Information to users

US Information and Comunication Policy
Setting Domestic International
(Bilateral/Multilateral)
Policy Target Internal/Domestic External/International Policy Goals Infrastructure
_DevelopmentStandardization/Harmonization
Export of US-made goods and
services

Interactions with ?
Domestic Businesses/ Industry
55
International Organizations Foreign Countries
Other Foreign Groups

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The ultimate focus of this study is the second column
of this table. But, before analyzing US relations with
multilateral institutions, it is beneficial to trace the principles that informed policy decisions made in domestic settings. These principles become the fundamental rationale for US foreign information policy.
Domestic Settings for Information Issues
Domestic US action in information and communication
policy has come in two general areas: 1) innovations in information and communications technology, (improved methods of manipulating the gathering, storage, retrieval and
analysis of data) and 2) intervention in the distribution of information technologies and content at a domestic level.
Innovations
The US government has always had a hand in the
development of information an communication technology on its own soil. Its policy, on the whole, was to improve its position relative to other countries in the world doing similar research, not unlike the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. Technological developments such as radio, television and the computer, though ultimately commercial
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
items, were strongly supported by US funding, personnel and resources.
In the early 20th century, because of the growth and
historically rapid diffusion of radio and telegraph, policy makers within the US government recognized the potential uses of these technologies. This interest led to the passage of the Communications Act of 1934 and, with it, the
organization of the Federal Communications Commission. The commission was charged with domestic communications
regulation and oversight. Ironically, the FCC did not
establish an international bureau, which emphasized the government's focus on the international uses of information and communications technology, until the beginning of the 1990s.
The Communications Act was, in part, a response to the
uses of communications technology during the first world war. Subsequently, one of the most visible reasons for
government involvement became the rationale of 'national security." That is, both information innovations and
information content could either contribute to the
enhancement of security or be a threat to security if
misused or stolen. National security reasoning was manifest in two ways, one very conscious - the control of information content deemed important for national security reasons - and the other seemingly inadvertent - the development of
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relationships with leaders in the US communications
industry.
First, there were clear policy decisions surrounding
some types of information content, the release of which could have been problematic for the security of the nation. For example, information obtained through intelligence gathering has always been assigned the stature of 'secure" until such time that the information can be released.11 Another example is encryption technology, the methods by which organizations code information for transfer. Despite some attempts to open up encryption technology for sale on the global market, many policy makers in the United States have maintained that the sharing of US-produced methods of encryption 'would pose a real threat to national
security."12
Second, the relationships built through a century of
advancements in information technology have made the
relationships between the US government and the information technology industry an important component of today's
foreign information policy.
11 See the discussion of one controversial case in Neil
Sheehan. The Pentagon Papers (New York: Bantam Books, 1971) .
12 'House Subcommittee Approves Encryption Bill,"