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

RE: Inquiry: Politico | Encryption and Anonymization

From:jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com To: nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com, ssolow@hillaryclinton.com CC: tgoff@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com, bfallon@hillaryclinton.com, creynolds@hillaryclinton.com Date: 2015-11-18 16:35 Subject: RE: Inquiry: Politico | Encryption and Anonymization

We will not address the internet freedom funding so I would do something about that. We will address the broader encryption issue. * Got it. Thanks for all of this. Is this something we want to deploy or do we think enough of this will get addressed tomorrow that maybe we can tell him to wait as we will have more to say going forward, starting tomorrow. Thoughts? On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Sara Solow <ssolow@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: 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. * 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- 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.