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.'"
Hate to break it to you, but the "Internet" is already owned by corporations. You didn't think the government strung all that fiber and installed all those routers did you? The internet isn't ARPANET anymore...
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.
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.
In which case, you don't have the right to an attorney. You don't have the right to a trial by jury. You don't have the right to be free from discrimination in employment or housing.
Hm nah. I'd rather have the rights than conform to your pedantically narrow definition of what a right is.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Even in the most comfortable welfare states, the vast majority of people get up and go to work every day without complaint. This claim that no one would work in a welfare state doesn't square with decades of real-world practice.
I'm surprised at your definition of a right, particularly with that handle.
Right to education would come under a right to free association (as in nobody should be able to prevent you from obtaining an education). Beyond that, there is a societal need to have educated members so they might choose to subsidize education. That's not the same thing as a right.
Rights are inherent in being a human. They are not granted to you by any outside entity. They can only be infringed upon (or not). Rights to speech, your own thoughts and opinions. To hang out with whomever you choose. To not be assaulted or to be secure in your possessions. These are all things that you have absent any gift from outside. In fact, it takes an outside application of force to remove or prevent the exercise of these rights.
Education? That requires somebody else to do something. Claiming that you have a right to an education means you have a right for someone else to teach you. That is not possible under the definition of a right - because I certainly have a right to not spend my time teaching you, and the same can be said for every other individual on the planet.
Information technology is the same thing - having a right to not be interfered with is not the same thing as having a right for somebody else to give you a computer, modem, network router, and connection to their network. Claiming this as a right doesn't make any sense. If that was a right, then you would be able to claim all of these things for free. Which means you claim a right to violate another person's rights in confiscating their property or time. This cannot be a right.
And wealth? Holy crap, what are you thinking? Do we all have the right to be NBA All-Stars too? Or how about the heavyweight champion of the world?
I think you completely conflated the idea of "it is something that is really important" with "it is a right". These are absolutely not the same thing at all. Food is really, really important. Way more important than education or information. You'll die without it. Food is not a right. Neither is shelter, water, transportation.... all of the necessities of life. These all require work to be done - somebody has to grow the food, or hunt, or gather, whatever. You can't just go grab food from someone who grew it because you are hungry. The same goes for money - you exchange your labor for money... nobody has the right to confiscate your money, any more than they have the right to force you to perform labor.
There's a completely separate question about what a society wants to come together and provide as basic services to all citizens - but that isn't the same thing as a right at all.