This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Re: Inquiry: Politico | Encryption and Anonymization

FYSA: *Hillary Clinton: “The Same Networks That Help Organize Movements For Freedom Also Enable Al-Qaida To Spew Hatred And Incite Violence Against The Innocent.” *“Because amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can either energize a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent. And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights.” [Secretary Clinton Remarks on Internet Freedom, 1/21/10 <http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/01/135519.htm>] On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Tony Carrk <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > And Monica > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 18, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> > wrote: > > Adding Laura as well. > > > > *From:* Sara Solow [mailto:ssolow@hillaryclinton.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 12:13 PM > *To:* Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> > *Cc:* Teddy Goff <tgoff@hillaryclinton.com>; Nick Merrill < > nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com>; John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Tony > Carrk <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com>; Brian Fallon < > bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; Christina Reynolds < > creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> > *Subject:* Re: Inquiry: Politico | Encryption and Anonymization > > > > Agree with Jake. Man this is tough. Is there evidence that bad guys -- > not just dissidents but terrorists or whatever -- have also benefitted from > the technologies supported by the Internet freedom agenda? Either way, I > think the talking points Jake put down, from Ben, stay the same. > > > On Nov 18, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> > wrote: > > Adding Tony and Sara S, and others from comms. This is going to be a > challenge. I think we should give a comment on the anonymizing tools and > punt on backdoors (she’ll have more to say on that tomorrow). > > > > On anonymizing tools, Ben Scott has suggested the following talking > points. Boiled down, the points are: > > > > 1-The bad guys could already get crypto -- we helped the good guys get > it. > > 2-The Internet Freedom investments in these technologies were strongly > bipartisan (and remain so). > > > > Talking Points: > > > > ➢ Secretary Clinton’s Internet Freedom agenda is a signature achievement > at the State > > Department. She elevated human rights in a digital era to the top tier of > foreign policy > > issues and built a new kind of diplomacy around harnessing the power of > technology > > to serve the foreign policy goals of the United States. > > > > ➢ The Internet Freedom programs that invest in software development were > designed > > to help people help themselves. Authoritarian governments will not > willingly grant > > freedom of expression or the right to privacy. But technology can empower > people > > with secure communications tools. > > > > ➢ Making secure communications tools usable for the average citizen in > authoritarian > > societies was a central goal of Secretary Clinton’s. She achieved that > goal. The latest > > generation of Internet Freedom technologies is so user-friendly that even > Silicon > > Valley giants have taken up the tools built by tiny NGOs. > > > > ➢ Of course, the leaders of America’s Internet Freedom policies are aware > that secure > > communications technologies can cut both ways. Providing people with tools > > powerful enough to resist intervention by their own governments means that > our own > > security services will be challenged as well. This question was thoroughly > reviewed > > and debated at the time the Internet Freedom agenda was launched. > > > > ➢ Secretary Clinton joined the consensus view of Congressional leaders > from both > > parties that supporting Internet Freedom technologies requires > uncompromising > > commitment to the security of users. And while we will do all we can to > support the > > work of law enforcement, the steadfast protection of fundamental rights > around the > > world puts us on the right side of history. > > > > ➢ A bipartisan group of Congressional leaders have supported and funded > these > > programs for many years. Since 2008, Congress has appropriated more than > $200 > > million to enable these innovative Internet Freedom programs. Since 2014, > under > > Republican leadership in Congress, the annual allocation for Internet > freedom > > programs has increased to $50.5 million. > > > > ➢ Following Secretary Clinton’s push for Internet Freedom, uptake of > these Internet > > Freedom tools has grown from hundreds of thousands of regular users to > more than > > 900 million people in 60 countries who use these technologies to exercise > their rights > > in the digital world. > > > > *From:* Teddy Goff [mailto:tgoff@hillaryclinton.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 11:48 AM > *To:* Nick Merrill <nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com>; Jake Sullivan < > jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>; John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> > *Subject:* Re: Inquiry: Politico | Encryption and Anonymization > > > > just giving JDP and JS a heads up on this in case they aren't on HRCRR@. > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Nick Merrill < > nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > > I assume we don't have anything on this just yet.... > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *Resent-From:* <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> > *From:* Joe Marks <jmarks@politico.com> > *Date:* November 18, 2015 at 11:15:57 AM EST > *To:* "nmerrill@hrcoffice.com" <nmerrill@hrcoffice.com> > *Subject:* *Comments on encryption and anonymization* > > Hi Nick, > > > > I’m working on a story today about the renewed debate over end to end > encryption following the Paris attacks. One thing the article explores is > Sec. Clinton’s support for anonymizing tools such as Tor for political > dissidents when she was secretary and whether that may be a political > liability. > > > > Can the campaign comment on whether that support may be a liability and/ > or whether Sec. Clinton has a firmer position on government backdoors for > encryption since the Re/Code interview in February where she called it a > “classic hard choice?” > > > > My deadline is 2 p.m. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Joe > > > > -- > > Joseph Marks > > Reporter, Cybersecurity > > Politico Pro > > 703-647-8776 (desk) > > 202-664-7910 (cell) > > jmarks@politico.com > > @Joseph_Marks_ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "HRCRR" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to hrcrr+unsubscribe@hillaryclinton.com. > To post to this group, send email to hrcrr@hillaryclinton.com. > > > >