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.'"
The UN is run by fools who don't understand the difference between positive and negative rights.
Read: positive rights don't exist, but are merely a means for politicians to use other people's money to buy favor. "The right to access the internet shall not be infringed" is an example of a negative right. "The right to 100Tb/sec internet" is not. I'm hoping all who read this can tell the difference, and can apply that lesson to other realms of massive transfer of wealth.
However, on the opposite side you also cannot tell congress that it is your constitutional right to have internet or a press. Your only right is that you can publish your opinion via those media, providing you have legal access to them. (ie. you cannot break into a newspaper building and use their press)
It is perfectly within someone's rights to have internet access or a printing press. It's also perfectly within the rights of a population to say, "we think that internet access is so important, we're going to build the infrastructure and make it available to everyone." Unfortunately we can't even have that discussion, because providing it to everyone is SOCIALISM, and cutting out the cable/telephone companies KILLS JOBS.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal