this week, communicators and look at the level of freedom of the internet in human rights and how the u.s. state department keeps tabs on the internet freedom. our guest is daniel baer, deputy

assistant secretary of state democracy human rights and labor. >> this week on the communicators, a look on internet freedom worldwide. the state department recently issued its annual human-rights report and joining us is daniel baer, deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights and labor. secretary baer, why is internet freedom included in the human rights report? >> i think one of the things that secateurs clinton has brought wide attention to this and knew when she started was already a story that was unfolding is that, you know, more and more we see that the story of human rights around the world is happening on line or through new technology broadly speaking. when we think about what most of us associated with human rights whether it's president roosevelt freedom speech or the universal declaration of human rights.

those rights, the exercise of those rights would as freedom of expression, association and assembly, they are increasingly unfolding on line and it doesn't matter that the offline incarnations don't matter. they still do, they are important and often work in tandem, but certainly it's hard to imagine for most of us any kind of significant world event where those exercises are happening without being exercised on line, so i think the inclusion of the united freedom and the human rights report does not reflect that reality and contributes to the comprehensive report. >> host: >> when you talk about the freedom the mean freedom of speech or access to the internet? >> we mean broadly speaking the same rights that apply offline apply online, so obviously freedom of speech, freedom of expression is most prominent also freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion. any human right that is

reflected in the universal declaration of human rights or the international civil and political rights, that should apply on-line in the same way that it is offline. there is a separate and related conversation about access that ties into the development of infrastructure and the spread of technology etc., and certainly we recognize how those two things work in tandem, protecting an open platform and expanding the reach of that platform, but there's a distinct and complementary goals and not substituted for the other. as a, you know, that is certainly part of the conversation but i think when we talk about the human rights report we're talking about protecting the openness of the platform to for people to exercise their rights online. >> joining us on line as well as lynn stanton, a senior editor for to the communications reports and is the guest reporter this week. >> how much correlation is there but in the human rights violation and the offline?

same countries you have concerns about online and offline and the degree sort of correlated between the two if you will. >> i think that as you probably would expect there is a great deal of correlation. i think probably that speaks to the in divisibility of the rights exercised, governments that see the exercise of freedom of expression or association as a threat to wetter sometimes say regime of legitimacy tend to see those as a result if they are happening in the town square or an online chat room. so for that reason the same government that restrict the rights of wine and online. i think there are kind of different groups. the democracies also struggle with how to adapt and respond to new technology. they are often very

well-intentioned and in a variety around the world where figuring out okay, i start from the premise the same rights apply on-line as offline but how do i make that real deutsch and the expansion happening in the various sectors etc so they make mistakes as people do. i think there's the difference not only in the approach of the speech or are we trying to facilitate an open internet there is also a difference in a kind of the openness of the conversation about how do we reckon with of the technologies with the challenge of developing infrastructure etc., and where the conversations are happening out in the open and mistakes that happen are corrected more easily so there's often a correlation and openness of the public conversation and how the internet is responding.

>> when does the department looks at it do you have problems making the distinction? you said some have the well-intentioned and make a mistake. you have trouble discerning whether it is a well-intentioned possibly legitimate restriction copyright protection or child pornography and i would assume sometimes legitimate excuses or reasons for restriction cited by the government's perhaps with determining what they are legitimate? >> i think you are quite right. there is a set of legitimate challenges that arise in terms of law enforcement or intellectual property protection and there are some governments that start in the premise that we can manage these challenges and the principal way and it won't be easy and we will have to make tough calls and realize

we took the wrong approach and there are other governments that opportunistic the harvest of the legitimate rationale or objective for quite different purposes and part of the challenge is yes, the distinction so that the governments that are seeking to undermine or repress the citizens are not taking advantage of legitimate actions for law enforcement etc. to justify their own nefarious behavior. >> host: >> dannel baer how to measure internet freedom, what do you use to measure that? >> certainly is a berkeley when the first conversations about what we now call the internet freedom reemerging on the censorship in the form of the filters blocking access to the web sites etc and in the last few years there's been, partly

because of, you know, 63 clinton did shine an enormous spotlight on this issue to and a half years ago when she gave her first internet freedom speech and since then, but we have seen an evolution on the way that people can see the basket of the internet freedom issues. it store includes censorship and filtering a lot of places around the world but there's also other ways internet freedom under threats. there is the attack web site with the denial of service attacks government to take down either the new sites are often civil society groups so there's active attacks on the information out there. there's also a tax offline of people what they do online, so somebody posts something on the facebook page and they are tracked down and abused in a physical way for what they do and that is an internet freedom issue, too not only because the person being punished and the

fear factor that contributes in the self-censorship that contributes through the society, so i think we see the emerging threats like those in many different contexts. the different contexts have different doses of each of those. there are some places the faltering is very strong and the offline harassment is less so and there's other places. >> where some of the most egregious examples that you found worldwide when it comes to restricting the internet? >> it's well known that china's research on the internet are widespread and one of the things we've seen in china and a number of other countries now is the kind of targeted sensor going after a single block a post or something like that in addition to the broad filters etc. so in

terms of restrictions of what people can access china others obviously iran and syria are to double up users and filtering and trucking people down and punishing them and abusing them for what they've done on-line, and we are seeing that bold and in front of our eyes. but i do think that again, you know, each context is different. there are a number of states where it's problematic. and the argument i try to make when i engage in my foreign government is about that eventful economic trade-off that the states have to make when they restrict vast amounts of information or create an environment in which the potential as a platform for sharing and exchanging information is the fewer the self-censorship people have when i talk to governments like vietnam that have a restriction they are introducing the would

make websites liable for the content the users post on their sites, these have commercial the implications, not just human rights implications it's a place for the commercial interest in human rights interest over the last quite a lot and there is a case to be made in terms of these ambitions for the continued economic growth that they need to see an open internet is a part of that formula. >> in terms of the government monitoring and tracking people acting obviously that is a cursor to attacking the offline or shutting down. it is the action monitoring the concern do you see that as a human rights violation or a area of concern that you don't worry about at all until that actually leads to another kind of violation?

>> is different purposes for that. obviously there are legitimate countries including our own that have legitimate law enforcement interest in monitoring and tracking the systems are established by a democratically elected legislature the thir executed a billion a democratically elected executive branch and they are held in trust by the judicial branch independent able to in accordance of the constitutional principles and so that broad context matters. it also matters with the purpose is and so it's hard and many countries like syria or iran where people are monitoring and checking are not potential terrorists but actually human rights activists arguing against the regime not only monitoring but disappeared into the land never to be seen again and a

different scenario. so yes, the answer to your question in this matter with the intention is, and it matters to take a look at the broad context of the protection and safeguards in place to use the mcdaniel baer, last year during the arab spring wheat at sea traffic and egypt just dropped. it was shut down. essentially the internet was shot down. do we see the same thing in syria, and how has egypt changed over the past year? >> i think there is still internet trafficking going on but there are restrictions the regime has been using technology in order to target people which is one of the reasons why the president signed the new executive order recently that allows sanctions to be put on individuals that are helping the city nor the iranian regime with the technology they need.

but we know that it has continued to be important for the syrian people who are on the ground to tell their story to the outside world. we know the bit of footage that is getting out, how important these technologies are going to be for document and recording in this case the story of a terrible horror. in terms of egypt, you know, my understanding is that the internet is the shutdown that happened last year for several days one of the things that happened there is that it wasn't sustainable cutting one of the lessons learned was cutting off the country that has been online and taking them offline is incredibly difficult to do and sustained and there's economic and, they're too little remember the actual figures but i remember there were economic estimates that came out shortly thereafter but how much had been lost in those few days of the shutdown so it became a part of

the lesson. there are many lessons to take away, and many understandings that we bald have for several years with the changes that have happened in the last 18 months in the middle east. but one of the lessons we do know is that there was unsustainable to keep the internet off. >> you mentioned executive order on the technology and syria. the center of technology used for legitimate reasons gets used for. is that the way to do it to go country by country and okay this country stepped over the line, so we need to fight the water to stop it or should this be some broadway of looking at how this technology goods exported and what kind of service the u.s. based companies provide? >> there should be a broadway and we are taking a broad way. one of the reasons why it was narrowly targeted against the kind of first of the worst is

because they recognize this is a space that is the best example of the concept for things of a positive or negative and if we take up the object of the we want to let the access of the regime to the technology for the purposes of doing harm or violence for violating the rights of its citizens but it's not only that there are legitimate uses but also the people trying to exercise the right to get access to new technology udall want to catch things in the technology that the need and want in order to exercise their rights so we recognize that this is a difficult exercise and it has to be done carefully and that is part of the reason why a couple years ago there was a clarification of the fact that

web based software could be used in iran because the confusion over things like e-mail or skype or violations of sanctions so this is something we are always trying to be as refined as possible but they will never be the entire solution. one of the things that secretary clinton highlighted in december of last year was increasingly the company's common number of companies that are taking the lead on this but on their own urging what to say where is this product going and can i predict what the u.s. is, is there a way of the software that i can with the u.s. as afterwards and what steps can we take to make sure the reasons our products were created for the reasons for which they are being used on the

innovations we've developed in a way that would allow us to continue to innovate and make products going forward so it is a role of the private -- we had a case where putting things on the blacklist was littered with a solution to the need a community engaged on trying to maximize the good of responding to. >> you mentioned earlier the u.s. has law enforcement for monitoring. how much pushback as you go out and talk to your counterparts in other countries about the way they look at the internet and say you do this. in the debate over net neutrality and the debate over the online per se bills that were in the congress earlier this year cities kind of

approaches for example you look at the piracy stuff that is a bad example people will say why don't we do what you say when you the u.s. are not a good practitioner in the same ideas? >> i think that we canby -- it is true that on any human rights issue or policy issue when you are raising it with counterparts overseas, one of the things they look at is what you're doing at home and i feel enormous pride in working for the administration that there's a commitment across-the-board to make every effort to lead by example and the commitment to universal standards that apply to everyone and putting yourself come into this area is no exception. i think that you're right. some of the dates that have gone on in the country have revealed the difficulties of managing new

challenges and they realize with regard. one of the things we can be proud of this frankly the way that these things are transacted in the public's fear. people spread facebook convenes etc. but are not shut down for doing that. and they have a say on the way politics on fold. it's almost some of these have been almost a textbook case of a way of to the congress on key issues about how to manage of the emergence of new technologies and so mauney response when talking about the counterpart is first of all i desert from the premise not only on that my colleagues and other agencies are working on these issues start from the commitment of principal to figure of practicalities and the nuts and bolts but as the members of

congress try to do as well the good news is as we work on the public scrutiny and when criticisms come up, they are dealt with in an open way and that this something that if everybody committed to that, we would be a long way down the path. >> this is c-span communicators the computer will look at policy and joining this week is daniel baer, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and leave orie and we are discussing their human rights report that the state department puts out and the internet freedom and around the world. lynn stanton of the medications daily is our guest, ms ryckman commission reports as our guest. on the flip side, how do you as a member of the state department community how do you use the

internet to encourage or promote human rights that the u.s. espouses how do you get into north korea? can you get in the internet? >> jury few people in our factory have access to the internet and a large portion are in the ministries fox is a difficult media environment and one in which radio broadcasters reach people and so there are increasing demands i think which an opening for the ability to access information and it's something that we continue to obviously support on north korea's very close to environment, the enormous human rights violations and so we're focused on looking for the opportunities to widen its base for information and to get the north korean people information

from outside the space. i think in terms of your broader question about how we are using internet i think the story is we are using the internet not only the space but brought the part of it is because the moment we are in as i said at the outset everything is increasingly happening on-line in the new technology and under the secretary there's been a concerted effort to to get advantage of the opportunity for 21st century statecraft to reach out to people in more places, people we couldn't have reached back-and-forth conversations ten or 20 years ago we now can so we have to refer feeds and a number of different languages that reach a large portion of the world and allow us to have a back-and-forth. 140 characters or less what allowed us to have a back-and-forth on a variety of topics not just human rights topics, and i think it comes at

a good time because it also places enormous focus on connecting not only the foreign policy to governments but people with other countries. she gave a speech to years ago she talked about the importance of civil society and changemakers and being part of what supports a healthy democracy and as she travels the world she makes an effort to hold around tables or town hall meetings with activists and citizens wherever she goes and they give us an ability to allow her to interact with people virtually as well as a loved folks in the state department and embassies around the world to keep engaged in the communities etc.. i visited vietnam earlier this year at an event with students at the american center in hanoi and they can borrow ipads and

kindles and access american news sites and facebook and other sites with the american center and we're having conversations about this etc so it allows us to kind of keep an ongoing conversation in a really robust and interesting contemporary way. >> do you think of your senior office is sending tweets out to the foresee or the web site facebook page are those blocked in iran could those be accessed? >> we know that there are people in various places have trouble accessing -- sometimes they have trouble accessing the state department website petraeus sometimes put kill your trouble accessing web reports and it turns out of those are not always popular publications with other governments. so yes they can. of one of the other parts of the policy secretary clinton has outlined his been a concerted effort to help equip people to

navigate the blocks and the hardships and threats brought against them, so we have given $76 million of grants in the last few years and by the end of this year we will be at 100 million for programs and grants and others working on tools and training and resources that helpless and power citizen's to exercise their rights online and through new technologies and so i know that iran does take enormous steps to limit the internet there are people that are accessing the internet and get information and share it inside iran as well and so i hope that people know -- i hope to god people can access the messages and the affirmation that we are sharing and i hope that certainly know that we care about their condition. >> for example, who would be getting the grand?

>> we don't talk publicly about who exactly they are but there are ngo's -- there's another kind of new thing five or ten years ago there were not really ngos that were working in this space and there's been a kind of incubation the past few years of kind of a silicon valley of human-rights i call them cheeks with a conscience people with the intersection of human rights activism and new technologies who are coming up with the tools that allow activists to communicate with each other with greater degrees of anonymity who come up with tools like one that allows you to press a button on your cell phone that wipes out your address book so if you get picked up off the street they can't go after all your friends which is what has happened. we develop these programs in response to the emerging threats that we see in a variety of context and we talk back to this as much as we can and try to identify what bad things the

government are trying to do to people and find out ways that helps them and oftentimes the greatest protection is what i call the digital self-defense where the need to know the kind of now where the government is trying to get onto their computers to track their keystrokes and stuff like that so a lot of this self-defense training as well that has to be passed through underground railroads of trust to get to the people that needed the most we've trained over 7,000 activists in the last few years. >> is the reason you don't announce because they operate inside these countries and they are concerned about their safety or is it because too much information would make it easier for them to work their way around the defense is that you are giving the activists? >> i think generally it's obviously a sensitive area and we want the programs to be as effective as possible. they are competed for publicly

advertised contests and we get enormous numbers of interesting proposals but out of respect for the guarantees many of whom are on the ground and working we let them decide when and whether they want to disclose that they are receiving report and we are not the only ones. >> if you would like to read the state department report, state.gov is website three we've been talking with david debate dannel baer, democracy, human rights and labor. lynn stanton of communications reports senior editor has been our guest reporter.