Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf On Human Rights: Internet Access Isn't On the List
Gallenod writes "In an op-ed for the New York Times, Vint Cerf writes that civil protests around the world, sparked by Internet communications, 'have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right.' Cerf argues that 'technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself,' and contends that for something to be considered a human right, 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.'"
Well that's funny, cos my country just said it is human right for everyone to get internet access and also access to free information. U.S., what a backwards country.
It's the right to communicate with the world community.
Freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Unfortunately all the world's governments are hostile to that idea.
Anyone who feels that the Internet is a "human right" should read Bastiat's The Law. (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)
Internet access isn't a human right just like access to running water or electricity aren't human right -- it's not absolutely necessary for life, but it's still pretty damn important.
Facts have a liberal bias.
If only Lois mcmaster Bujold was as good a legal scholar as author of fiction.
Lets face, it we aren't going to provide everyone with IPads, and computers. The Internet is not a right.
However, keeping the government from blocking the Internet IS a right. That's the right our right to free speech in one of its most powerful forms.
What about freedom to open your mouth? To Speak? To SAY something? Or even to NOT say anything at all? Is this a human right?
Short answer: YES.
Freedom is nothing, if you are unable to express it, as this medium "internet" still does it.
What's "freedom of speech" worth if you cannot get heard? What's "freedom to information" worth if you cannot access any information but the one that you are "supposed" to get? What's freedom of conscience worth if you only get to hear the indoctrinations of the state-sanctioned church?
Technology might not be a right. But without it, some rights are quite meaningless.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Much like the right to bear arms does not imply that you have a right to be provided with those arms, I would argue that you have right to not be prevented from using the internet by the government, but that's different from a right to be provided internet access.
His point is reasonable, though probably a bit subtle for many audiences. "Access to communication" might well be a human right, but we shouldn't add "the Internet" to a special list for the same reason that we can be glad our predecessors didn't add "telegraph service" to the list.
...should be governed by a competency/IQ test, if you ask me. Then again, if you ask me, I'd say the same should be true of our right to procreate. Just saying...
Im my country which, in no way is any good, many thing are being moved online. So internet really is a requirement for living. it should be treated as a base tool everyone should have access to. restricking people who are already in say jail is ok, crime and punishment and all that.
In that manner, all other definitions of "human rights" can be accommodated by the simple expedient of mutually consenting co-habitation.
This means "secession" must be incorporated into the foundation of all notions of "human rights" -- secession of individuals as well as groups of individuals. For what is slavery but making it impractical for an individual to secede? Denial of individual secession was the core evil of the Dred Scott decision.
Tyranny of the majority, limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights -- the sine qua non of "liberal democracy" -- must submit to the right to secede or it violates truth and freedom, hence all social good.
See Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society.
*Yes, this does mean there does not exist, at present, a legitimate government anywhere.
Seastead this.
The internet was the great boundary eraser. People from anywhere could suddenly communicate, share, argue, whatever without having to travel, know an address and write a letter or know a phone number and make a call. Keeping people from communicating was an afterthought by dictatorial regimes, who have fallen or faced uprisings thanks to this ability to communicate from anywhere at the speed of thought. Now it faces barriers by governments and carriers - China's great firewall, Iran closing internet Cafe's, etc. It was great while it lasted.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think Vint is correct technically: it certainly doesn't make sense to have tools or technologies become "rights". Yet, I think he is missing the substantive debate that has been ongoing for decades: are human rights solely "negative rights" (e.g. freedom from censorship, etc) or are they also "positive rights" (e.g. freedom to access education).
Now, the whole thing can be restated in terms of what freedom of speech really means and entails. Is it only freedom from oppression, or does it assert some positive rights as well? If it does, then it could follow that the right to free speech means the right to access information, which the internet certainly provides with equanimity.
Internet access may not be a right, but if a person can't have unrestricted internet access, at least one of their rights are probably being violated.
aren't arms a technology?
Why just say "internet"? That sounds too specific to me. General information, that is, information that has been made available for the public in any form, should be a human right. The Internet is only one way to access this, but that should be why it would fall under that.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...
A law that restricts the ability for someone to communicate is a law that abridges (limits, reduces, etc.) the freedom of speech. The Internet is not Speech, but it is a means to speak, just like running television, radio, or print ads, flying a banner behind an airplane, or simply standing on a box shouting into a bullhorn. Should telepathy be the next wave in communication, limiting the ability for people to perform telepathy would still be abridging the freedom of speech.
Limiting the Internet is limiting the ability to communicate--through the Internet, which is still a limit on the ability to communicate.
Note that the First Amendment says Congress shall not pass such laws. Of course, private companies can restrict speech to whatever they feel like within their own domain.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Rights are granted by default, not by enumeration. Much like the arguments over software patents, adding "on a computer" or "on the Internet" to a fundamental human right like freedom of speech does not make it a new right that must be separately protected. It already IS protected, and singling it out for "special" protection only provides a means for those protections to be revoked. Just because you pass a law that says "no censoring the Internet" does not make censoring it okay after you repeal the law, but it's very easy to make people believe that it is.
first amendment covers this. and, you have the rights to your free speech. nice. where ?
.... oh wait - that last bit turned out not to be a right.
........
in your house, among your friends, in your neighborhood, or in a public park which you can put a stool and step on it to give a speech
so, you have a right, but the means to exercise it are not your rights. so basically, whomever has the most money can publish newspapers, run tvs or appear in tvs, and all the rest 95% people like you just end up 'free speeching' among your own social circle
and in contrast, internet access as of this point fixes all of these - you CAN actually exercise that free speech right AS it should be - in a way that it would matter. you can broadcast to millions if they are interested, you can be read for millions if they are interested, and these cost you very minimal amounts.
take it away and what remains ? only the means to exercise your free speech as a rather vocal member of your own small social circle.
totally harmless. as they want you to be.
Read radical news here
I have a lot of respect for Vint but this is stupid. So by his logic, since "plumbing" is a technology, nobody should have the right to properly working indoor plumbing? Clothing is a technology - should people not have the right to wear clothes? Sure, "the right to wear clothes," is, semantically, talking about allowing folks to have the ability to put on clothes, NOT that they should have access to the technology - but this is a debate for a white-tower English professor. Practically speaking, the right to wear clothes is irrelevant if there are no clothes to wear, just as the right to free speech is irrelevant if you cannot access the means by which many if not most people in our globalized society communicate. I would argue that the internet is the most important means of communications between humans ever devised, including natural language. Assuming you can at least partially agree with this, should humans not have the right to language, the right to speak? I thought of all people Vint Cerf would be able to see this, but then again he is an old-guard technologist, a DARPA "good ole boy," whose primary interest is in technological innovation, not human rights. He should keep his mouth shut on issues he obviously has no grasp of.
Two basic rights should encompass the others
The right to engage in any voluntary exchange with/without any person so long as that action does not harm other individuals unless defending against anothers aggression.
The right to be free from violent force.
First part.
So I have a right to buy water, internet, etc. But I have no right to get it for free since that would entail forcing (partial enslavement) other to provide it to me.
Second part.
Once I have purchased water, or internet access, you can't rightfully force me to part with them, or use them only as you approve, unless I'm drowning someone, or strangling them with my CAT6 cable.
Rights like technology change over time. These aren't the 10 commandments written in stone anymore.
Looks like an article just trying to pose debate for his opinions of what he agrees should be a human right and shouldn't be.
And really comparing the right to having a horse to having the right to access of information? Please.
Would someone get it correct for once. Human rights and civil rights are not the same thing. Human rights are things like access to clean water and health care, things the United States does not have or care about. Civil rights are freedom of speech and access to Internet and freedom of speech. Please don't confuse the too. They are very different things.
The solution to this problem in the U.S. is a first amendment interpretation. The government is not to interfere or limit or allow any person or organization to limit the ability of people to communicate. Yes you have free speech but it does little good when your in a prison cell.
The Internet is a CIVIL right just like freedom of speech is.
Inalienable rights are inherent in your existence. They are not given to you by a government, although a government should protect these rights from infringement by others. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
Thus, internet access is not a right. But you do have the right to access the internet, should you so choose.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Yes, Internet presents a technology for transmission of information and connecting people. But that's not the only thing that makes the Internet. It's not just the technology behind it. It's a phenomena, which encompasses the Internet community. While the technology isn't a human right, what it brings should be.
Just like the press. The press isn't a technology that refers to the printing press, it's a phenomena.
The article is really questioning whether internet access is an entitlement, not a right. A "right" is best defined as some action that cannot justly be restricted or stopped by a government or by another citizen, except if said action interferes with the rights of another and by due process the rights of the other are determined to take precedence. By this definition, internet access is a "right" in the sense that you cannot (generally) be justly disconnected from the internet if you have it. An "entitlement" is best defined as something which a just society must guarantee that all citizens have. An entitlement exists only if it would be unjust for a society not to ensure every citizen had it. What the article is really asking is whether it is unjust for a society to not ensure universal internet access.
It's also guaranteed in Estonia.
I read it as "freedom from conscience"... which our current government has mastered. They clearly have no conscience.
On the other hand, wtf is freedom of conscience? Sounds to me like it's the age-old argument of "right/wrong is relative". I thought intelligent people settled that debate long ago when they imprisoned murderers despite the murderer fully believing they did nothing wrong.
Confusing government-provided services and entitlements with "rights" sets a dangerous precedent.
The idea that "rights" are granted by government only makes it easier for governments to take them away.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The people who advocated for natural rights were all pretty much full if it anyway. Rights are something we made up and then tried to reverse engineer some kind of principals that make us feel like we didn't just make all of it up out of thin air. It is not that I don't think human rights are important. Rather, I think they are pretty arbitrary. Internet Access doesn't come from some natural law. On the other hand, since it is necessary in order to lead a meaningful life, we should not prevent people from having it except under the most dire circumstances.
The reason that freedom of press is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights is not that the specific medium of a newspaper is so important, so much as that was the most visible media at that time to share thoughts and opinions. I'd contend that same concept applies to the internet today. Denying access to the internet may seem to be a first world problem that people can't check Facebook, but at the same time you're denying people access to the thoughts and opinions of society, or sharing their own.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You do not need a gun to live your life well. You can trust your government to protect you.
I'm sure that there are some Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis and North Koreans that might take issue with your statements. Oh, and Jews. And Tibetans. And Bosnians. And Cambodians. And Chinese. And like, Half of Africa. But those are just the few I could rattle off in 30 seconds, there might be more.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Human beings have a right to uninhibited communication with themselves, other humans, and even non-humans. This is somewhat covered by the United States First Amendment to the Constitution, but it's not explicitly stated, which leaves grey areas. You would think that we wouldn't need to "cover our asses" as a country, but look at what happened with slavery. It was never explicitly stated that slavery cannot happen (even though it interfered with the lives of countless others), until the 13th amendment.
Mr. America walk on by your schools that do not teach Mr. America walk on by the minds that won't be reached
In effect our consitution protects the press, which was a technology to bring about free speech. I doubt anyone would object that the internet is an extension of that. But then again, that doesn't demand that the government build you a press.
Actually, I'm happy to live in a "3rd world country" if it means that I can be free. If you are born owing healthcare to my grandmother, then you are born a slave. Some of us are smart enough to understand that NOTHING can be a "right" if someone else has to pay for it. The only real legitimate rights are actually negative rights (the right to not be forced into action/inaction by an oppressor). If you are interested in actual freedom (and not nanny-state totalitarianism) you need to learn the difference between rights and goods as well as the difference between negative and positive rights. Not being stopped from accessing the Internet should be a right.
The [US] 1st amendment already covers this. There is no need to further clutter up our founding documents with some "right" to access the internet. The Constitution is vaguely silent on your "right" to access the library yet I don't hear you calling us backwards for that.
That's the one, freedom of expression — unsuppressed communication with local and global communities.
We've seen social media sites act as catalysts to revolutions in places that restrict other forms of expression. This is largely because it is very difficult to suppress "the internet" as a whole, or even specific popular general interest sites.
The printing press and books aren't "human rights" either, just a means by which to achieve communication (expression). What we need is to draw a firm line that shows that, at the moment, the internet is the predominant form of communication and must therefore be protected as a human right; the term "free press" needs a modern equivalent.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Interesting, so your doctors are slaves, then?
How humanitarian.
Vint Cerf is both right and wrong. He is correct that the government isn't trampling on your rights if it does not provide Internet access and a computer for it's population. But on the flip side, if it expressly denies you access to a communications medium it is denying you a basic human right.
To cast it in another light: Would it be acceptable for a government to outlaw Jewish people from driving on public freeways? Of course not. But nobody expects the government to buy everybody a car and a tank full gas.
I agree that Internet access should not be explicitly enumerated as a human right, but only because it should be self evident as being a basic utility that should be provided to all citizens equally. A country might not have the capacity to deliver electricity to its citizens, but if it does, I would expect that it would be provided in a fair and equal fashion. This would fall under the 'pursuit of happiness' clause where an individual would not be prohibited from acquiring and using a resource if they chose to.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I haven't logged into slashdot for a really long time. But I felt the need to do so just to point out how I feel that Vint's outlook might be a bit shortsighted. Sure, today I might agree as an American that the Internet isn't necessarily a right unto itself. But for the people in the countries he mentions who have managed to enact some serious political change because of their ability to easily communicate, it certainly is a much more tangible quality right now for them to have that ability to easily communicate seeing how the governments involved usually tried to remove that ability almost from the beginning in each and every case. Bottom line is, people communicating is pretty much the only force which can actually topple governments every time. There's a cetain tipping point, a critical mass, an amount of momentum - call it what you will - that movements, like those throughout Africa and the Middle East just recently, require to make change actually happen. But once they hit that point, there's really nothing to prevent them from achieving their goals, short of wholesale destruction by nuclear weapons or some equivalent. It's the same kind of thing that needs to happen in the USA to help mitigate the impending collapse of empire, but that's a different post altogether.
Anyway, that's just today. We're going to be living in a world in the not too distant future where each and every one of us is plugged into some sort of global communication network, directly, biologically. And yes, that network will be ensuring the safety, health, and happiness of everyone on planet Earth. In the beginning, it will most likely be a sort of LifeCall system. Everyone will have the ability for EMS/paramedics to arrive on your location within minutes of a life threatening event, regardless of where you are. Later on, that same global communication network will be allowing you to instantly communicate via thought with anyone you know on the planet. Hell, we're almost there today aside from the total lack of coverage in large, mostly uninhabited or extremely poor portions of the globe. But it will happen eventually. And after that, you'll be accessing information in real time, probably with a retinal heads up disaply, about your surroundings on a constant basis. Where to go to find something? How much something costs? How fast you're moving? All of this will be right there for you to see, at the turn of a thought. And that's only the very tip of the iceberg using my kind of thinking today. How fundamentally life altering will it be for every person on this planet to be essentially wired directly into one another. Memes already spread culture and thinking across vast sections of the population. What happens when those memes become instantaneous and pervasive, presented in thoughts, sights, sounds, smells and touch possibly even?
Just as important as GPS is to the miltaries of the world today, which is why both China and the EU have started launching their own constellation of GPS satellites to remove reliance on the US system, access to the always on, directly connected global communication network will be in the future, for every single citizen of planet Earth.
Is it going to be awhile before we get there? Sure. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should ignore fighting for those rights now. Especially with the direction the world has started to turn lately. I applaud the places in the world already moving to guarantee these rights for their citizens now. Because like it or not, the Internet as our current global communication network is here to stay, and it does enable people to change their worlds entirely, today. That's important. And there are very entrenched powers who are already trying to limit our access and use of said network. Sure, it might be done in the name of intellectual property protection today. But what will be the reasoning tomroow? To prevent dissent amongst the populous? One can only imagine.
Anyway, something to think about. It will most likely have evolve
"It's the first article in the constitution. 'Access to information shall not be abridged.'" - Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan, Barrayar, Lois McMaster Bujold
Of course, it would have to be supported by language indicating that this means all people must have access without charge or limit (beyond reasonable "you can't surf porn at the internet cafe 24/7" measures) to the means of accessing said information. But Cerf is right, the point shouldn't be Internet access; it should be access to information. The Internet is just our current incarnation of that access, and someday, it will be supplanted by a better or different technology. (Or it will be destroyed in the human-initiated apocalypse. One way or the other.)
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
1. The internet is not a right
2. Limiting access to the internet is restricting speech and access to information
3. No government should have the right to restrict access to the internet (see point 2)
4. Whether or not you, personally, have access to the net is your problem.
The humans rights are those what the UN claims they are. Whether or not we add internet access to the list depends on whether or not would we want to enforce it in the developed part of the world. The list of human rights is already fairly overblown, so arguing that internet access is not a fundamental right is pointless as there are many other bullshit that far less "natural" than internet access on the list.
Human Rights are whatever we collectively decide they are; they're a social contract explicit or implicit, but entirely of our making. So why not make Internet Access a human right? In a paradigm where technology enhanced freedom of information and Internet access is required for most people's daily tasks, why is this not a necessity? Could you get by in the contemporary world without it? Most of us could not. Imagining a world where we throwback to only what's inherent to technologically un-enhanced human beings (even stone tools are technology) to set the mark for what determines a human right is absurd; that's not the world we live in. At some point in the future, bet on it, this kind of thing _will_ be required for daily life; it's only a question now because there remains a significant population for whom it's not.
"...contends that for something to be considered a human right, 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."
I don't know about other parts of the world but at least locally, every product recall, safety issue, shelter list, emergency numbers during storms, etc... on the news broadcasted on TV always have the following words attached at the end of them, "for a more information or a complete list go to our website and click the link." So really you can't live a healthy life without the internet now apparently.
Just like that bit in "Life of Brian" ... "Loretta" might not be able to have babies (because he's a man) but he can have the right to have babies.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Vint Cerf is right. The technology isn't what should be on the rights table. What should be there is the ability to communicate with one another, privately if so desired. Technologies that are enablers of such an ability should then be inherently protected by the pre-existing inalienable right.
I've read the same crap almost verbatim, by other people. Obviously, you guys are parroting someone, but I would like to know whom?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Our doctors are free people that make a decent living.
At the same time, we don't have children that aren't covered by healthcare, which is in fact humane.
Having millions of children without healthcare is inhumane, and I would be ashamed if I lived in such backwards country where that was considered normal.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Rights allow you to be left alone and find your own way.
Rights do not require an obligation on others besides to be left alone and not harmed. If you had a right to food or a right to whatever nice thing you can think of, then you are basically putting a demand on someone else to do something for you. And if they don't want to do something for you? Well, if it is a legitimate right, you have to do something for a person even if you want nothing to do with them.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
So your doctors are free to charge as much as they desire for their services, and the taxpayers pay it? I see, so you are all slaves to the doctors, then.
Tell me, is food free in your country as well? Water? Rent? Clothes? Where does the free shit end? Is it humane for little teeny tiny defenseless children do go without those things?
So you are actually free to repay the 14 trillion dollars debt that the USA government manage to accumulate? And you call this "freedom"?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the government owns you from cradle to grave. I just wonder if you'll ever pop the tit out of your mouth long enough to say anything worth hearing.
You have a right to print whatever you want. You should also have a right to access the Internet.
Note--this doesn't imply that the government should pay for your access any more than it implies that it should pay for your paper and ink.
In both cases, these things really aren't that expensive. When somebody has something worth saying, there's usually somebody who gives you paper and ink or Internet access for free. If you just want to post dirty limericks or pictures of your ass, there tends not to be any political or charitable organization that donates media for that.
The internet is not a tool, its a medium. It is a medium for information flow. Air is also a medium for information flow. How can you have the right to express information, but not the right to use the medium? Saying someone has "free speech" without the implied right "to be heard" is an odd thing. It's like telling someone they can speak but only in this soundproof box.
And of course, the gov't need not provide people with megaphones so they can be heard presently, but someday and soon it will not be possible to be heard without internet access.
your life would be healthier if you weren't on your computer all the time.
why don't we generalize it to that for the 21st century, rather than talking about specific means like "the press".
Then any restraint of those human rights would need a constitutionally and legal valid reason.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Children do get all those things free in Finland if necessary. Housing and utilities are provided to those demonstrating need. The free baby clothes and free meals go to all. The children will eventually pay back in taxes more than they received in such benefits, so making it attractive to have children -- as opposed to children seeming like a burden on the parents' finances -- is a matter of the state making investments for the future.
you cannot define 'rights' without the iplications that there are also 'wrongs'.
The first thing you need to do to avoid confusion on what is and is not a 'natural human right' is define what theology you are working from.
Legal 'rights' are different, they are more or less arbitrary and based on law and human custom, there is nothing fundomental that requires any specific leal right
unless you want to argue from a prective of human rights , but human rights again, require the idea there is some kind of objective morality ( universal principles) that cause them to exist, and those must have roots in the existance of Truth and truth in the existance of god.
If not it is all arbitrary. There is no such thing as 'rights' only what you can get based on who you are and what kind of power you have.
What if the person being tortured has information that could save hundreds of lives, or prevent many other people from being tortured. Are you not denying the rights of those in danger by not doing whatever it takes to get the necessary information?
I realize that the ends do not always justify the means, but can't we all image situations where these 'rights' must be put aside for the greater good? With that in mind, is it not more dangerous to generalize these 'rights' to cover everyone at all times then to assume that no one has any more rights than anyone else?
What separates us from the animals is the retarded notion that we are better than anything, and that includes trees and rocks and dirt. We all just are and regardless of what you say, what you stand for, what you agree one, every living creature is free to act and behave as they wish, held back ONLY by the weak notion of consequences that our system tries to instill. You can't stop anyone from doing anything, but you can threaten them with punishment, which is how our legal system works. Is that not contradictory to our rights to freedom and against torture? Is the threat of the death penalty, imprisonment not torture?
Right, I'm sure you don't have an underclass that lives off of the free shit train, and will never develop one.
Enjoy the delusion of infinite free shit while it lasts.
Maybe I've missed some case, but it seems to me that there's a simple test for what is a basic human right:
It's something that other people/the government can only take away from you, not give to you.
The Right to Free Speech through the internet can be accomplished by heading down to your local library to use one of their computers.
It does not extend to being guaranteed a home connection and machine of your own. Exercising your rights does not require technology welfare.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Be ashamed if you've gotten pregnant - or gotten someone else pregnant - without being able to support your child. Don't blame the people who are just unfortunate enough to live close enough to you that you think they're all responsible to provide for your child. Bringing a defenseless innocent into this world without being able to take care of it, and expecting people you don't know to pay for it: THAT'S inhumane. And defending your position by declaring that anyone who resides in your neck of the woods has agreed to some "social contract" that obligates them to perform the responsibilities you have abdicated is not only inhumane, it's insane.
There is always such an "underclass" - but they are a very small minority. Just because a few individuals take advantage of the system, it doesn't mean the system should be given up. Having everyone covered by healthcare is a good thing - I am happy that my tax money goes to prevent abominations such as children not having healthcare such as in the USA.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Cerf sold his soul to the highest paying ad broker as a celeb token, which is his right, but makes his opinion about human rights and all that completely without value. This is because Cerf has an agenda with things he can and cannot say, and thus cannot be taken seriously. Things he cannot say include our privacy rights, where the ad broker feeds a small army of lawyers and lobbyists to erode our privacy rights, with the aim of profit maximization. Cerf is a rich capitalist, who never experienced any lack of human rights. This is insufferable. Cerf, I'm displeased to say, to shut up. Really, what's next, Larry Ellisson on human rights? Same thing, except he sells real products, not ad space.
When many people come to the same conclusion independently, maybe there's some truth to what they're saying.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
They aren't philosophers coming to the same conclusion independently. The majority of posters on Slashdot who claim that rights must be limited to a certain few, are Americans who grew up with a Lockean national mythology. They perpetuate this mythology unthinkingly, seemingly unaware of the many other schools of thought on the issue.
Freedom of speech and press don't qualify, since they're just specific communications technologies.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." - Article 25. The Universal declaration of human rights.
"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." - Vint Cerf
Mate, stay out politics, your out of your depth.
Those who make such statements are not "parroting" anyone, this is a basic philosophy well established for several centuries now.
A human right is something you're born with, not some product you get free just because you want it. A right cannot cost another human his time or money.
:)
The one exception is, at least in this country, that you have a right to a jury trial. The jurors are giving up their time for you to have that right. You should thank them even it you're found guilty.
You don't inherently have a right to health care, internet, and all the other goods and services you want unless you're willing to pay for them yourself.
(I should have added)
The internet isnt a technology, its a product of technology, similar to food, clothing housing.
To say people have a right to food, isnt to say people have a right frying pans, ovens and refrigerators.
To say people have a right to clothing isnt to say they have a right to weaving looms (and whatever clothing technology they use to make cloths)
People dont have a right to a Hammer and Nails, but they do have a right to shelter.
The right to Internet Access is the right of access to an inexpensive global communications medium.
Vint you can relax, people arent trying to claim rights over 'your stuff', go back to sleep.
Nothing is a fundamental right that someone else has to produce in order for me to receive it; to say otherwise is enshrining its theft as a right.
In much the same thing as there is a little bit of water in the Earth's oceans.
This combines two fallacies -- argument to the consequences of belief and false dichotomy. You can simply acknowledge that rights have no objective, factual existence and are subjective value propositions and still build whatever structure you want on top of the rights you believe in.
You, of course, lose the ability to argue that the structure you build on top of those ideas of rights is objectively superior to any other structure, but that's a false universalism built on, as you yourself note, handwaving.
Appeals to conscience aren't appeals to a sense that reports objective realities, they are appeals to a subjective sense akin to (arguably, a subset of) aesthetic sense that it is, in part, inborn and in part shaped by personal experience.
Just as there are some aesthetic expressions that are more or less popular, so there are moral/ethical propositions that resonate with more or fewer people.
The absence of belief in an objective right of the person not to be shot does not equate to either the absence of a belief that is subjectively superior to not shoot the person, and, even moreso, does not equate to the belief in an objective obligation to shoot them. So, no, this argument doesn't hold water.
No, they aren't. Which is why there have been rather bitter disputes over whether rights exist, which rights, if any, exist, and who possesses the rights that exist throughout all of recorded history. If rights were, in fact, obvious, there wouldn't be an issue.
+1 Vint Cerf (Insightful).
Absolutely the internet itself should not be placed as a human right. However, perhaps a more universal philosophical concept could be substituted such as perhaps a freedom to use technologies that facilitate other rights on the list.
Thus the freedom to use the internet is less a right then an implicit subordinate concept under the freedom of speech. It helps humans communicate and so we should be free to use it.
In this way we keep focus on the principle philosophical concepts while also adapting to new technological realities. The system will also dynamically adapt to new technologies as they come out. Perhaps in 200 years the internet will be meaningless. it would be silly to have it as a human right in that case. But if we say any technology that facilitates communication then that will have adapted automatically over time as well.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Rights don't come from government, rights are what exist in the absence of government. Privileges come from government (like universal healthcare could be a privilege). Sure, we as humans relinquish some of our rights (ie: our right to murder) and give government the capability to restrict those rights and grant privileges, but only because we believe it is in the public interest.
Building and using an Internet is our right, government has no right to take that from us.
Of course open (sometimes anonymous) communications are important.
While the internet may not itself be a specific right, it currently is the one and only available embodiment of a few human rights. Many governments are most conveniently communicated with via internet. It is the most common form of mass information exchange. Free speech and press are human rights (in some countries specifically enumerated, in others it's implied).
Should the world move to smoke signal net next year, then THAT would become the dominant embodiment of the human right to communication.
Cut Vint off from the internet, cell phones, landlines, all forms of communication. And see what he thinks about it then.
Whys are kind of useless without a common metaphysics, but we do have a common nature and common interests, and those make fine springboards.
The reciprocal principle. If you don't want someone else to have a certain right, you must be equally willing to give it up yourself. If you want some right for yourself, then you must be willing to extend it to others in full measure. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would cut off their nose just to spite their neighbor's face, but generally this principle makes sense.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Most of us would never choose to live as homeless ascetics, and yet some of us are unable to work and acquire the minimal property required for basic comfort and security. Should such individuals be given some property as a basic right? I believe that if we are to be consistent to the ideal of reciprocal rights, they must receive some help from society as a whole. Some would disagree. Consider other issues like mental and physical health.
Thing is, by promoting these 'rights' we in fact help society overall. As the downtrodden gain back their dignity, we gain more dignity ourselves, and those individuals grow stronger and give back to society. As we help those with illness, we save resources that would be spent later as their illnesses become more serious.
There are all kinds of areas where something might not seem on its face to be a 'natural right' and yet we must extend a hand in order to raise people up and bring them out of despair and into society. Otherwise we will always function at a minimal level, and most likely a dysfunctional one.
-- thinkyhead software and media
What the fuck are are you even talking about? Most of the people I listed were systematically murdered by their own government's racist genocidal policies. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Pol Pot, Joe Stalin, and Adolph Hitler's internal murder campaigns had nothing to do with any American Foreign policy decisions. The Balkans have been trying to ethnically cleanse each other since WW1, and I think you will have a hard time hanging China's actions in Tibet on the French, the British, or America.
Moreover, suppose what you said actually makes ANY sense. How would that even be relevant to the observation that I was making that your government cannot be trusted to have your best interests at heart?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
so you have the right, but you dont have the means to exercise that right.
a right that practically cant be exercised does NOT exist. that is no different from medieval serfs having the right to petition the king against lord's wrongdoings in legalese, but never having the possibility to practice.
I'd like to write a book, so I'm going to require that someone provide me with a free computer, free paper, free writing utensils, free access to commercial printing and binding machines, etc..
yes. and that's how it should be. quite far fetched? no. not more far fetched than arguing that practical impossibility of exercising a right in a way it would matter still qualifies as 'having that right.
Read radical news here
> Cerf argues that 'technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself,'
The access to a particular technology shouldn't be a right, but the access to adequate technology (in general) for the world we live in actually should.
We always have the freedom of free speech even BEFORE the internet came about and even AFTER the internet is gone. The internet is simply a tool/enabler.
We don't express the freedom of assembly as freedom to get together with your friends on a street corner, do we? It's quite possible to tie very specific activities to very general rights. So "freedom to access and participate in the general knowledge and discourse of society" is a basic right upon which other freedoms like "freedom of conscience" depend.
How hard is this to think through? We shouldn't make internet access a basic freedom because one day it will all be done via RF waves and implants? What's going on with you, Vint?
The 1st amendment already covers this. There is no need to further clutter up our founding documents with some "right"... Brevity is your friend when you are drafting a Constitution. For much the same reason I think the equal rights amendment is a waste of time and ink. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause already covers it.
Yeah, those pesky "new" rights. All they ever did was extend voting rights to all adults and races and sexes, regardless of property ownership. Stupid clutter. This is 'Mer-ka! Land of the free white male property owner invaders! /sarcasm
You do know that the 14th Amendment wasn't a founding document, right?
I8-D
Is internet access a right? Hell no.
Should the ability to get said access without the government or any other giant asshole entity filtering the shit out of it? Fuck yes.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I agree. The internet itself is not a "Human Right", but it is becoming sooo important to the function of our society, it should be a matter of public policy to ensure unrestricted access to the internet - and notice I said unrestricted access to the internet, not a guarantee of internet connectivity, there is a difference.
and they were enumerated by the Clash.
Very cute observations! But then we need to preserve the Internet we just produced. If running a server is not a human right as well, accessing the Internet might become similar to getting wired to The Matrix.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 19, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
If running a a server is seen as 'imparting information through the internet", and the internet is considered a communication media, then UNDHR has got your back...
I guess it could be argued that a server is an an automated way of imparting information through the internet, and that being able to impart information manually (through a client) is enough.
Comes down to bias i guess.
Careful, your ignorance is starting to show.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.