Is Internet Access A Human Right?

[iwakar]

NY Times Article: Internet Access Is Not a Human Right by Vinton Cerf

In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right.

But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.

So in other words... when governments restrict or deny access to the internet, such as in China or Egypt, that's not curtailing civil liberties? Hrm.

I understand their reasoning. I don't want future generations thinking they're entitled to cars and mp3 players, but something here doesn't sit right with me. I can't put my finger on it yet... I'm hoping the thoughts of others will help me figure it out. Perhaps the hinging point is that "internet access" is intangible unlike a horse or an e-reader.

/soliciting feedback

 

[Anew Leaf]

I think the problem is that they are taking the analogy too literally. The reason free access is being withheld in these countries is that they are trying to keep their population ignorant. It isn't technology so much as the ability to think for yourself perhaps.

 

[skylights]

to me it seems the human rights issue is not so much people not having access but the government selectively choosing what people are allowed to see and which people are allowed to see it based on its own needs, instead of the free will of the people. that's intentionally and selfishly distorting reality for millions.

 

[iwakar]

Per Wiki

List of human rights

Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:

Right to live, exist
Right to have a family
To own property
Free Speech
Safety from violence
Equality of both males and females; women's rights
Fair trial
To be innocent until proven guilty
To be a citizen of a country
The right to express his or her sexual orientation
To keep one's own gender identity and rights to have or not to have a surgery
To vote
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly
To think freely
To believe and practice the religion a person wants
To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
Health care (medical care)
Education
To communicate through a language
Not be forced into marriage

Maybe the crux lies upon the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. If our government/leadership has made the move to the internet, which to various degrees across the globe, they have... have they unwittingly changed the rules? If they can "assemble" "speak" and "disseminate information" online, have they roped themselves into becoming responsible for facilitating our ability to do so in turn?

 

[iwakar]

Cerf started a firestorm

The Atlantic Wire's response article: The Case for (and Against) Internet as a Human Right

High Tech Forum: Why Did Vint Cerf Say That?

and

TECHi: Internet access IS a human right rebuttal

The arguments that Vinton G. Cerf, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist and a prominent computer scientist recognized as a “father of the Internet,” makes in his article titled “Internet Access Is Not a Human Right” are quite compelling. He states that “technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself.”

...He acknowledges that the internet was critical but that calling it a human right or even a civil right is taking it too far.

I disagree.

There’s no need to try to redefine what “human rights” are. According to Wikipedia, human rights are “commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.”

This fits in well today just as it fit when the term was introduced in the 18th century. The question really comes down to delivery of rights. Rather than trying to play around with semantics, we should be looking at the results of the last couple of years and make the determination based upon three questions:

Is it possible in the near future to create an infrastructure that would make internet access available to nearly everyone in the world?
Would making internet access available worldwide to the vast majority of people foster positive changes in every culture and every society?
Are those without internet access less able to prosper?

Do you agree with the above three questions as a way to ascertain a right from a privelege? He continues and explains why he feels they do.

Technology is an enabler as Cerf states. In many cases, it’s also a right; the two statuses are not mutually exclusive. He uses the example that owning a horse once made making a living easier, where the horse was the enabler and making a living was the human right. Technology is not a horse. The internet is not a horse. Only a small percentage of people owned a horse while a large percentage were able to make a living.

It’s not a coincidence that there seems to be a new uprising against oppression around the world every other month. Oppression isn’t new. The desire to end oppression isn’t new. The ability to organize, communicate, and learn using the internet is the only thing that has been added to the equation. There have been more successful uprisings against powerful government entities in the last two years than in the past 50 years prior.

Downplaying the importance and amazing abilities of the internet to improve the human condition is dangerous. In this case, I’m siding with the United Nations (something that I don’t do very often). Vaulting the internet to the highest plateau as a true human right is the right step towards ending more than just oppression worldwide. It’s a step towards increased opportunity, improved education, and the end of hostilities based upon ignorance. It’s an element much like medicine that should fall into the same category.

As an exercise in comparison, take the words internet access out of the three questions above and replace them with access to medication. Most would agree that access to medication is a human right, but even it has basically the same answers when inserted into those questions.

I'm not sold on anyone else's explanations so far, but this discussion is a very important one and I'm surprised more people here don't have an opinion to add.

Edit: I'm going to retool the thread title to better present the discussion and hopefully get more people in here.

 

[Tallulah]

I'm not buying the idea that the internet is a human right. I don't believe the government should shut down the internet as a way of censoring its citizens, but having access to the internet is not something that we all have a basic right to. Mankind got along for thousands upon thousands of years without the internet, and it could still get along without it if the internet were to disappear tomorrow. It's a good thing, and a convenience, but it is not a right. No one loses a life because their internet got shut off.

There are people in various parts of the world who are starving. I'm much more worried about their survival and well-being than their access to broadband. I think if I were in their shoes, I might wonder why people are so anxious to lay the groundwork for this technology to reach me, when they weren't so worried about getting me a damn bowl of rice and beans or a shot that prevents me from going blind. Can technology help third world countries? I'm sure it can. Is it a basic human right? No. Let's get everybody clothed, sheltered, free to make their own choices before we worry about providing them with free internet access.

If we decide the internet is a basic right, who foots the bill? Is a laptop a basic human right? Do we provide those, too? A smartphone?

 

[Chimerical]

I'd say it's not the net that's a right.
It's a uncensored [or as close to that as you can get] environment that's a right. T.V. and the papers are pretty censored and it's not the voice or the voices of the people. The internet is me talking to you about whatever the fuck I feel like talking about. Then you talking to whomever you feel like about whatever the hell you please using any language you desire and giving your opinion.

That part, the part where the people are saying what they want and it's for the most part uncensored and everyone can be hear, that I think is a human right. Whether anyone listens or cares about what's said is a different story.

 

[Qlip]

Well, I don't see that any human rights are essentially inalienable, the're an ideal that a certain group of cultures decided to recognize. I just kind of scanned th UN Declaration of Human Rights. The emphasis seems to be on limiting cruelty and enforcing the idea that humans all have equal value and the liberty of the individual. I don't see that having availability of the tools to allow a person to be successful as part of that Declaration.

But.. the Internet is an amazing phenomena that has the ability to put the majority of human knowledge into a person's hands. I know there are people in third world countries that are starving and a computer can't be eaten, but there are also groups of people working on creating resources for just those people. If there's one thing that I know, it's that humanity has benefitted greatly from the sharing of knowledge proportionately to how quickly we can transmit that knowledge. Maybe access to that knowledge should be a right since it's becoming a technical possibility to provide it.

 

[Such Irony]

I don't think the Internet is a fundamental human right in the way but in the United States if you don't have Internet access it can be very difficult to have a good quality of life. There are more on more things that are only possible via the Internet. Some companies have done away with paper applications and require applicants to apply online. If you're poor and out of work its kind of a catch-22 because you likely can't afford the Internet yet you need the Internet to apply for work. Many states have gotten rid of the paper tax forms and require online applications. There are lots of other examples as well and I can see more and more of this happening in the future.

I could see in the future where it becomes increasingly essential to do things online, the United States adopting an Internet is a fundamental human right attitude. But I don't see that quite yet.

 

[Beargryllz]

The internet is ubiquitous in modern life, though only a small fraction of humans live a modern life

If we choose to make it a right, then it is

But how would we enforce that?

 

[Ginkgo]

NY Times Article: Internet Access Is Not a Human Right by Vinton Cerf



So in other words... when governments restrict or deny access to the internet, such as in China or Egypt, that's not curtailing civil liberties? Hrm.

I understand their reasoning. I don't want future generations thinking they're entitled to cars and mp3 players, but something here doesn't sit right with me. I can't put my finger on it yet... I'm hoping the thoughts of others will help me figure it out. Perhaps the hinging point is that "internet access" is intangible unlike a horse or an e-reader.

/soliciting feedback

/hears something about France and stops taking it seriousy

 

[iwakar]

/hears something about France and stops taking it seriousy

Funny you should say about France...

U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right June 2011

A United Nations report said Friday that disconnecting people from the internet is a human rights violation and against international law.

The report railed against France and the United Kingdom, which have passed laws to remove accused copyright scofflaws from the internet. It also protested blocking internet access to quell political unrest (.pdf).

While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, states have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The report continues:

The Special Rapporteur calls upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.

The report, by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, comes the same day an internet-monitoring firm detected that two thirds of Syria’s internet access has abruptly gone dark, in what is likely a government response to unrest in that country.

It appears the U.N. disagrees with most of you.

[MENTION=10653]SuchIrony[/MENTION] A lot of employers have made the switch to online-based applications. I worked for Walgreens for almost 13 years, and they stopped taking paper applications of any kind well over 5 years ago. It's entirely internet-based now. However, as a critical caveat, they have an in-store terminal used for employee training that is appropriated for applicants that do not have internet access. Yet, it's also worth noting that they are not some major techie corporation forcing the online switch, they are a corner drugstore chain.

 

[Ginkgo]

Funny you should say about France...

U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right June 2011



It appears the U.N. disagrees with most of you.

[MENTION=10653]SuchIrony[/MENTION] A lot of employers have made the switch to online-based applications. I worked for Walgreens for almost 13 years, and they stopped taking paper applications of any kind well over 5 years ago. It's entirely internet-based now. However, as a critical caveat, they have an in-store terminal used for employee training that is appropriated for applicants that do not have internet access. Yet, it's also worth noting that they are not some major techie corporation forcing the online switch, they are a corner drugstore chain.

You realize the U.K. is a country that's already dependent on the internet and would suffer serious ramifications if the internet were to disappear, whereas some countries that don't have the internet/ have limited access would suffer serious ramifications if it was introduced/expanded, right? The unrest in Syria was a ramification of the internet. Syria already had limitations in their access; it's one of the most censored countries in the world. The internet providers there are owned by people who have basically colluded with the government - you'll hardly ever find a seed of criticism aimed at the politics there. Who knows what the internet could be warped into? It could be completely detrimental to the people there from the eyes of a westerner.

So I have an alternative. Instead of expecting countries who are irreverent of the U.N. to stream in gigabytes to the people they expect to control, people who live under the regimes should be invited here. That would be much easier if the U.S. had a better among its dissidents. That way, those governments' cattle go missing and they crumble.

But what do I know?

 

[iwakar]

You realize the U.K. is a country that's already dependent on the internet and would suffer serious ramifications if the internet were to disappear, whereas some countries that don't have the internet/ have limited access would suffer serious ramifications if it was introduced/expanded, right?

...

Instead of expecting countries who are irreverent of the U.N. to stream in gigabytes to the people they expect to control, people who live under the regimes should be invited here. That would be much easier if the U.S. had a better among its dissidents. That way, those governments' cattle go missing and they crumble.

I'm surprisingly aware of lots of things.

...and good luck with whatever plans you have regarding your alternative, if any.

 

[Metamorphosis]

Making something a right imposes a burden on someone else to defend you and/or provide for you.

"There’s no need to try to redefine what “human rights” are. According to Wikipedia, human rights are “commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.”

Ridiculous. If that is the case, then very items on the below list qualify. If a right is really inalienable, then there is no need to worry about not having it.

Right to live, exist
Right to have a family
To own property
Free Speech
Safety from violence
Equality of both males and females; women's rights
Fair trial
To be innocent until proven guilty
To be a citizen of a country
The right to express his or her sexual orientation
To keep one's own gender identity and rights to have or not to have a surgery
To vote
To seek asylum if a country treats you badly
To think freely
To believe and practice the religion a person wants
To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
Health care (medical care)
Education
To communicate through a language
Not be forced into marriage

 

[Magic Poriferan]

We spend far too much time asking what is and isn't right.

How about just saying that the internet is a great utility and humanity benefits more the more people have access to the internet?

 

[iwakar]

We spend far too much time asking what is and isn't right.

How about just saying that the internet is a great utility and humanity benefits more the more people have access to the internet?

Because discourse to determine definitions determines policies which determine global actions.


--sorry for the consonance... creative writer's habit. Let's just call it a domino effect.

 

[Munchies]

A human right is a right that is made possibile considering the effect of ecconomy and the greater whole of everyone else. A Human right is so subjective that tedius things such as internet make this question seem stupid. Internet is not a human right. If it turns out China can hack us which they can, there is an excuse that calls for the takign away of the internet. Which will happen soon.

Point is, a right is something someone can grant you, and provide authority to govern that law/right. Right improve as the ecconomy improves and but can easily be taken away with good excuses that call for it.. such as the patriot act and the NDAA bill

 

[ewomack]

Times change and access to fundamental human needs also changes. The internet has become one of the backbones of culture and commerce and those who don't have access to it do lose out in big ways. It's the equivalent of having access to newspapers in the 19th century or to television and radio in the early 20th century. Making it a "right" is simply a way of saying that people shouldn't be denied access to the means of participating in culture and commerce. People also tend to confuse "natural rights" with "legal rights." I don't think the UN is claiming that people have a natural right to the internet, only a legal one. But whether "natural rights" even exist remains controversial. Rights in general only seem to exist abstractly in the context of human governments. Now whether people should have a legal right to the internet remains the decision of governments and - hopefully - citizens. It's a moral claim with no real right or wrong answer. But it does seem "wrong" to willingly deny people access to the internet in the 21st century. It seems unfair and unjust to do so, that's how I interpret the internet being a "right."

 

[mikamickmac]

... a right is something someone can grant you......

I would have thought that a right is something someone MUST grant you. The internet is becoming that way in some countries. In Australia, the high school curriculum is requiring students to access the internet more and more each year. In school libraries, reference books are making way for computers, as they are in many public libraries. It's getting to the stage where the internet is becoming the ONLY place students can readily undertake the research they need to gain an education. If education is a human right then it follows that the internet is heading that way.