but i feel we
are definitely entering into the recognition that if you want to be untraceable and if you really want to be completely not monitor or you want to be ironclad sure that you are not monitored, don't conduct your conversation electronically or your introduction. you need to be completely analog. journalists and diplomats working in china has kind of assumed this from the beginning. you are going to a meeting with the source and leave your cell phone at home and don't arrange the meeting electronically. sometimes you shall look at somebody's house and over along a block.
the u.s. postal service is the most secure way to communicate with people. it's absolutely true. handwritten letters. the government needs of war and to read your mail. it's clear. the protections are clear-cut. to read your e-mail they are not clear-cut at all and there's all kinds of caps and loopholes. if your e-mail is gif e-mail or yahoo! or hot meal or whatever and it's over 180 days old adis chair game because the law regarding electronic communications and surveillance and government access was written back in the eighties before you had the world wide web and when they assumed if they are stored by companies servers it had to be abandoned so there's all kinds of loopholes. they did a study that came out
last year and came to the national security letters issued to companies, you know, for access to so and so, and the percentage of requests but were of the dubious legality was quite high and the percentages of instances in which the companies actually challenge the legitimacy of the request was quite low so even things companies could challenge they are not challenging on behalf of their users and that is the more troubling thing and of course if a company like at&t was found to have done a few years ago, average with blatantly e illegal surveillance costa for instance in 2006i believe it was a whistle blower that retired from
at&t let it be known that here in san francisco the nsa had a secret room and they had gotten the engineers to funnel of the communications to that room and was being captured there was no warrant for the national security issued to see whose information was being looked at and the others tried to sue at&t with a class-action lawsuit and was thrown out. why? because they are immune from liability for kuhl lubber even with blatantly illegal acts. from the fisa amendment act which obama as a candidate said he wanted to overturn before he got elected, maybe not and he doesn't want it realized and his administration is not favorable to revising the patriot act
either and the kind of lack of accountability when it comes to the government information. we are not china by any means. i've spent enough in china to know that the united states is nowhere close to what it's like in china if you're trying to organize a protest. occupy wall street would not have been. they've had a tenements where can the that didn't go so well and people were trying to do that since don't fare so well. but still, there are very troubling trends. >> okay. i think that is a very thorough answer. another question. what happened to the money the state department of the u.s. had to promote internet freedom? hillary clinton gave a big speech, and what happened next?
>> see if i can get a broad review rather than the detailed one. [laughter] so, a lot of that money has gone towards tools, technology, sophie ann semidey enabling technology, tools used by people here and used by police and people in other countries come so tools i would call for the most part collectively neutral and some of it has also gone towards training and then of course we have also seen a lot of contention over with the money is going to and what they are effective for safe and who they are targeting so there's been a lot of back-and-forth in washington over specific tools and i won't get into that but the broad answer i think is the
have been incredibly useful enabling the safety of activists in a number of countries all over -- and in that sense they are wonderful but where that money is coming i haven't seen a whole lot of output, i haven't seen a lot of -- i'm trying to couch this language but i just haven't seen proof that the money has gone to the right place and is making a difference. so it is wonderful, don't get me wrong. they do have people get around censorship in a number of places but they are not a silver bullet and i personally believe that that type of funding and generally speaking those efforts need to be diversified and i don't think that we've figured out how to do that yet. >> apparently some digital
companies -- and member of the audience alleges -- [laughter] companies build a back door to the software to allow government access; is this true or do you have examples and are there legal restrictions the would prevent that? >> gal luft technologies are required to have local access built into them. islamic which is different from a back door -- >> yeah. folsom st. is a back door as opposed to the -- technology really. >> do you know of any -- there have been great fears and other countries that windows comes with its own nsa peak ability crockery but has any of that
ever been exposed -- >> [inaudible] it was packed but there's a lot of software that has flaws hackers than exploit to access other people's computers but that's not the same as a backdoor. that's not something the u.s. government or some other government required it's the company built so others could access user information. >> not knowing what the intent of the personal right to the question was, and i think it would be worth noting a number of these companies even if they
don't have back doors and can't think of a good example of one that does but that don't have safeguards in place called the deal with legal requests from other countries so this is rebecca's expertise to go back to why some of these protections are not being put in place and these initiatives are forming the the same time we still see companies handing over information to the government without much consideration of what that sort of process is and then i would say even more common we see companies taking on content at the request of the government without any consideration at all and there is a great study done recently by the center for internet society and the bangalore india so now india has a law that allows anybody to start the lahood and request an intermediate to take care they
are required to do so. there are certain parameters they are broad and this organization did a study the submitted something like mind to mostly american companies and seven out of nine of them, don't quote me on that, were complied with and they were all absolutely outrageous requests so i do think a lot of these companies are not, you know, not only in terms of service not compliant with the free-speech principles but they are also just taking down content of the request of anybody. >> one example and i am not quite sure if this fulfills what the questioner was asking that in order to market its software in china, skype went into a joint venture arrangement to the chinese company and it turned out that version was lagging text messages on skype and
sending them to a public security bureau in china and there was a researcher in canada who uncovered this and apparently they claimed they didn't actually know, they were unaware that it had been this bad. they knew the company had been doing something, so again, it kind of speaks to a lot of companies not thinking through how they are going to protect their interest. there's a lot of chinese companies doing business in the united states with a lot of suspicion the government might have a back door in a lot of these technologies and this is like a think it's in the interest of industry set out as a mechanism to prove we have a global standard on how we are protecting the user information
and we are allowing ourselves to be audited that we are adhering to these standards and there would be a lot more trust in our networks if that would have been and i think the commerce would benefit and the entire network would be more valuable that that happened. it's been about to follow-up on that because one of the things that is valuable in your book is to talk about the sort of insidious pressure on companies to collaborate and china has pretty nifty technology in government hands of the most powerful tool is detective companies have to cooperate with the law which pushes the burden of censorship down on to them and that gets them maddening and the overreach and that is one of the things that drove google nuts and partially of the country but that happens in lots of places and lots of ways. i know what your global network
initiative you tried to get companies to sign up to adhere to best practices to explain what they are but that's been around awhile and there hasn't been a option how do you think four companies will participate in that? stake if you look at other initiatives it takes a few years if you look at the fair labor association and if you look at initiatives in the extractive industry to get the wheel mining guess principles to be accountable it can take awhile to get the industry to accept the need to be held accountable, so we launched in 2008 microsoft joined we now have two more companies and we are talking to other ones. there's a range of companies who
can't go alone and they need to figure of how to demonstrate to the public and it takes a while to go through the legal department to sign off. it can take a couple years to get the sign off throughout the corporation to join in the initiative, so it takes a while and this year we're going through the first year of assessment where you have independent assessors looking to what extent are the company's living up to their commitments, and that process is still ongoing and the report is not out yet so that's also a test but it takes a while and we are like the 1970 earth day you didn't get the companies when it comes to environmental standards
but they wake up one day and say i have to do the right thing it took a massive social political consumer movement over decades to get companies to recognize the responsibility and we haven't seen much pressure coming from the public from consumers and users even from the government or from investors on companies to step up and recognize there's a new component to sustainability and it's called civil liberties. until you get a similarly strong and broad movement for the social norm and operate for civil liberties and digital rights, you know, if a company can get away with not being held accountable of course it will. it's going to commit to as little as it can get away with not committing to to read these
kind things don't happen overnight recovery whole ecosystem saying this is what we tell you a better company and what we don't value but a company with a stomach if i might add to that one of the greatest things that's happened in the past year is one of the companies that joined more recently is a different type of company van google, yahoo! and microsoft and that is web cents and what's interesting about the company they produce faltering software that's useful to people for their homes primarily for the child save internet and home filtering, great, better than the government doing it. but a couple years ago we noticed that the country was using their technology to sensor political content and all sorts of other content and when they found out about this they were quite angry and attempted yemen to stop further updates and it took awhile but within the dhaka
happening is they came are not on this and i think in the past year -- i don't know the particular impetus for joining but in the past year with all the news and the surveillance experts and faltering exports i believe the companies of this as the right time to step up and push those standards and i hope that they're joining will cost other companies to start considering this as well. >> we might have time for two more questions or this might be it depending how long the answers are you can spend some of your time on this one or all of it. what should individuals and do to ensure their privacy is protected as much as possible on the internet? besides turn it off. [laughter] >> i think the first step is a lot of what the book talks about is we as users as the general public need to be vigilant and start carrying about this.
people don't care to the censorship until it affects them personally that this affects all of us we just don't think they do because we are not criminals and we think we are immune. but on the other hand, i think that's where we need to start moving forward and pushing companies with its to join the global network initiative or to adopt their own policies or the moderate naming and shaming which is something that used to have been. >> definitely what she said, and its public awareness, it's just being aware in part of what you're using and how that information is being shared, who has access to it. a lot of people use stuff on the internet or mobile devices without really paying attention to help private or public it really is, as a part of the
distressed public educating ourselves into our children to think about is this just on him posting this on my friend's facebook page but this is just as public as me putting animal will would think everybody see it except it's magnified and just kind of -- again, think about what you're doing and what its implications are, and a lot of that is the socialization of technologies to we socialize or look both ways before they cross the street. there was a time but nobody used cars and things were much make chaotic and you kind of socialize yourself to live in a new kind of environment with these technologies and we haven't kind of socialist or sought to this so that's part of it, too and education from the primary schools and up. >> let me get one last quick question and i am going to synthesize a couple of questions in here. this is one of those relatively new things and that is targeted
advertising and the deep mining of individuals. supposedly this is to show dog lovers and as opposed to cat food but dhaka isn't the world of the shadow middlemen who are auctioning the right to advertise you in a split-second. is that the only place it goes or is it going to go someplace else that might -- we might find unpleasant? >> security consulting support for government agencies can then buy the information with your preferences are and then it might get used as part of an investigation in ways that -- >> how paranoid should we be? >> i think we need to demand transparency and accountability and we need to be aware, and i
think we've gotten to the point a lot of the information is collected about us. we need to require the companies obtain more permission before they collect information but they are more clear about how it's being used so there would be more regulation about things being resold and so on and there would be more reporting on it so that at least if something is being abused against as we ever stand the response fort to and this is what a lot of the problem is is how do you constrain abuse because sometimes we consent to the collection of the information because it's convenient to us. but one of the pictures it's not abuse for purposes we did not consent to come and right now we just don't have the mechanisms to prevent the abuse. >> i'm sure she would have great things to add to that but i'm not going to give her the chance. sorry about that. we are out of time. that concludes our program. i would ask the audience to join me in thanking rebecca for the
excellent talk and discussion. [applause] >> thank you members of the audience for your questions and attention and i would remind you that the book is available for sale courtesy of books and and she will be available to sign copies right over there. thanks very much. next from little rock arkansas we talked to mr. stockley that introduces us to the ms 1919 to jim crow arkansas. the author uses letters,
interviews, a newspaper in the trial transcript from 1919 to help reveal the tale of the slaughter of at least 20 african-american sharecroppers who met about and then protested unfair settlements for the cotton crops from white plantation owners. booktv 2:00 with the help of our cable partners comcast of central arkansas to bring you the less known history and literary culture of the city to rid of little rock is best known as the home of the clinton library and the home of the will rock central high school, the site of the 1957 immigration purchase that quickly became national news. >> the summer of 1919 involve the most 20 racial incidents in the united states and part of this had to do with the fact that african-americans were coming back from the first world war and felt like they were
entitled to be treated better and had commonly been the practice. this bitterness towards african-americans not much had changed. blacks could come back from the war and it had been over in france they had been treated as equals with coming back to places like arkansas they were not. so, by 19191 in that summer there had been the formation of the labor movement by an african-american named robert hill, and he was african-american and began forming these tough labor unions, really just one labor union but they were organized into lodges and the purpose was
to get better prices for the cotton and also was to get your settlements from plantation owners because this was a constant problem that african-americans and sharecroppers were being treated by the power structure and plantation owners. it would begin to get suspicious and lodges all over in phillips county. some whites polled about sidewalk the lodge where blacks were reading what, and yet there was a shootout occurred when.
no one knows who fired the first shot but by the time that event was over, one was killed in the shootout between people who were basically there to spy and learn what was going on inside the lodge. that night as i say resulted in the death of a white man. at that point blacks began to run them out of the church and the pain breaks in phillips county. just as it happened in the past, you had telephone calls going all up and down the mississippi delta saying that blacks were now in revolt, and between the
next morning which would have been october 1st you had 600 to 0,000 men into fossil phillips county began shooting down blacks, and at the same time the governor was contacted in little rock and asked them to send troops which they got permission to do that, so over 583 troops and these were battle tested veterans in the second battle they came over with ten machine guns, we got there to take their
arms away from, but at their point of was the believe that african-americans were going to kill plantation owners and in fact it was said to be a list of planners that had been marked for assassination. none of that would speak true. >> i accept the naacp estimate that 250 african-americans were killed during this recess for -- raise massacre. mine believes is the soldiers all told participated in the discriminant killing of
african-americans. she had told the newsmen that originally shoup was just coming over to investigate and see what happened but he immediately took the side of the authorities and believe this was granted the insurrection was nicked in the bud by the queen leading the attack that happened at the church that night. the governor immediately met with a group called the committee of seven. and officials from the county judge to the planners and business men and all of the deal was that if they had no buntings
shoes grindle then do whatever come into the violence that occurred, in other words he was going to go back to little rock and not dictate some models have been in elaina. you have a number of people placed in a makeshift jail but as it turned out elaine was never attacked and there were only five whites there were killed during the entire incident. after all of this finally ended, they began the try also.
it did involve. in that district was a man named john miller who was sent from helena who would become a senator and later a district judge. at that time, his interest was the surrounding area people would be prosecuted and of course no one eats were prosecuted all. over 100 people charged with crimes ranging from first-degree murder to crime of my riding. and almost immediately, three days later the trial began in
helena. welcome of the lawyers for the defendant they were convicted and sentenced and put to the electric chair. for example, they did not question anyone on the jury panel. of course there were no blacks on the jury panel. they didn't raise that issue or subpoena any witnesses for the defense, and basically their tactics was cross-examination of the witnesses, but these trials which only lasted a couple hours
and of course, these men were put on trial for the murder of. the two other white men who'd been members of the policy that had come out there. of course nobody in, they didn't raise any issue but. so, you would have a trial that lasts maybe a couple of hours of the journey. these individuals would be sentenced to die being in the electric chair so the next two days later,. they were entering a plea bargains and would range from second degree murder to being
sentenced for three years in jail, so this participation of the white lawyers from hell, but the naacp was very aware of what was going on in little rock and had a signed walter wright and to go over and investigate what had happened. when they went to elaina and talked with other individuals what was the crime then and then ofe rumor got out there was an