Slashdot Mirror
Berners-Lee: Web Access Is a 'Human Right'
jbrodkin writes "Two decades after creating the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee says humans have become so reliant on it that access to the Web should now be considered a basic right. In a speech at an MIT symposium, Berners-Lee compared access to the Web with access to water. 'Access to the Web is now a human right,' he said. 'It's possible to live without the Web. It's not possible to live without water. But if you've got water, then the difference between somebody who is connected to the Web and is part of the information society, and someone who (is not) is growing bigger and bigger.'"
A free and open internet may disappear if we don't fight for net neutrality. And we need it more now than ever.
**AA vs. Tim Berners-Lee. Round 1 Fight!
New Zealand!
France!
USA!
UK!
Sweden!
China!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
...it already is. Not that it really changes anything.
So not providing web access is in the same category as e.g. imprionment without trial or torture? Will we see stories about how people in Guantanamo Bay are *gasp* deprived of Facebook? This does seem to triviliase human rights just a little.
to extend our human right of "access to water" to nuclear power plants.
This is becoming a joke, first people try to claim health care is a right (as if I could just march in a doctor's office and demand my right to a checkup) and now this guy is trying to claim web access is a right? Does that mean he thinks the government should provide computers to all to exercise this right then?
Please people, stop. You trivialize and diminish what real human rights are when you try to expand it to include goods and services and you feel are essential but they just aren't "rights".
fill in the X with your favorite personal privileged that you'd like other people to finance for you.
Me, I'd like fast cars, a big house, and loose women. I mean, those are all things that make me happy and happieness is a basic human right, right?
Moreover, the divide between myself and those who have the sweet cars, fast women, and kickass houses is growing bigger and bigger every year, and I think it's high time that the government stepped in and gave me the crap I'm asking for.
I think Berners Lee and others are assuming an importance to the web that it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you do a lot of shopping and banking online , but jesus Tim , get a sense of perspective.
Oh baby I like it raw (data that is).
Is the Internet a basic human right? Absolutely not. Even if it was, should governments give it to me? Absolutely not. A right means "You can't stop me from pursuing this", not "You have to give me this".
... that the idea behind human rights was to prevent torture, exploitation and give everyone the right to the fair trial.
Internet access? How pathetic the human race has become.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
(He also said it's important for the Web not to simply become an instrument to spread unfounded rumors and conspiracy theories. One of his goals is to make the Web a system in which scientists can share data and information more effectively.)
In other words, its a right but we need people, most likely like him, who control what it used for because obviously there are too many people who don't exercise this right "correctly". So we have yet another intellectual looking down on us, out to protect us from the big bad corporations but also from ourselves. Well, doesn't that sound like every politician who comes down the pipe?
Call the web a right appeals to like thinking people, it is meaningless in a world where so many don't even have access to clean water all the time, let alone adequate food. I think a better right would be to give all people washing machines. Go google the TED video on that subject and see people who have more of a clue than this guy.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Since web access is a human right, I plan to stop paying my cable internet bill, which is US$65/month. I expect to still be able to access the web, since it's now a basic human right. Nobody can remove that right from me, not even Comcast! If they cut off my service, I can sue them for breach of my fundamental human rights.
Yay!
PS - is the rest of the internet also a human right, or just the web?
Quick vehicles, large livable buildings and females covered in grease are not culture. The internet itself is so twisted into culture and way of life now that it almost is a necessity. As TVs die, non voip phone calls end, newspapers become news-websites, etc etc eventually the only source of all of this will be the "internet" as a whole. Therefore making sure it's unrestricted, readily available and easily accessible should be handed now, rather than after the politicians have made a huge damn mess of it. Be careful how you privatise your culture, it may become unaffordable eventually.
Something that requires money is not a basic human right. Natural rights do not include the rights to the fruits of other's labor. If internet access is a natural right, then those of us who work for a living will be forced to subsidize those who don't on yet another level. That is, paying for their internet connection, paying for their computer (and/or other internet connected devices), paying for their electric bill, and paying for their tech support costs when they break their computer or infect it with malware. This subsidization involves taking money from me at gunpoint (don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes, it will eventually come to this). This is theft and violates my natural rights. Natural rights, or basic human rights, cannot infringe upon the basic human rights of others... Or they are in fact not basic human rights.
A lot of people confuse the two. For instance, in the USA, we have the right to print our own newspapers, pamphlets, flyers, etc., collectively known as the freedom of the press (which obviously extends to electronic media as well). In this case, the government can't prevent you from doing it, but they also don't have to supply you with the means to produce those materials. I'm afraid more people will view the "right" to internet access as a government provided product that costs the entire society, in which case it is actually an entitlement. The bad thing about entitlements is that the government can also place restrictions on how you use them, since they're holding the purse strings...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
If Tim Berners-Lee wants to advocate for network neutrality, then he should do that. Masking it as a "right to web access" is downright silly, and ultimately counterproductive to honest network neutrality aims.
Of course, I suppose if your advocacy for network neutrality is simply a means for getting political control over the internet, then I guess classifying it as a "right" would help make that happen. After all, the government must ultimately control the internet in order to ensure access to all.
It's not.
basic human rights must be those that are necessary for the healthy production, growth and continued life of a human being in reasonably respectable conditions. Maybe after an overwhelming majority of all people on this planet have these rights we can consider expanding it to "access to a world-wide communication network". Until then there's an overwhelming majority of peoples in all countries and societies that simply don't *need* the internet.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Given that it's how people look for jobs, conduct their livelihood, keep in touch with people, do their banking and loads of other stuff ... you can make the argument that for a lot of us, the internet has become fundamental to how we do a lot of things.
If someone cuts me off from the internet for 6 months, my life reverts to the stone age in a lot of ways.
Now, it might seem laughable and trivial to call it a human right when people don't have really basic rights like personal liberty or religious freedom ... but, in terms of how it impacts my ability to carry out my daily life (such as my job), it's difficult to express just how entwined it has become.
So, I can see why some of these "three strikes" laws whereby you suddenly can't access the internet would be fairly devastating to someone.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Access to knowledge and information (in whatever form) is already a basic human right. That's one of the things that separates us from the lower animals. It's up to the individual to assert his or her own liberty and freedom.
Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
I don't think it trivializes human rights at all.
Say for instance you have a third world country led by a petty dictator who declares it illegal to discuss politics with foreigners (e.g. Libya). If such a government set up a state television network and a state internet to spread lies and propaganda, while banning it's citizens from accessing the world wide web and talking to foreigners, then yes, I would say that a human right had been violated
Basically, if you aren't economically able to provide access to the internet for your citizens, you aren't committing a great injustice or war crime or whatever. But if you could provide it, and you choose to ban it instead, then that would sound like something wrong to me.
What he is really talking about is access to penis and breast enhancement supplements.
Internet access isn't a human right. Nevertheless, the internet is an incredibly important tool used by all modern nations of the world. To that end, internet access should be treated as just another facet of the basic infrastructure of any modern nation. Basically, internet access ought to be treated as a postal system or the highways: it's so important to the survival of any nation, economically and militarily, that the government should regulate it and allow citizens to use it as a public system. As it is, internet access in modern America is what the railroad companies were during 19th century America: they are owned by huge, ultra competitive corporations, whose economic fights are doing more harm than good to the nation.
Even here in Norway only 90% of the households have Internet. The rest for the most part don't want it. There's people living without TV, A lot of things would be very odd not to have here in a western society but I don't consider them human rights.
Some rights are guaranteed public services, but they're in no way human rights. For example all permanent residences here in Norway is able to get a landline at a fixed rate. It's a subsidized service paid for by the government and the telco is compensated for it. Same with several other public utilities, mail delivery and many other things.
I don't think you should abuse the term "human rights" too much. That is to me fundamental needs that it'd be a violation of you not to give you. Food, water, shelter, medicine, basic education and so on. If your kids can't go to primary school without paying, that's a violation. Not getting on the Internet doesn't reach it to the ankles.
That said, it's probably a good idea in order to get people more educated and be part of the rest of society. That's more of a "best effort" project though, not that kind of fundamental right.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There are NO positive rights, only negative rights. You have a right not to be stolen from or murdered. You do NOT have a right to have stuff given to you, because that implies that there is a right to take that thing from someone else. Such "rights" lead straight to hell.
If you want to argue for net neutrality, fine, but arguing that someone must take on the role of Santa Claus is just asinine, and highly destructive if such mandates carry the force of law and the threat of violence from the state which follows.
Access doesn't really mean anything more than having the opportunity to swing by your local library to use one of the public computers from time to time. Access does not mean having personal broadband, an iPad, a netbook, or any of the other gadgets and toys that some would like to think it means.
I do believe that basic access should be a guaranteed right -- but that does not absolve the individual from having to pay their bills, do some legwork to get to the library, or otherwise put in an effort to make use of their rights. Think "voting" -- just because you have a "right" to vote does not mean anyone else has to do diddly squat to help you get to the polling station.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Oh great, are we going to see celebrities on TV now begging "poor jdhdhhdhdhjdi in Ethiopia can't even afford clean internet, please donate bandwidth so he doesn't feel like a social outcast! With your help jjjuyyttfcccvbbj can start tweeting today!"
The infrastructure that was mostly paid for by the taxpayers. So we do own it, really.
Sorry buddy but that is utterly false. The modern internet is run over fiber optics that was laid across the country by Quest and Level 3 and other companies. The last mile that runs to your house was wired in by a company. The government has not been a majority spender on the internet for at least a decade, probably longer... what Arpanet gave us was the concept of the internet, which private business has taken and run with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How will society adapt if people begin to pull themselves off the electrical grid?
Quit purchasing food from the local grocery store in favour of hothouse lettuce and tomatoes and shrimp and algae raised in a tank?
Make things for themselves using a reprap or other fabbing machine?
Heat their home w/ geothermal and solar systems?
Power their vehicle using hydrogen extracted from a solar system?
Capture rain water in a cistern and filter it for use in the home?
More importantly how small could one make a system which would do all of the above?
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I'll take the rest of the Internet, thanks.
With tax money and rights taken by government on their behalf.
If Quest want to make money selling my presence to advertisers and website owners, they'd better give me a cut for using my land for it.
large scale rape in the Congo/Zaire, etc
thousands of arsenic contaminated wells in Bangladesh
thousands of drug deaths and kidnappings in mexico
(next 100 omitted for clarity)
got give it to that Timlee dude, he has his prioritys in the right place
(cant resist) a country where Jersey Shore is the top rated show...and D Trump is taken seriously
effin socialists
Internet is a luxury of modern, developed, and wealthy countries. There are millions of people that not only lack internet, but lack basics for survival such as clean water. And the simple truth is that just because you consider the internet a part of your pursuit of happiness, there are millions who don't care.
Will we see stories of how people in Guantanamo Bay are "gasp" deprived of a resource to enable them to learn the laws they are charged under?
There - FIFY
That's like saying driving is a human right because it is so prevalent in modern society. The problem is that every time you dilute what truly are basic human rights by adding human "wants" you minimize the rights that truly are basic human rights (life, food, shelter, etc.).
Positive rights are "more fun" than negative rights, which is why I think most people gravitate to them. This is how we get arguments about how great Cuban healthcare is, while completely ignoring the fact that if you own an unlicensed cell phone in Cuba you will quite literally be facing "reeducation through hard labor" or worse. The left has almost completely abandoned negative rights except when someone does something to a protected group that is bad enough to make a liberal say "there ought to be a law..." (and by coincidence, there was, in the Constitution).
Instead of focusing on rights to this or that material thing, how about getting hot and bothered about the poor not having these rights in most of the world:
1. The right to freedom of speech.
2. The right to worship freely.
3. The right to protection from abusive searches and seizures.
4. The right to keep and bear arms for personal defense.
5. The right to a public, honest and open trial with legal defense.
6. The right to not be tortured.
7. Habeus corpus as a human right.
Guy who (effectively) invents something believes it's essential. News at 11.
All praise due to TBL for his actual accomplishments, but seriously?
"Human Rights" are an enlightened concept of the modern age, by which some (generally) well-paid white guy in a comfortable office somewhere who has never suffered a hardship more severe than getting the wrong coffee order at Starbucks, tries to define the things that he doesn't think he could live without.
Pardon me if I don't take him seriously any longer.
-Styopa
Internet is not a human right, that is simply retarded. Human rights are those things you cannot be allowed to deny someone at any time.
It may be characterized as as "citizen's right" - something that may be lost.
I pay my taxes, so when will my government give me what I need for free? I want a nice place to stay, with electricity, tv and internet connection, a job that pays well, food everyday and a wife so I can reproduce. All of it should be provided for me by my government, because I pay my taxes dammit.
- "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
I reserve judgment until a transcript of the speech shows up, not a single quote out of context
Al Gore invented the internet.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
When the USA was founded people gathered in the town square to hear other people speak. This right was put into the Constitution of the United States, as the right of free speech.
Where is the town hall today? Well let me tell you its on the Internet. Where is the capitalism? So, your telling me the Bell system has the right to tax us for Internet access?
We as least should have the right to some part of the radio spectrum for a mess of roof top routers. This would give small Ma and Pa ISP a chance for competition. And cell phone time, no charge for local 100 Km calls. Texting, lol, how did people get away with charging for that?
Creating human rights where there were none weakens the entire human rights movement. The whoile point of human rights is that they are extremely basic and transcend human differences. They go beyond cultural differences. The Internet is not needed for survival as evidenced by the fact that humanity survived for many years without it.
MIT had symposium on its contributions to computing on MIT's 150th birthday (Sunday). It was fascinating to see some the Ancient Big Names in computing like Tim, or the inventor of Data Abstraction (Barbara) speak first hand. It was less satisfying to see MIT define its role in current computing. Industry skates circles around academic research now. But there is some attempt to provide a theory framework for the clever hacks industry develops. Computing was just a glimmer on the horizon at the MIT 100th birthday (and discussed there). People joked whether they'll be coming to the 200th. the ex-head of Xerox park joked he'd be uploaded in the Cloud by then.
Frankly Tim's speech was rambling, without slides, about the history of his idea and grand philosophic speculation of what the web could be. He followed Negroponte's very polished exposition on the history of the Media Lab and the One Laptop Project (yes, there a One Tablet in the the works).
Everything was filmed at the symposium. They should be on the web [mit.edu] in a few weeks.
The idea that everyone has the right to access information via the Internet (much like people have the right to access public spaces such as roads, parks, etc) seems to be at odds with the "3 strike" copyright infringement laws passed in France and now New Zealand. Hopefully the concept of information access as a human right will spark some debate about countries that propose similar laws in the future.
If someone robbed a bank 3 times by driving a car down the road each time to escape, we wouldn't ban the person from using roads would we? Banning someone from the Internet seems just as absurd to me.
The infrastructure that was mostly paid for by the taxpayers. So we do own it, really.
Much like the railroads were given free land and various rights in the 19th century. Have you tried getting a free ride from the rail roads?
:-)
Personally, as a taxpayer, I'd rather have a free in the F/A-18 I've paid for.
There are NO positive rights, only negative rights. You have a right not to be stolen from or murdered. You do NOT have a right to have stuff given to you, because that implies that there is a right to take that thing from someone else..
Agreed. The focus should be on NOT obstructing anyone's access to the Internet. Case in point: The Great Firewall.
By having the right to buy food despite being black or jewish. You have the right to a fair trial. But someone has to supply one for you. don't they have rights?
First of all, people seem to confuse rights and necessities quite often. Things like food, water, shelter, and medical care are necessities but not necessarily rights. I don't think that internet access is either a right or a necessity. It's definitely beneficial, but I would argue that you would fall farther behind your peers without access to transportation, a phone, or even a clean pair of clothes than you would without the internet.
Anyone who lacks $1,000,000 in their bank account will fall behind their more moneyed peers. Is being rich now a right?
No, but being allowed to use money is. Having $1 million in the bank is like having a 10 gbps connection, you are better off than other less fortunate people, but at least you are allowed to play the game.
So if I find an insufficiently secured WiFi access point, the government can't stop my access? I can't be arrest for theft of service?
No, it means if you are willing to use an access point according to a contract with the provider the government cannot stop you. Same as they cannot stop you from reading a book you bought, but they can arrest you if you steal a book.
Every try to talk your government? They'll send you to a website.
Ever file taxes? It's a two-tier system where electronic filers get their money from the government regardless of shutdowns while paper filers wait.
Under these circumstances, yes, it seems right to expect the government that demands people use Internet services provide Internet services to those who otherwise could not participate.
Given that it's how people look for jobs, conduct their livelihood, keep in touch with people, do their banking and loads of other stuff ... you can make the argument that for a lot of us, the internet has become fundamental to how we do a lot of things.
So are cars. In fact, you could substitute 'automobile' for 'Internet' in your sentence and have it perfectly valid. Should having a car be a fundamental human right?
If someone cuts me off from the internet for 6 months, my life reverts to the stone age in a lot of ways.
How entertainingly dramatic. Stone age? Do you realize that many of us lived healthy, invigorating lives before the 1980s?
Now, it might seem laughable and trivial to call it a human right when people don't have really basic rights like personal liberty or religious freedom ... but, in terms of how it impacts my ability to carry out my daily life (such as my job), it's difficult to express just how entwined it has become.
So, I can see why some of these "three strikes" laws whereby you suddenly can't access the internet would be fairly devastating to someone.
Your personal convenience does not raise the issue to a fundamental right. While I agree that the 'three strikes' rules are stupid and useless, you do realize that if you 'struck out' you could still go over to your friend's house (assuming, of course, you had any) and use their Internet to carry on those dramatically important parts of your life that require it.
For all of you that think the Internet is that important - maybe you should go outside for a while without your cell phone or anything with a battery. It's shockingly pleasant (except for those unfortunates living in Cleveland or New Jersey, probably best you all stay indoors).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Wow, someone in academia has invented another "right". I for one am shocked.
I'm of the mind that a right is something which requires action to deny, but exists without any intervention by others
In that case, the US Constitution is intrinsically wrong. As in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". How can I have a right to keep and bear Arms if I don't have an Arm to begin with?
As much as I respect the guy, no one has a "basic human right" to something that someone else has to pay for.
Technoli
I don't think that the Internet is a "human right" in and of itself. However, I think it is an important enabler of human rights such as freedom of speech. Suppose you live in a dictatorship and you want to express opposition to your cruel leader. You can stand on the street corner and say how awful he is, but that is likely to result in you being tortured/killed and possibly your family being put in harm's way too. You definitely won't be given the chance to gather with like-minded individuals to share stories of repression and discuss ways to improve your lives.
Now suppose you have Internet access. Suddenly, you are semi-anonymous, can state your views more freely and can meet/talk with others who share your views. Yes, the dictator can still track you down but depending on which technologies you use to conceal your identity and how far the dictator is willing go to find you, this can be difficult. At the very least, it is harder than saying "there's that guy on the street corner shouting 'Down With The Dictator!'"
So Internet access isn't a human right, but it makes some human rights much easier to obtain.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
You mean like copyright cartels? Oooh, how about corporations! Do you mean them? Or is it management? Is it? Or maybe the sons and daughters inheriting their parents wealth they never worked for? Is it that?
You're not going to die of lack of Internet.
If you want a disenfranchised minority to vote for you, buy them Internet. But arguing that they have a right to it just confuses the entire political landscape.
Except it's pretty hard to kill someone with the Internet; even if cat 5 makes a workable garrote.
The right to drive ends well before other peoples right to life.
To me the phrase "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" is an ordered list, like the 3 laws of robotics...
You have the right to live; You have Liberty, unless it endangers others lives; You have the right to do anything that'll make you happy as long as it dosn't endanger others life or liberty.
"Access to information shall not be abridged." - the first article of the Constitution of the fictitious "Beta Colony," from novels by Lois McMaster Bujold.
Consider the many rights we take for granted today before you ridicule Berners-Lee, and think of the future of society, folks. Really, how different is this from FOIA?
Anyone else curious about how if something like this passed it would affect the struggle for Net Neutrality? I would imagine that it would be a lot harder to apply quality of service tiers if this was a basic human right.
A right? In what sense? Certainly, he could make the same argument about telephones and cars - people without them will be at a disadvantage. Are those "a right" as well, now? I also have a problem with him comparing it to water. For one thing, I think the government should - in limited circumstances - be allowed to deprive criminals of the "right" to internet access (I'm thinking primarily of convicted hackers and people convicted of child-porn). Further, if the jails and prisons decide not to allow prisoners access to the internet, I'm fine with that. Suggesting it's "a right" means the government *has* to provide prisoners with internet access. On the other hand, I don't think the government should ever be allowed to deprive someone of water. Even if you're in prison, the government has to provide you with water.
Any "right" that is implemented through coercion (the initiation of physical force or threat thereof) isn't a right at all -- it's a government subsidy. Human rights are things that every human being is born with by default and can only be taken away -- never "granted", "created", or "allowed". Think about it. If your human rights are decided by another human, then logically, you are owned by that other human -- thereby defeating the entire concept of human rights.
This crooked idea that new "rights" can be created out of thin air can be used to justify ANYTHING government does. The term is meaningless when used in that way -- and I have a sneaking suspicion that was the whole point.
For pete's sake, comparing web access to "fast cars, a big house and loose women"? Or "a million dollars"? Fucking retarded.
Granted, maybe "right" isn't the correct word, but tell me, would *you* be able to survive without access to the Internet? Seriously, if you had to look for a new job, do you think that having only printed paper classifieds is sufficient? It seems like any time someone tries to suggest that maybe if we try raising the bar and giving people a helping hand (you know, by giving them access to *find* a job) that people start saying the world is going to end and all those people without jobs are just no-good lazy bums anyway. You know what makes me cynical? Not the people on welfare. It's the people who bitch about welfare and "entitlements".
Nathan's blog
It's the 21st century and Internet access -is- a fundamental human right.
Obviously not on as basic a level as access to clean water or the right to live, but absolutely on the same level as other recognised human rights like:
- access to education
- rights to free speech
- rights to seek employment
- rights to communicate
These days the majority of my personal interactions with government services, retailers, educational institutions, employers and clients are through the internet. It's becoming increasingly necessary to have internet access just to function in modern society and people without are gradually being disadvantaged and marginalised. Without internet access you're severely limited in the number of stores you can shop at, the amount of educational material you can access and the number of employers that will hire you (try getting a professional job without an email address).
No, the right to access the internet doesn't mean everybody's entitled to free, super fast porn streaming in their living rooms. It does mean governments have a responsibility to ensure internet service in available to people in the same way they do electricity, phones, schools and medical treatment. It means that barring someone from accessing the internet is a violation of their rights and is not acceptable as a form of punishment.
This is what's really wrong with all the bullshit MPAA/RIAA three-strikes disconnection laws, that after illegally downloading a total of 3 songs, you can lose your access to -everything- else you rely on the internet for. Hope you didnt need that connection for your job, studies, financial services or anything else in your life.
No, it's about time we recognise that internet access is a fundamental right in a modern, information based society.
You should probably make sure the population has water, before they have Minecraft.
Here in Finland, internet access has been a right now for more than a year. I believe also some other countries in the EU have similar rights.
Too many posts here are wrongly confusing a right with something you get for free. Just because it's a right, does not mean it costs you nothing. I have a legal right to be provided access to the internet. I do not expect to get such access for free. Just like access to clean water and electricity, these are also rights for which I have to pay to receive.
What it means is that the government cannot take my internet access away or force me to be disconnected from the internet. I have a right as a citizen to have access to the internet and that cannot be taken away legally.
This is a clever argument (I like it!), but it's flawed.
It turns out that most of the time, you don't have a right to a jury or a fair trial. Go ahead and march into the nearest courthouse right now and demand a fair trial. You'll find that you can't get one, because you aren't currently being prosecuted for anything.
The fair trial right is conditional on the government initiating the action of prosecuting you. That is, they wouldn't normally have the right to force you to attend court for trial or punishment, but we will let them, provided they fulfill certain conditions, such as making a jury available to you. Fair trials are not natural right, because absent governemnt, there are no trials (fair or unfair) at all.
To put it another way, requiring the right to a fair trial, is a concession we make, in order to make it more palatable to grant the government the power to deny us our negative freedom to not be involuntarily summoned to court or punishment. Without recognizing that negative freedom, there is no reason to create the positive right. It all comes down to negative liberty.
The way that Berner's-Lee might be able to use this, would be if government violated our negative liberty by forcefully requiring us to have internet access. That might create a right to use the net. If, for example, they were to say "We have the power to imprison you if you don't file your taxes, and we refuse to accept tax returns that are not e-filed," then your rights would be violated, but we might decide to allow that (i.e. think of it as a not-abusive or unfair rights violation), if as a condition for that, they treated net access as a right.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
A summary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (from 1948)
1. Everyone is free and we should all be treated in the same way.
2. Everyone is equal despite differences in skin colour, sex, religion, language for example.
3. Everyone has the right to life and to live in freedom and safety.
4. No one has the right to treat you as a slave nor should you make anyone your slave.
5. No one has the right to hurt you or to torture you.
6. Everyone has the right to be treated equally by the law.
7. The law is the same for everyone, it should be applied in the same way to all.
8. Everyone has the right to ask for legal help when their rights are not respected.
9. No one has the right to imprison you unjustly or expel you from your own country.
10. Everyone has the right to a fair and public trial.
11. Everyone should be considered innocent until guilt is proved.
12. Every one has the right to ask for help if someone tries to harm you, but no-one can enter your home, open your letters or bother you or your family without a good reason.
13. Everyone has the right to travel as they wish.
14. Everyone has the right to go to another country and ask for protection if they are being persecuted or are in danger of being persecuted.
15. Everyone has the right to belong to a country. No one has the right to prevent you from belonging to another country if you wish to.
16. Everyone has the right to marry and have a family.
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.
18. Everyone has the right to practise and observe all aspects of their own religion and change their religion if they want to.
19. Everyone has the right to say what they think and to give and receive information.
20. Everyone has the right to take part in meetings and to join associations in a peaceful way.
21. Everyone has the right to help choose and take part in the government of their country.
22. Everyone has the right to social security and to opportunities to develop their skills.
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living and medical help if they are ill.
26. Everyone has the right to go to school.
27. Everyone has the right to share in their community's cultural life.
28. Everyone must respect the 'social order' that is necessary for all these rights to be available.
29. Everyone must respect the rights of others, the community and public property.
30. No one has the right to take away any of the rights in this declaration.
(I am not the OP.)
It's really rather simple, and I think you already get it even if you'd rather pretend you didn't. You have the right to your food. You do not have the right to my food. Full stop.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
[Citation needed]
As requested.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
That Wikipedia link only shows that there are multiple and conflicting views of what natural rights are. Political philosophies differ in whether natural rights exist or not. The matter is not resolved and set in stone, so your writing "full stop" is foolish.
Would you like to posit an alternate hypothesis?
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
I personally find the traditional American expression of natural rights theory to be untenable in public debates because it is based on rights endowed by a Creator. Since many people in the contemporary world no longer believe in a person-like Creator (even the fairly inactive Deist one of the Founders), then who endows rights? I am personally a theist, but when it comes down to it, I understand that a large portion of the population is only going to view rights as artificial constructs created by society, and we just have to deal with that view.
Samuel F B Morse announces that everyone should have a right to a telegraph.
I think others are assuming an importance to electricity it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like having lighting, heating, and refrigeration , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
I think others are assuming an importance to telecommunications it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like calling places in cases of emergency , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
I think others are assuming an importance to interstate roads it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you like to haul stuff around the country or get places , but jesus, get a sense of perspective.
So on and so forth. The internet plays a MAJOR role in today's world, and it's only going to get bigger. You're already at a significant disadvantage if you're computer illiterate these days, and many places have started switching to "online only" options for things like filling out applications.
~X~
...and people sure act like it's a human right. jeez.
I personally find the traditional American expression of natural rights theory to be untenable in public debates because it is based on rights endowed by a Creator. Since many people in the contemporary world no longer believe in a person-like Creator (even the fairly inactive Deist one of the Founders), then who endows rights? I am personally a theist, but when it comes down to it, I understand that a large portion of the population is only going to view rights as artificial constructs created by society, and we just have to deal with that view. (Reposting under the right comment, sorry).
Okay I take that back as an overstatement (and then some) for the point I was attempting to make. What I wanted to say is the internet is not something we can just take away, and that the idea is that everyone should be allowed to have access to it, or rather noone should be denied access to it for any reason I can think of. I guess women covered in grease is a culture too but not in the same way information and knowledge is.
I suppose there's tangible and intangible culture and that we should look at things we can't touch and feel (though in most bars, you get kicked out for that) and it's easily forgotten that it is even culture at all. Things like restrictions, blocking and just obscurity are as intangible as the information they operate on and we as people can easily let loose the freedom we have because it's not a 'right', it's an 'allowance'.
So I take back my comment about something Not being culture (when it clearly is) and try to adjust my point accordingly.
The UN long ago forgot that products and services cannot be "rights" in a society that's free of officially sanctioned theft and compulsory labor. The concept of "rights" has become so silly with these people that a nation can seriously propose such lunacy as this: UN document would give ``Mother Earth`` same rights as humans. They've become little more than a very expense three-ring circus who has no authority whatsoever on the subject.
You can try to universally provision a good or service free of charge, but you will bring it into a state of scarcity in the process.
Pi Ran Out
End of story.
(Reposting under the right comment, sorry).
No worries.
I personally find the traditional American expression of natural rights theory to be untenable in public debates because it is based on rights endowed by a Creator.
Although that was certainly the framing of the discussion as it happened (in the eighteenth century), I certainly don't find the presence or absence of a Creator to be a terribly vexing issue. As others have said in this discussion, a "natural right" is something you already have that nobody gave you. The right to speak, the right to pray, the right to the fruits of your labor. Those are "natural" or "human rights." The rights of all humans.
I understand that a large portion of the population is only going to view rights as artificial constructs created by society, and we just have to deal with that view.
Sure, those are "political" or "social rights." The rights that society gives you. ("Give" is the key differentiator there. That's how you know it's a political right and not a human right.) Health care, food and shelter, things like that. Those are good. I'm not speaking against them. And to circle back to the original topic of this discussion, I would be willing to consider something like internet access to be a "political right." But I do think that to equate that with "human rights" is muddying the waters unnecessarily.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
We each have a right to what we have worked to produce and to what others have willingly given us. No one has a right to take it away.
Is that simple enough for you?
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Retirement overdue? What? Out-of-league Gobshitte??? WTF??
*This Man Is Not Qualified To Make Such a Statement Beyond common Mid-evening Pub Banter.*
Out of touch has just been returned to Pre-Bastille values.
It has nothing to do with divinely-granted rights. It comes down to two ideas:
- It is not acceptable for one individual to compel another to do something, or to stop doing something, unless there is a danger to others.
- It is not acceptable for one individual to take from another that which is not offered.
If these two things aren't followed, I would argue that a society cannot function.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
That's a peculiar assertion, as the majority of human societies over the eons have worked on a "might makes right" principle and the ideal society of e.g. Libertarians is a theoretical construct that has never lasted in the real world.
It is not acceptable for one individual to compel another to do something, or to stop doing something, unless there is a danger to others.
Societies can find plenty of ways to define danger to others. Many religious societies, for example, limit freedom of speech because they feel blasphemous talk would lead the devout astray. The vast majority of the Muslim world feels major curbs on free speech are necessary, so your claim that "it's not acceptable to..." doesn't square with the expectations of a massive slice of humanity. Why are you right and they are wrong?
So are cars. In fact, you could substitute 'automobile' for 'Internet' in your sentence and have it perfectly valid. Should having a car be a fundamental human right?
Goddammit, no. You are deliberately misinterpreting this. You should by all means not be impeded by your government in acquiring an internet connection or a car (barring mitigating circumstances like a DUI or running Windows ME). That's what this means. It doesn't mean "the right to free shit."
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Most of the population of the world does not have reliable access to the internet, but web access is a basic human right? I don't think so. People can get a long quite nicely without using the internet, ever. It happens every day in South America, Africa, India, China, etc.
Are you really going to ignore the nearly immeasurable cost of securing those rights for only a small part of humanity?
No rights are "negative" or "free".
How soon we forget. No wonder our military and veterans are so poorly supported and over-committed.
For shame. All rights have a tremendous cost, and that is why we should not give, ignore or piss them away, nor should we abuse or misuse those who fight/fought for and secured those rights.
I look forward to not having to pay my ever-increasing bill for ever decreasing service. Disclaimer: Comcastian.
Web access as a human right? I think we might want to look at things like heath care, shelter and food first. I really doubt those living in poverty, under oppressive governments, etc, give a rats behind about web access.
Tim Berners-Lee may be a genius concerning technology, but he has no idea what a "human right" is.
Rights cannot cost another human being their time, money, property or rights. You have no claim to the fruits of my labor. I may choose to share with you, but I'm a free person only if I'm not forced to share.
> It is not acceptable for one individual to compel another to do something, or to stop doing something, unless there is a danger to others.
Define "danger to others". People with an infectious disease could infect others, therefore doctors should be compelled to cure them. Or more broadly: desperate people are more likely to engage in actions that are potentially dangerous to themselves and others, therefore people who get in a situation that might be considered desperate, such as being homeless, or without food, water, or education, must be given our help. It seems to me your first rule is a recipe for one of the most socialist countries in the world (not that I would mind, but it seems to me that was not what you intended).
'It's possible to live without the Web. It's not possible to live without water."
As someone who just lived through the Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake of February 2011, I can attest that even if you don't have water, it's a whole lot easier to get some if you have the Web (in my case a Blackberry).
Street water was off. The City Council had water trucks making deliveries and trucks of bottled water, but their location kept varying. They posted the schedule to the Web. If you didn't have timely information on where the trucks were going to be...
It's possible to live without the Web, yes. But it's a whole lot easier to get your Maslow on with it.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Why? Your right not to have your stuff taken from you is no more self-evident than the right to sufficient food. Indeed for long periods in our history it was perfectly normal for the people in charge to take what they wanted from those they ruled.
If right = preventing the state from taking your internet access away, great
If right = new socialist entitlement that means the state will steal from some to give to others, not so great
1) Pay the electric bill (with money I earn . . . legally)
2) Pay taxes my property taxes (with the money I earn, in my own name...legally)
3) Put my own name on the mortgage (make payments for decades till you own the place)
4) Pay the gas bill (in my own name)
5) Cut the grass, roll out Scotts in the spring, install a new roof after high wind damage .. .
6) Hire landscapers
7) Make payroll
So the WAP humpin` hippie wants my WAP to be his office?
"Human Right" is a very powerful phrase that doesn't apply here.
Operating a wireless access point requires capitol.
Thankfully my WAP is a public facing router plugged into absolutely nothing with a ping of ten to the seventeenth
I highly doubt that when man invented metallurgy, he looked at the success of his tribe as compared to tribes without metal tools, and decided smelting was a human right. The disparity in potential success is entirely natural, and it is our artificial constructs of fairness that lead us towards thinking successful tools and knowledge should be shared. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe raising the technical ability of our least able members is a recipe for success for all members, but I believe that is entirely a human process, and not the state of nature.
>Education? That requires somebody else to do something.
actually, with the internet, it doesn't. maybe thats what you're afraid of; particularly since most "education" barely rises above thinly disguised propoganda.
hence the "right" to the Internet; or as others would call it, access to a mostly-surveiled communications network that is difficult to jam.
Food is not a right. Neither is shelter, water, transportation.... all of the necessities of life.
Not according to Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I really don't understand any of you. There is so much arguing coming from the resident Libertarians, and I really cannot make sense of it. The definition for a natural right is weak, it's just a thing we all want because the vast majority of us aren't wealthy enough to purchase those rights, rights like free speech. Free speech isn't essential to life, and therefore having it as a right serves no purpose other than convincing others that someone has screwed you. Property? That is even more arbitrary, because at least speech is something that emanates from within you at no cost to anyone else, but property wasn't a thing that was dealt out to the first humans on the earth, and then bought and sold. There is no objective way to discover something and claim it's yours. Do you have a right to something if you discovered it, and anything visible to your eyes are immediately yours if not viewed by any other humans? Why?
Natural rights don't really exist. The truest natural right would be might makes right. If you're gifted at war and collaboration to the point where you control an empire, then you earned your rights. What we call natural rights benefit most people, so we generally agree they're a good thing that needs protection. Yeah, you're taking my money so police can help you protect your property, but I need that, too, so that's fine. If I was wealthy enough, I could fund my own protection, like well trained security guards, so my dollar would go to help poor people protect themselves. Isn't this what Libertarians call theft? If the redistribution of wealth is okay to protect other people's lives and property, then why isn't it okay to educate the masses, give them good healthcare, and give them information via internet? I'm sure there is, at least, one person in this entire world who doesn't care about law enforcement, and you're taking that person's right away by stealing money from him so that your property is protected.
Natural rights is supposed to protect us from the corruption of two major powers: the government and large corporations. They both play such a large role in our lives, and giving either too much power can mean too many restrictions. Some people are aware that too much authority given to the government can be abused, and some are aware that too little regulation on corporations results in much of the same. What is absolutely shocking is that these same people who make some great arguments for their beliefs fail to see how those same arguments apply to that other major power! We should fear both the government and corporations, and we should actually make sure that we regulate both: we the people regulate the government, and the government, regulated by we the people, should then regulate the corporations. In the end, I never want anyone to ever hinder me from getting an education. The internet makes educating oneself largely free, and everyone should have some sort of access to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
On a basic income:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
"In 1968, James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith and another 1,200 economists signed a document calling for the US Congress to introduce in that year a system of income guarantees and supplements.[28]"
Something towards a basic income was approved by one of the two parts of Congress under Nixon (extreme liberals though it was not enough, and extreme conservatives did not like it, so together they torpedoed it in I think the Senate but it passed the House, pushed by Moynihan).
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/04/specials/moynihan-income.html
"What went wrong? Most of Moynihan's eloquent, polemical book is devoted to an exhaustively researched attack on the liberal opposition. To be sure, he does not spare the right (and is impressively blunt in recounting Nixon's own self-defeating partisanship in 1970--the year of Carswell, Cambodia, Scammon and Wattenberg). But the intriguing question--for the reader as for Moynihan--is why the left helped kill the guaranteed income. "
Instead we eventually got the psychological/sociological disaster that is "needs-based" welfare.
When you add up the cost of public school and the cost of social security and disability (ignoring medicare), the USA already spends US$800 or so a month per person. Why not just spread it out evenly as a basic income, and let parents pay for their own kids private education or homeschool? That would be US$3200 a month as a basic income for a family of four. And the US government already pays more per citizen for medical care than other industrialized countries that have better health outcomes overall. So, the US government is already paying enough out for both a basic income and universal health coverage. It is just ideology in the way of distributing that differently without conditions. In the USA, aid from the government is for the destitute (or the connected wealthy), whereas in Europe the model is more that everyone is entitled to certain basics as a citizen (like free or cheap college, access to basic health care, and, more and more, access to the internet).
As more and more gets enclosed and privatized in this world, and people can no longer hunt and gather, and where more and more work is automated or redesigned out of existence or done by volunteers, access to the fruits of the industrial commons whether you work or not is more and more a human need and a human right.
So, with a basic income, people would have the time and funds to run a printing press or the virtual equivalent.
Someone liberal who opposes the basic income as something that just props up capitalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
And why incentive-based labor is problematical in the information age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
What is most impressive is Berners-Lee's utter ignorance of economics. Everything costs money. No one has a "right" to any service, much less to one that costs as much as the Internet to build and maintain. The nearest thing to a right is the right to work, which yields a wage with which services can be purchased. Really, Tim, socialism is idiocy.
--- Bill
"The internet plays a MAJOR role in today's world"
No it doesn't. It plays a major role in YOUR world - thats not the same thing.
So the government forcing you to take a driving test before you can drive a car is wrong then?
A few years ago when we had a crisis involving our water and electricity (in Western Australia) the Governments (State and Federal) made comments that clean running water and electricity were 'privileges' and not 'rights'. I would say that in this day and age in a first world country that they are incorrect, especially as we pay top dollar through the nose for both. It was just a cop out by both Governments for poor infrastructure planning. But internet access doesn't come close to either of these. How will Berners-Lee convince the Government that it is a human right when they don't believe that about water or electricity? Will I end up having a connection to the internet and no electricity to use it?
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
Of course not, don't be dense.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Well if it was a "human right" then they wouldn't be allowed to refuse you a license no matter what. Do try and keep up.
In a democracy, the system is only as good as the information that citizens have access to. Therefore it is in society's best interest to make sure that everyone has access, subsidized if necessary, to the massive multimedia library that is the internet.
If we ensured access, we could reduce the time candidates spent on raising money to pay for tv ads if official electioneering, debates, and the like were to be carried on the net alone.
That's stupid. First, at no time did I call automobile ownership a "human right." So I don't even know who you're arguing with, but it doesn't seem to be me. Second, the government infringes your "rights" all the time. If you are found to be mentally incompetent, they take away your right to own a gun. If you're a felon, they take away your right to vote. If you can't prove you know how to drive a car, they take away your "right" to drive a car. You want me to keep going?
Don't be such a twat.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
To be fair, I'd say anarchism is a theoretical construct that has never lasted. Because I find the existence of a government which infringes on my rights is inevitable, I call myself libertarian, and accept certain violations of my rights for pragmatic reasons. I do my best to keep those violations from continually getting worse. That doesn't mean they aren't violations, only that they are tolerable, and significantly better than what happens if I try to not participate at all. I'm probably not the only libertarian who hold ethical beliefs which are compatible with anarchism.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Tim Berners-Lee is certainly not a "nutjob", you however seem to fit that bill. Paranoid anti-government nut?
Secondly, he's a European and we have a different view of things. Indeed, we have positive rights and are all the better off for it. We take care of our citizens and we don't consider the state the "enemy". Our citizens have the right to get both medical treatment and other benefits.
The right to have stuff "given" to you does not logically deny another person the same goods or services.
"So if I find an insufficiently secured WiFi access point, the government can't stop my access? I can't be arrest for theft of service?"
Well, lets look at some other basic human rights:
Do we want to say that the right to not starve is a basic human right? If so, does that mean that someone can't be charged for dining and dashing at a high-end restaurant?
What about the right to shelter? And would that make it ok for a homeless person to kill someone and taking up residence in their home?
No, you can't break the law to have your own choice of a grade of basic human right. You can however get food stamps (if that's applicable - not american only heard the term in your TV shows, no idea how they actually work) or government support if you would otherwise starve or be left homeless.
Would that mean the government in your country should ensure every american has the ability to have internet access, if internet access were to be considered a basic human right? Probably. Does that mean the government should pay for T3 lines to every household? Probably not. Would it more likely take the form of free internet access at your local library with some common-sense restrictions in place (GTFO bittorrent etc), to be utilized by the portion of the populace that cannot afford a computer and internet access at home or those being screwed by what seems to be a bizarre telco setup in america? Sure, why not.
"Anyone who lacks $1,000,000 in their bank account will fall behind their more moneyed peers. Is being rich now a right?"
Web access allows you to conduct basic day-to-day chores without having to visit the relevant company's offices. Internet banking allows you to conduct a wider variety of financial transactions than its forerunner phone banking did, usually taking less time to do so. Paying rent via the internet rather than walking down to your real estate agent to fork over the cash in person (lived in five different rental houses in my time, one of which the only option was paying rent in person, another of which we could pay via the internet or in person, two of which could be paid via phone, internet or in person and the last of which offered phone and internet-based payment options only, no idea is this sample is representative of the overall split between real estate agents offering these options or not) is always going to be quicker. Similar thing goes for my experience with utility companies im my (albeit limited) experience - one (a smaller one) offered in person payments, mailed in cheques or internet based credit or direct debit options, the other I've dealt with also had phone options added into the mix. So it definitely makes managing one's basic day-to-day affairs a damn sight less hassle-prone, especially in an age when buses and trains aren't getting any faster moving or less packed.
But probably more relevent on the basic human rights front, it gives one access to a massive amount of information. Much is bullshit, plenty of it is trivial, and a good deal of it is luxury information, but some of it is quite useful. Finding yourself in a tight spot legally/financially/medically/psychologically/whateverly and want to know what government departments/non-governmental organizations might be able to give you a hand? You could just ask people randomly on the street, but google would probably be a better bet. Remember, when we're talking about human rights we're generally talking about making sure they're extended to all, the those of the all who aren't able to get those rights of their own accord are generally the less privilaged financially - those that would probably benefit the most from governmental assistance/NGO assistance in terms of housing/having enough cash to buy food/being able to avoid being declared bankrupt/being able to afford to get treated by a doctor when they are pretty well fucked up in the health stakes.
And you compare the 'right' (if it is to be determined that that's what it is) of that level of basic human functionality in todays world to h
"I think Berners Lee and others are assuming an importance to the web that it doesn't deserve. Sure, without it life can become harder if you do a lot of shopping, banking, searching for jobs, self-educating, searching for information on doing your taxes, getting assistance from governmental or non-governmental organizations, communicating with others via email, social networking sites, planning nights out, trips, investments, being made aware of developments in your local area/city, searching for houses to buy/apartments to rent/people to root/porn to watch, freedom marches in developing nations run by tinpot dictators to organize (should you live in one), freedom protests in developed nations run by a squad of tinpot dictators to organize (hello china), but jesus Tim, get a sense of perspective."
There, fixed that for you.
P.S. Feel free to try a fortnight without any internet access (including internet access required to find out how to do things you are so used to doing via the internet that you don't know how to do without) to prove your point. If you pay rent via the internet, don't forget you can't look up whitepages.com.au (or the american equivalent phone directory site) to find your real estate agent's phone number to find out if you can pay the rent over the phone or if you now have to go via their office to do it. Ditto for bills. And have fun (re-?)learning your bank's telephone banking menus, that's always a blast (especially if they're as messed up as mine's is :( ).
"P.S. Feel free to try a fortnight without any internet access"
Actually I frequently go a lot longer without it when I go travelling. Not all of us as sad pasty faced geeks who can't be away from a keyboard for more than 24 hours without getting tremors. Get a fucking life you loser.
"If you pay rent via the internet,"
Wtf are you talking about??
"If you pay rent via the internet"
Probably talking about using the internet to pay his rent I'd guess
Yeah , and how often does that happen? Have you ever heard of landlords taken rent over the net? No, me neither. They come round once a month and you give them cash or a cheque. He just made it up.