*EPF211 01/24/2006
Transcript: Cato Institute's Jim Harper Addresses Free Speech, the Internet
(USINFO Webchat transcript, January 24) (2540)

Following is the transcript of a January 24 online discussion with Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute on freedom of speech in the Internet age:

(begin transcript)

Cato Institute's Jim Harper to Discuss Free Speech and the Internet

[Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, will answer questions and discuss freedom of speech in the Internet age during a live web chat January 24 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (1400 GMT).

Harper is also a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.]

Moderator:�� Our chat will start at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday. We have some questions already, but they will not be posted until Mr. Harper answers them. Please continue to send in questions, but there is no need to repeat them if you don't see them posted.

Mr. Harper will be available soon to answer your questions, but as moderator, I would like to address one myself.

One of you asked, ����In a Web chat like this, would there be any potential threat to privacy?���� Absolutely not. We do not gather any information that you don't want to give us. The only information we need from you is your e-mail address and you can use any e-mail address. We do not encourage you to identify yourself online.

BTW

We have a new system for chats. You now MUST HIT REFRESH in order to see updated answers, so please do that every few minutes. Thanks.

Jim Harper:�� Hello, everyone. I look forward to this morning's chat.

Before I start, I'll just say a word or two about myself. I am director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute. I study the difficult problems of adapting law and policy to the unique problems of the information age, including privacy, data security, identification, surveillance, and so on.

The Cato Institute is a think-tank based in Washington, D.C. that focuses on the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. These are all good things, in my opinion!

Question: How far does freedom of speech on the Internet extend?

Answer: Your question is really about people. The Internet is an inert technology that allows people to communicate whatever they want to, subject to technological limits. The question is what social practices and government regulations are appropriate when you give people that power. I believe that we should accord people the maximum amount of room to communicate, collaborate, and trade on the Internet. You see brilliant things from humanity when you do this. You see some ugly sides of humanity, too, which is unfortunate. A simple rule should apply: People should be able to do whatever they want to so long as they do not harm others.

Moderator: For information about other web chats we have done or are doing, please see our web chat page at http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Products/Webchats.html

Q [Tanja]:�� You have defined privacy as a "subjective condition" (not right) "that people experience when they have power to control information about themselves and when they exercise that power consistent with their interests and values". Does the same rule apply to terror suspects: do the authorities have right to wiretap and search their e-mails without warrants given by a court?

A: I'm impressed. You've done your research! I have tried to create a definition of privacy that is value-neutral: Privacy is a subjective condition people enjoy when they have 1) the power to control information about themselves and 2) have exercised that control consistent with their interests and values.

There are certain rules that allow the power to control information to be stripped away. In the United States, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prevents unreasonable searches and seizures and allowing reasonable ones. We have a lot of cases that have explored what that means -- what is, and what is not, reasonable. If a person is reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activities and planning, his or her claim to privacy goes away in favor of security and law enforcement.

I don't believe, however, that this should be done by just one branch of government. We have a system where the executive branch almost always has to ask the judicial branch if it is all right to go forward with an investigation. Even in a country like ours, that prides itself on freedom, this rule is under attack, which makes me very concerned.

Q [Mark]: Mr. Harper, it seems that many hate groups have taken advantage of the Internet to spread their messages ... does the Internet provide these groups a safe haven for their beliefs?

A: A couple of people have asked questions like this, about hate groups and others communicating things on the Internet that are widely regarded as wrong or evil.

The Internet is a very powerful, open communication tool. Much more good comes from it than bad, and it is important to preserve the good, the freedom that it gives to so many people. For that reason, I am very suspicious of rules that would tell people what they can and cannot say on the Internet.

In the United States, the First Amendment prevents the government from deciding what people can and cannot say in the press. This allows criticism of the government, specific government officials, and businesses. I use this freedom a lot!

If the government were allowed to prohibit certain kinds of speech, they would probably decide that we can't say things critical of the government. Rather than banning certain kinds of speech, such as hate speech, these issues should be talked about even more. If a person or group preaches hate for another group, they should be exposed and criticized, rather than told to be silent.

Q [Rosario]:�� On January 18, the Justice Department asked a federal court in San Jose, California to force Google to turn over search records for use as evidence in a case where the government is defending the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).

Fortunately, Google has refused to comply with a subpoena for those records, based in part on its concern for its users' privacy.

What are your thoughts on this case?

A: I am very concerned about the government trying to use data that Google has collected for its own research tool. In this case, Google does not have any information about a particular person that has done something wrong, the government just wants to see what Americans are searching for on the Internet.

The government should not be able to dip into private databases whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. If you allow that, they will collect more and more data. Before long, the private sector will just be an arm of the government. Requiring Google to turn over this data would be a very dangerous precedent.

I am upset that so many companies gave similar information voluntarily. I don't think they realize what a bad idea that is and I don't think they have the interests of their customers in mind.

While Google has behaved well in this case, I think they keep personal information for too long. Their privacy policy places no limits on how long they keep personally identifiable data. They should promise to eliminate personally identifiable data after a period of time.

Q [Tanja]: Mr. Harper, you said that a "simple rule should apply: People should be able to do whatever they want to so long as they do not harm others." But you cannot know people's intentions in advance. Shouldn't there be regulations that allow authorities to observe people using the Internet when they feel it is necessary?

A: I think the best rule is to allow people to do what they want, but punish them after the fact if they have done wrong. This means that some bad behavior is allowed, but it prevents even worse behavior by government officials. Most government officials have only good intentions, but history shows that broad powers in the hands of government officials will be abused.

In the case of terrorism and organized crime, of course, law and enforcement and national security authorities should have the ability to monitor people's communications, learn what they are doing, and collect evidence that will be used to stop them and punish them.

The important thing is to have an independent check on this power. In the U.S., we almost always require approval of a court before law enforcement can monitor communications. As I said before, this rule is unfortunately under attack.

Q [Hasnaoui]: For the human rights, it is a necessity what is doing America!

What is the strategy so that the governments of Arab-Muslim world don't use these legal and technical means against the political opposition and the defenders of human rights?

A: I am glad to hear your opinion of America's role. Many people in America are unsure if our policies are right.

As you know, it is essential to protect political opponents and human rights advocates. Perhaps one of the most important things to have is the rule of law. The law should be written down, known to the public, and everyone should be expected to follow it. There should be no man, no political party, not even a top political leader who is above the law.

Many governments are the owners of the telecommunications systems. This puts them in a position to monitor and control what people in their country are saying. This is dangerous and it creates power that government officials can abuse. One important thing is to have many different communications systems that are not owned by the government.

The Internet can be very helpful to political dissidents and human rights advocates because there are many ways to communicate and hide your speech from others, including encryption and special servers that don't reveal who is using them. You just have to have more technical knowledge than the government authorities. This is not always easy, but activists in the United States try to make this technology available to people.

Q [Dilorom]: Good day Dear Mr. Harper.�� It's great honor for us to ask questions to you.

Here are some of the questions my students [in Tajikistan] would like to ask you:�� What do they mean when they say "information age?"

A: Thank you for your kind words. I am delighted to talk to you.

We called primitive times the Stone Age because early humans had only stones to use as tools. With the advance of technology, humans were able to make tools out of metal and we call that the Iron Age. A few hundred years ago, we began the Machine Age. Now, we are calling it the Information Age?�� Because information is a tool that we are using to make our lives better.

It is a little bit of hype and exaggeration to use that name, but it makes it very exciting to think that we are at the beginning of an important historical era!

Q [Dilorom]: Is it realistic to get good law education via Internet?

A: I think it is possible to learn a lot about the law from the Internet. But I would also be careful because it is important to be sure what source you are using. Some sites have poor information and some have very good information.

A site that I use to learn U.S. law is http://www.law.cornell.edu/.�� It is very good, accurate information.

You can learn a lot about everything on the Internet, but must always be careful about what your source is. Some Web sites are false, or the writer may not understand his topic very well. Read from many different sources and you can probably figure out the truth.

Q [Mustapha]:�� Greetings Mr. Harper,

I am wondering why freedom of speech, which is a basic Human Right, is considered nowadays as an end itself rather than a means. Freedom of expression allows people to publicize to the world government practices that are not very conventional in terms of ethics. What are expected in such cases are reactions to such practices, and not a praise to Freedom of Expression.

However, I do believe that the Internet technology has proven a blessing in this respect.�� Thank you.

A: I think it often seems like freedom of speech is an end, but it is a means to an end. Believers in free speech are willing to accept bad speech in order to protect all the good speech that happens.

One of the principles behind this is that no person can be a good judge in his own case. If I was allowed to write all the rules for the Internet, I would try to be fair and tolerant. But, one day, someone might offend my family and I would write a rule that they couldn't say things to offend my family. Then, they might insult me and I would write a rule that they couldn't say things to insult me. Even though I started with the best of intentions, I would start to use my power too much.

Instead, I prefer a rule that people should be able to say and do anything, as long as they don't injure other people. This allows people to say bad things on the Internet, but it allows all the good people to be free to do whatever they want.

Q [Dilorom]: Is it possible to make Internet secure?

A: I think the question is not whether the Internet will be secure or not secure. It is whether the part of the Internet you are using is secure enough for the purpose you are using it.

Think of the street in front of your house. Is it secure? I hope it is secure enough to carry 100 rubles in your pocket. It may not be secure enough to wear a gigantic gold and diamond watch openly on your wrist.

The Internet is like this. If you are just e-mailing a friend, it is secure. If you are communicating secret business plans it may not be secure unless you use encryption or take extra steps to protect the information.

There is a growing field of study called "risk management" that studies the best way to protect against dangers of all kinds. It is very interesting and it has many uses on the Internet, but I barely understand it and need to study it more.

Thank you everyone for your questions. I have enjoyed the chance to talk to you. Even if you disagree with what I have said, I'm glad you were willing to consider my views.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Harper. As usual, we had more questions than time, but it looks like you covered all the topics.

The transcript of this chat plus an article about it will be available on http://usinfo.state.gov/eur later today.

If you have any comments about the chat, please email me at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]). Your comments can help me make these chats better. Thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents