T H E   W H I T E   H O U S E

Global Information Infrastructure

Help Site Map Text Only

Global Information Infrastructure

This report reflects the deliberations of the drafting panel on The Global Information Infrastructure that met on March 29 and 30, 1995 during the Forum on the Role of Science and Technology in Promoting National Security and Global Stability. The report was compiled by the session drafter and is a summary of the issues raised during the discussion. All points do not necessarily represent the views of all of the participants.

Mike Nelson, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Government Co-Chair: Mike Nelson, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Nongovernment Co-chair: John Gage, Sun Microsystems

Joanne Kumekawa, National Technical Information Service

Tom Kalil, National Economic Council
Steve Goldstein, National Science Foundation
Bob Lucky, Applied Research, Bell Core
Seymour Goodman, Stanford University
Irving Lerch, American Physical Society
Chris Wise-Mohr, AAAS/USAID
Jeff Stann, AAAS
David Henry, National Security Agency
Randall Cook, U.S. Department of Commerce
Jean Prewitt, Podesta Associates
Geoffrey Cowan, Voice of America
Dan Matuszewski, International Research & Exchange Board
Geoffrey Griveldinger, Department of Justice
Manuel Montenegro, Embassy of Brazil
Mike Stevens, Embassy of Canada
Barry Fulton, United States Information Agency
Brent Smith, NOAA
Dan Matuszewski, IREX
Frank Fukuyama, RAND Corporation
Jennifer Conovitz, U.S. Department of Commerce
Art Chester, Hughes Electronics Corporation
W. L. Thompson, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Craig Fields, Alliance Gaming
David Heyman, Johns Hopkins University
Elliot Maxwell, U.S. Department of Commerce
John Hocker, Lockheed Martin Corp
Ernest Wilson, GII Commission
Esther Dyson, Edventure Holdings
Robert Spinrad, Xerox Corporation
Geoffrey Greiveldinger, Department of Justice
Jane Bortnick Griffith, Congressional Research Service

The Global Information Infrastructure
--Summary of Drafting Panel Discussion--

The important role that information technology can play in economic development and national security was a recurring theme in several of the talks given at the Forum. Many speakers, most notably Esther Dyson of Edventure Holdings and Jean-Francois Rischard from the World Bank, commented on the many opportunities--and challenges--that advanced telecommunications and computing technologies offer.

To explore these issues in depth, a working group on the Global Information Infrastructure (GII) was convened and spent more than four hours examining how information technology and the development of a global seamless "network of networks" might affect U.S. national security and foster sustainable development around the world. The group was a diverse one, with members representing more than 10 Federal agencies, a variety of companies, and a number of different backgrounds--foreign policy experts, technologists, and telecommunication policy experts. This diversity of opinion provided for a lively--and at times, contentious--discussion of a wide range of issues, from encryption to the proper role of the Federal government in addressing national security issues raised by new digital technologies. This paper attempts to capture the spirit and the content of the discussion. It also summarizes many of the key points regarding the Global Information Infrastructure made by speakers during the plenary sessions of the Forum.

Michael Nelson of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), who, with John Gage from Sun Microsystems, co-chaired the working group, opened the first session by setting the scene. The purpose of the group was to provide input for an 8-10 page paper on the Global Information Infrastructure, national security, and sustainable development which would help guide foreign policy makers, including the President.

The Administration has made the GII a top priority. Nelson provided a working definition for the GII--"a system to enable anyone to get and distribute the information they need, when and where they want--at an affordable price." That information could be data from a database, a videoconference with colleagues, your bank balance, or reruns of "I Love Lucy." A number of participants stressed that the real power of the GII stems from communication--access to people--rather than simply access to information.

The GII will be built and run by thousands of different companies using a wide range of technologies for an almost unlimited number of applications (many of which we can't even imagine today). The type of technology used will depend critically on local resources, market economics, and the specific applications needed. Rather than spend time trying to describe what the GII is, discussion focused on what it will do.

To frame the debate, the group developed lists of the opportunities and the challenges--the "good news" and the "bad news"--faced by policy makers. The first day of discussion was devoted to discussing the opportunities, while the second day was spent on the challenges.


The working group believes that the GII will enable dramatic improvements in education, health care, scientific research, government, manufacturing, commerce, environment, economic development, and a host of other areas. Advanced information technology will:

  1. Enable electronic commerce, foster global trade, and integration of markets
  2. Promote the freer flow of information, which will foster democracy, more open government, and make intelligence collection easier in many cases
  3. Promote people-to-people contact across borders, improve educational and research opportunities, and promote international understanding.
  4. Facilitate international science and technology cooperation. The use of the Internet to share information on environmental technology and sustainable development was just one example provided.
  5. Provide tools for disaster response (e.g. ReliefNet)
  6. Foster "digital diplomacy" by enabling more effective and more rapid communication between governments--at all levels, but especially at the working level.

The group realized it would not be able to adequately address all of these topics. However, John Gage summed up the consensus of the group when he stated that "no matter what the question, the answer is--the network." In other words, the goal should be to give more information to more people. The challenge is to do that with limited resources and in a way that deals with the conflicting needs for privacy, law enforcement, intelligence-gathering, national sovereignty, and effective governance.

The rest of the first session was devoted to the opportunities of the GII, particularly in the area of sustainable development. Geoffrey Cowan, Director of Voice of America (VOA) began that discussion with an excellent summary of how VOA is dramatically expanding its ability to use radio to reach the people of Africa. This was followed by a discussion on whether information agencies like VOA and USIA could be phased out or redirected since the new global television and news services (CNN, Reuters, etc.) are doing a much better job of providing balanced news reporting to more people than the agencies could ever afford to. On the other hand, commercial services do not broadcast in Ukrainian, Serbian, and many other languages, and those cannot reach many of the people who rely on VOA and USIA. In addition, VOA and USIA are very important ways for the U.S. government to demonstrate its commitment to freedom, democracy, and the free flow of information.

Sy Goodman (Stanford University) felt an interesting way to examine the economic benefits of the GII was to consider how the 5.5 billion people on Earth spend their time and how the GII will change that. If people spend more time using information and less time consuming material goods, the GII could have major environmental impacts. There was a discussion of how it is possible that as the consumption of information displaces the consumption of material goods, we will effectively re-define what "standard of living" means. Therefore, it would be possible for people throughout the world to experience an increasing standard of living even though their consumption of material goods will not raise proportionately. In other words, a modest shift in material goods to the developing world, accompanied by significantly increased information services (including entertainment), will be perceived as a satisfactory increase in standard of living by everyone, without consuming additional material resources.

Irving Lerch from the American Physical Association highlighted the need to do more to connect researchers in the developing world, since today in many fields (e.g. physics) it is impossible to stay at the leading edge without being able to collaborate with colleagues electronically. The spread of electronic publishing could enable scientists in the developing world to have access to information previously only available in journals that they cannot presently afford--assuming that electronic publishers make the necessary effort to reach readers in developing and cash-poor countries.

Bob Lucky from Bellcore described how fast the GII is growing, citing the startling growth of the World Wide Web on the Internet as one example. According to Lucky, industry views security as the biggest problem standing the way of the rapid deployment and widespread use of the GII and stressed that addressing this issue properly will require changes in U.S. encryption policy.

Recommendations. The group then focused on what Federal government agencies, particularly the information agencies such as VOA and the U.S. Information Agency, could do to use information technology to foster sustainable development and facilitate greater access to information overseas. Suggestions offered by different Forum participants included the following:

  1. Give each Cabinet Secretary and agency head a hands-on demonstration of the World Wide Web so they understand the potential of the GII.
  2. Work with key developing countries to do detailed information surveys in order to assess what advanced telecommunications networks could do to foster economic growth in each country.
  3. Explore new technologies that VOA and USIA could use to more effectively disseminate information. Broadcasting data to computers over VOA frequencies (perhaps by using sub-carrier bands) and creating Internet access points at USIA facilities in developing countries were two examples provided by John Gage. A Ukrainian television station has a program called "Everything for everybody" which broadcasts a huge volume of digital data to specially-equipped computers for an hour or two each day.
  4. Require each Federal agency to make an extra effort to put information resources on-line that would be particularly useful to people in developing countries. The research agencies (e.g. National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, NASA) could help assist those agencies which lack the in-house networking expertise needed to do this. In addition to simply creating "digital libraries," agencies could provide bulletin boards where users could post specific questions which agency personnel or other network users could then answer.
  5. Expand efforts to connect universities and schools to the Internet, since in many countries (including the U.S.) researchers and educators have been at the forefront in promoting the development and use of the Internet. USIA and AID programs could nurture "champions" who would promote development of the GII in their home country. The Internet can help connect alumni of exchange programs, add a new dimension to sister city programs, and multiply the impact of other outreach efforts.
  6. Continue and expand programs to provide technical training on telecommunications and computing in developing countries.
  7. Foster indigenous telecommunications companies in other countries. In her address to the Forum, Esther Dyson stressed that U.S. aid programs should not fund development of new networks in countries where it is possible and more productive to foster competition and entrepreneurism by buying telecommunications services from existing indigenous companies. In Russia, many companies, some of which offer quite sophisticated services, view U.S.-funded networks as unfair, government-subsidized competition. She cited the example of the Eurasia Foundation (on whose board she serves) which rather than funding a few big networking projects in the republics of the former Soviet Union, provides small ($10,000-20,000) grants to small businesses and non-governmental organizations that wish to get connected to the Internet. Although more difficult to administer, small grants have a greater impact. "Ask what you can do with them, not what you can do for them."
  8. Foster indigenous sources of electronic information. While access to U.S.-produced information is helpful, often the information a person in a developing country needs is available from fellow citizens. Networks can help him/her locate and use that information. Particular attention needs to be given to tailoring information to meet local needs and respect cultural sensitivities.
  9. Promote freedom of information. Dyson also stressed the role the U.S. government can play in pressuring government to lift controls on information and make the GII a true "market of ideas.
  10. Expand efforts to utilize information technology for disaster preparedness. In his address to the Forum, Jim Baker, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, described in detail how geographic information systems, satellite sensors, and other information technology can help developing countries more effectively prepare for and respond to droughts, floods, disease, insect infestations, and other problems.
  11. Incorporate information technology more effectively into existing foreign programs. In his address to the Forum, Jean-Francois Rischard, Vice President at the World Bank, described how the GII will fundamentally change the world economy and provide new opportunities for developing countries to participate in the global marketplace. The World Bank is moving aggressively to better utilize the Internet, videoconferencing, and computer technology to streamline operations and more effectively communicate with staff and government officials in developing countries.
  12. Help developing countries use information technology to streamline government operations, particularly in areas like customs, land management, and the post office, so that companies in the developing world can reduce costs and time to market, and thus more effectively compete in world markets.
  13. Disseminate market price information. According to Rischard, in many villages a single telephone or computer network connection can provide farmers and merchants with critical pricing information, enabling hundreds of them to avoid being gouged by middlemen.
  14. Utilize distance learning. Rischard also described the benefits of distance learning for both adults and children. Videoconferencing and computer networks can turn village schools into "community learning sources" which can provide information from around the world and dramatically reduce the need for teachers and trainers to travel.
  15. Promote electronic commerce by fostering international cooperation on security and intellectual property protection.
  16. Promote market liberalization, which will lead to increased competition and much lower prices for telecommunications and information services, especially in developing countries where most telecommunications companies are still government-owned monopolies. (This is a key goal of the Administration's GII initiative.)
  17. Encourage foreign aid donors to pool resources where appropriate to develop more effective telecommunications networks to link agency personnel to each other and to aid recipients.
  18. Expand R&D programs aimed at developing cheaper, more versatile, and more robust information technologies appropriate for use in developing countries.


Most of the second drafting session of the working group was devoted to the challenges posed by the development of the Global Information Infrastructure. While there was a unanimous feeling that the benefits of the GII far outweighed the downsides, but it was clear that there are a number of policy problems that need to be addressed if all of the potential benefits of the GII are to be realized. Concerns raised include:

  1. Monitoring of individuals by government and businesses. The growing amount of personal data in electronic form means that it is increasingly imperative to develop policies and technologies that ensure privacy protection.
  2. Propaganda. Advances in technology have made it much easier to communicate to millions of people and to spread misinformation or disinformation. The use of hate radio in Bosnia and Rwanda and the use of computer bulletin boards by neo-Nazis in the U.S. provide examples of the dangers. (On the other hand, the GII will also enable individuals to have access to a wider range of information sources, which should reduce the effectiveness of propaganda.)
  3. Terrorism and crime. The growth of the GII and the spread of strong encryption will facilitate instant, anonymous, encoded communications making it easier for organized crime, terrorists, drug dealers, and others to conceal their activities, thwart wiretaps, commit fraud, and launder money. The challenge is to address valid law enforcement concerns in a way that also meets the legitimate need to protect personal privacy and business secrets. Failure to address these often conflicting concerns could slow the deployment and use of the GII and/or result in a serious increase in crime and terrorism.
  4. Intelligence. The spread of encryption will make it more difficult or even impossible for intelligence agencies and the policy makers they serve to get access to valuable information regarding developments overseas.
  5. Information Warfare. As the U.S. becomes increasingly reliant on networked computer systems for electronic commerce, transportation, energy supply, and government it becomes increasingly vulnerable to hackers and saboteurs who might try to do economic damage by attacking those systems. Encryption was felt to be one of the key technologies for protecting systems and data, but concerns about export controls, liability, and standards are hindering its use. There are many other ways to reduce the vulnerability of the network, including systems architecture solutions that rely on decentralization, designed-in graceful degradation, and firewalls. Analogous solutions have been used to improve the reliability and robustness of electrical power networks in the U.S. and elsewhere.
  6. Reliability. The systems that make up the GII need to be designed to ensure they are robust and will function in case of natural disasters, accidents, and equipment failure.
  7. The Information Gap. If advanced telecommunications technologies increases the gap between rich and poor nations, the GII could lead to more poverty and instability in the developing world. The use of appropriate and affordable technologies (e.g. wireless, Internet) could enable developing countries to meet many of their information and telecommunications needs for a fraction of the investment that developed countries have made in their information infrastructures.
  8. Controls on freedom of information. Many countries go to great lengths to control information. If such controls are not relaxed, it is clear the full benefits of the GII will not be realized. Government telecommunications policies that hinder network access for the academic and research communities, which have been adopted in some countries, are particularly short-sighted because they stifle both research and economic development.
  9. Loss of community. As the Internet makes it possible for individuals to join global "virtual communities," they may be become less involved in their local communities. Geography will become less relevant as people begin to interact only with those who share their language, beliefs, and interests.
  10. Literacy. Many of the benefits of the GII will be unavailable to those who cannot read, thus further exacerbating income disparities and poverty.
  11. Jurisdiction. Who controls transactions on a global network? For instance, whose tax laws apply to a virtual corporation?
  12. Lack of awareness among government policymakers. The fact that many members of the foreign policy and national security establishment do not understand the problems and potential of the GII needs to be addressed.
  13. Clash of cultures. The GII, by providing more information about other cultures, may be perceived by governments or political groups as a threat to established beliefs and social mores, particularly in the Islamic World, and may lead to political instability.

John Gage and Sy Goodman framed the issues well by compiling the following list of areas where most national governments presently exert authority or control:

  • Intellectual property rights
  • Information flow
  • Telecommunications networks
  • Security (of networks and computer systems)
  • Integrity of data
  • Value exchange
  • Currency (digital money, international capital movements)
  • Anonymity
  • Sovereignty (protection of borders, etc.)

In most of these areas, development of the GII will reduce the authority of national governments. The working group attempted to ascertain what problems this may create, where governments really need to continue to maintain authority and where governments should just get out of the way, and what changes in policy may be needed as a result.

Encryption. Attention turned first to encryption policy, since encryption is a critical issue when addressing security, digital money, anonymity, intellectual property, and content issues. There was vigorous debate over U.S. government controls on the export of encryption technology. Most industry representatives argued vehemently in favor of lifting export controls on DES and other forms of strong encryption. A number of government officials and others argued that doing so would significantly hinder the ability of the President and other top policy-makers to have access to the intelligence information they need to develop effective foreign policy, address the threat of proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, fight international organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorism, and open foreign markets for American companies.

There was an extended discussion of the Clipper Chip and other proposals for key- escrow encryption technologies, which government officials suggested may provide the privacy protection people need without completely undermining the ability of law enforcement officials to use wiretaps to fight crime and terrorism. Critics of such approaches pointed out the difficulty of developing the multi-lateral agreements needed to make a global key-escrow system work. The only consensus in the group was that a effective, inexpensive, standardized global solution was urgently needed to the problem of encryption, digital signature, authentication, and integrity. Without one, many of the potential applications of the GII (e.g. electronic commerce) will not be fully developed. Encryption is also an important tool for improving the security of the GII.

Another problem posed by encryption is liability. If the employee of a company were to use strong encryption to encode critical corporate data and disappear, die, or refuse to divulge the key needed to decode the data, both the company and the seller of the encryption product could be liable for damage caused to customers. To address this problem, there may need to be laws or regulations defining the liability of users and providers of encryption. The need of companies to have access to any data encrypted by their employees may spur the adoption of key-escrow encryption technologies.

Intellectual Property Rights. The working group felt it was important that the U.S. government and other governments work together to protect intellectual property in cyberspace. The Administration has made IPR protection a key tenet of its Global Information Infrastructure initiative because it believes that unless producers of content carried on the GII can protect their copyright they will not make their data, text, music, video programming, and other material available on-line. Development of consistent international IPR regimes by the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization (e.g. GATT TRIPS) is essential as the GII makes possible a global information marketplace. Unfortunately, many countries have been slow to adopt or implement the agreements reached at WIPO and WTO. Development of micropayment systems that would enable network users to easily and quickly pay for the electronic information they use could also help ensure that IPR owners are properly compensated for their information.

Control of information flow. The group next turned to the question of government controls on the transmission of information. Today, the U.S. government limits the use of networks for transmitting information inside and across its borders for many reasons, including the following:

  1. To prevent the export of sensitive technical information (e.g. information on weapons design)
  2. To counter propaganda or hate literature
  3. To shield minors from pornography and depictions of violence and to prevent child pornography
  4. To prevent fraud, libel, and the invasion of privacy

In addition, in other countries, governments attempt to restrict access to information viewed as undermining the authority of the government, religious beliefs, or social mores. Some countries also restrict or monitor individuals' communications in order to block political opposition. Governments not only try to restrict access to information and communications, they also produce and disseminate information, often in order to further their policy goals or political aims.

The development of the GII, particularly satellite systems like Iridium or Teledesic, will make it much harder for governments to control information flows. Many national governments which impose tight information controls today, will be forced to choose between maintaining those controls or becoming part of the global, networked economy. The U.S. should promote the lifting of such restrictions wherever possible.

In addition, the working group felt that governments need to ensure that the GII is not used for propaganda that promotes ethnic strife and bloodshed. Since censorship will become more and more difficult, the best course would seem to be to promote development of a wide range of information sources which could counter the disinformation or misinformation broadcast by hate groups or authoritarian governments.

Control of Currency. Already today, governments are seeing the impact that telecommunications technology is having on their ability to control the value of their currency. The recent twenty percent drop in the value of the dollar vis-a-vis the Japanese yen, which was driven by international currency traders linked to global telecommunications networks, is just one example.

The spread of digital cash and other systems for moving money electronically will further diminish the ability of governments to control currency flows. The ability of billions of people to effortlessly move money around the world in order to buy products and services will necessitates a careful reexamination of policies with regard to:

  1. Taxation. According to Tom Kalil (with the National Economic Council) there are those who say that encryption and digital cash "will make taxation voluntary." At a minimum, it will make collection of tariffs much more difficult, since networks, particularly if they use encryption, will make borders completely transparent to information services and software. It will also be very difficult to determine how a global "virtual corporation", which consists of employees scattered around the globe linked by networks, selling and shipping information and software to dozens of countries, will be taxed. Other countries are seriously considering these issues. For instance, in Canada, there has been a preliminary proposal to tax information flows.

  2. Money laundering. Today, organized crime and drug cartels have the resources to buy banks and create front companies in order to effectively move money across borders without being detected. In the future, international digital cash may give a single individual the same capability.

  3. Counterfeiting and currency regulation. We may see the development of different varieties of digital cash supported by different banks or companies, rather than national governments. Governments may have a role to play in preventing counterfeiting and fraud and ensuring the financial integrity of companies that "mint" digital cash.

  4. International currency. We may see development of a truly international digital currency, which would stimulate world trade, increase stability in financial markets, and couple national fiscal policies even more tightly than they are today.

These problems are so daunting and so fundamental to the development of a global networked economy that the working group felt a high-level forum to address them was needed. The OECD might address some of these issues, but something larger--a "cyber-summit"--a "second Bretton Woods conference"--may be needed to resolve them. Such a summit should involve not only government officials, but representatives of industry and non-governmental organizations as well.

Control of networks. National governments have traditionally controlled--and in most cases owned and operated--their country's telecommunications networks. Control of communications networks was seen as essential for national defense, law enforcement, and responding to natural and man-made disasters. However, new digital technologies are reducing the barriers to entry in the telecommunication market and in many countries new privately-owned cellular telephone, satellite, cable TV, and digital telephone companies are competing with the incumbent providers. By opening up the telecommunications sector to competition, many countries have been able to dramatically increase investment and development of their information infrastructure. The result has been better and more affordable telecommunications services for individuals, businesses, and government.

However, having hundreds of competing companies, including foreign companies, providing telecommunication services in the U.S. does raise several concerns for the U.S. government, including the following:

  1. Meeting government needs. Will the U.S. government have to rely on foreign companies in case of war or emergency to provide telecommunications services? This was not seen as a major problem since international telecommunications companies and the alliances they have formed are no longer national carriers but are increasingly multi-national or even supra-national.

  2. Counterespionage and law enforcement. Will U.S. enforcement agencies have to work with foreign companies to wiretap criminals and foreign spies? To some extent, they already do.

  3. Security threat. Will the development of a competitive telecommunication market in the U.S. and creation of a "network of networks" run by hundreds of different companies lead to a less secure and less reliable system? When AT&T controlled the entire U.S. phone network it was far easier to ensure system security. On the other hand, encryption and new firewall technologies offers new approaches to data protection.

In general, the national security problems posed by enabling foreign companies to fully participate in the U.S. marketplace are dwarfed by the benefits of increased competition and investment. Opening our home market is also important because it will increase the pressure on other countries to open their markets to U.S. firms.

Anonymity. In order to function, governments need to have basic information about their citizens--name, address, taxable income. Today, using "anonymous remailers," which forward electronic mail messages after stripping off the return address, users of the Internet can send truly anonymous messages to millions of people. With the development of anonymous digital cash, Internet users will also be able to transact business anonymously in cyberspace. The potential for criminal use is obvious: anonymous death threats and harassing messages, blackmail, and the dissemination of contraband (stolen documents and trade secrets, nuclear materials, and child pornography) will all be made much, much easier.

While anonymity is a valuable tool for protecting privacy and can enable political dissent in repressive societies, it also poses very serious implications for law enforcement. There is a clear need for international rules on the use of anonymity; this is another possible issue to address at a proposed "cyber-summit." A key question will be whether governments support the issuance of anonymous or pseudonymous digital signatures, since without an effective digital signature it will be more difficult for individuals to fully participate in electronic commerce. It may be that tight controls have to be placed on use of anonymous digital cash or least the movement of large amounts of anonymous digital cash.

Security. National governments invest billions of dollars in protecting the security of government information systems in order to protect government data, whether tax records, census data, military secrets, medical records, or technical information. Government also work with industry to promote development and deployment of more secure computer systems and networks in the private sector. The working group felt strongly that the U.S. government needs to redouble its efforts to protect the GII from hackers and saboteurs.

Many participants felt that widespread use of effective encryption was an essential component to any strategy for doing so. It was also suggested that there is a need to rationalize U.S. laws on computer crime, many of which were enacted before the full flowering of the Internet and which have not kept pace with technology. There is also a need to harmonize laws on computer crime which can vary significantly from country to country. Unfortunately, there is no single U.S. government agency which has the lead in this area. Nor is there an international organization which has made computer security and data protection a top priority.


The working group on the Global Information Infrastructure found there was no shortage of important issues relating to the GII, sustainable development, and national security. What has been lacking have been the resources and attention needed to take advantage of the opportunities and address the challenges posed by the GII. The group succeeded in identifying the issues; much more time will be needed to determine how these issues will be resolved and who will have responsibility for doing so.

Although the group devoted more time to the possible problems that the Global Information Infrastructure will pose for U.S. national security, the members were unanimous in their conviction that the benefits of the GII--in terms of promoting sustainable development, fostering democracy and understanding, and improving the standards of living around the world--far out-weigh the problems it presents. There was also a consensus that the Digital Revolution is happening whether policy-makers are prepared or not and that the national security and foreign policy communities must devote more attention to critical issues, such as the security of telecommunication networks, encryption policy, improving the use of information and telecommunication technologies in foreign aid programs, and ensuring that electronic money and intellectual property can be safely transmitted over the GII. It is hoped that this report will stimulate further discussion and policy formulation in these areas.

[Back to previous level]

President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore
Record of Progress | The Briefing Room
Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House
White House for Kids | White House History
White House Tours | Help | Text Only

Privacy Statement

Draft Reports

Sustainable Development and Preventive Diplomacy

Cooperative Threat Reduction

Technology Leadership to Strengthen Economic and National Security

Global Information Infrastructure

Nonproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction