Jul 23rd 2010, 20:11 by B.G. | WASHINGTON
Yesterday in Hanoi Hillary Clinton, America's secretary of state, chided her hosts on failing to keep the internet open and free. Vietnam has blocked Facebook since November of 2009. (In that year, the site had grown from 40,000 users in Vietnam to 1m.) Around the same time, someone infected computers with a programme disguised as a Vietnamese-language keyboard driver, then used those computers in denial-of-service attacks on websites that opposed bauxite mining in Vietnam, a government priority. Vietnam jails bloggers. And, according to Duy Hoang of the Vietnam Reform Party, hackers in Vietnam pulled down and then published the database of a website that served as a gathering point for the Vietnamese diaspora.
(You can read more from The Economist on bloggers in Vietnam here.)
So Mrs Clinton is doing the right thing. But she may not be doing it the right way. Reading about her appearance yesterday, I thought of a panel I watched in April that featured Mr Hoang and Adrian Hong of the Pegasus project, a foundation that focuses on communication in closed societies. Mr Hong pointed out that, for America, human rights has generally been only a rhetorical priority. He had a hard time thinking of any real international state action aimed solely at human rights; when diplomats close the doors behind them, he said, they talk about trade. He saw no reason to think the right to unhindered access to the internet would be any different.
But neither Mr Hong or Mr Hoang, the Vietnamese reformer, wanted to discount America's role entirely. Mr Hoang said that international support is of tremendous value inside of Vietnam, and that America happens to be the country with the most leverage. I asked him for one single effective thing that Hillary Clinton could do for him on her next trip to Vietnam. He said that access to the internet doesn't have to be a question of human rights; it can be one of trade and development, too. Ms Clinton might, he said, behind closed doors point out to her counterparts how important the internet is for jobs and education, and that a closed internet creates fewer innovations than an open one.
Babbage hopes, then, that she did that as well.
In this blog, our correspondents report on the intersections between science, technology, culture and policy. The blog takes its name from Charles Babbage, a Victorian mathematician and engineer who designed a mechanical computer. Follow Babbage on Twitter »
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Sorry, there's no such thing as Internet freedom. I'm an American, but my private emails, blog posts, etc. are all up to inspection and evaluation from the US government.
The Internet is not an open field where you can scream whatever you want and not be heard ... well, unless your concept of an open field includes audio-visual surveillance.
Real internet freedom is more proliferation of porn, marketing, and all sorts of rubbish you already see on tv. Facebook, and Google are just content companies from russian investments and maybe even contractors for CIA. The mention of Facebook is just another verbose for western news outlet. These days we don't get the news that feels newsworthy unless it's something from wikileaks. Western media outlet are nothing more then cake decorator for their own lot.
Yes, I'm sure that many countries envy online western freedom of speech that dumps sensitive information on sites like wikileaks, I'm sure they're very eager for that to happen to their own sensitive information and are fully aware of the countless advantages of such information being out in the open.
"for America, human rights has generally been only a rhetorical priority . . . when diplomats close the doors behind them, he said, they talk about trade."
SO true! - and for more than 200 yrs.
For governments, the internet is just another media to disseminate information after the radio and television, and for the same reason no country can freely operate radio or TV stations in another country, its pretty simple to understand its the same for the internet.
Ironically, the very act of exploiting the internet for political and diplomatic purposes contradicts the entire notion of a free internet.
Hillary, like most American politicians, is a past master at saying things that she doesn't really believe for immediate political advantage.