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.'"
It's the right to communicate with the world community.
The 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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
Print all the leaflets you want, we'll throw you in jail for littering.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Nobody said anything about getting heard when speaking.
People were being heard for hundreds of years before the Internet was invented. Have you forgotten that so quickly? Besides, while you have the right to speak, a "right to be heard" would infringe on others' rights to ignore you.
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
No more than congress being able to do the same for access to a printing press. They cannot make it illegal.
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)
I'm just pointing out that if they'd taken one or two more sentences to precisely describe it, nobody would be in any doubt. So instead of looking at the law, they're looking at federalist papers and such that only represents the opinions of some of the founders, not something actually agreed on and passed as law.
I agree with your points - but it raises further questions for me.
Why are the founders' opinions so important? Why do we spend so much time, effort and money arguing about what some people thought about something in the past rather than deciding what is the correct decision for today, in our society?
As someone who moved to the US from a country without a formal written constitution I find the obsession with it's minutiae somewhat baffling - it's treated the same way as the Bible, as some kind of holy truth handed down from a divine being. In fact it's just a bunch of opinions of some people who happened to be in charge of the country a bunch of years ago. Those opinions could be irrelevant to today's USA, they could even be wrong (*gasp*) and might even have been wrong back then! Why we give those opinions more weight than our own (and those of the leaders we actually elected) is a bit of a mystery to me.
This isn't to say I disagree with having an enshrined set of rights and principles for government, I actually think it's a good thing. But if something in it is ambiguous or unclear (or simply outdated) it seems to me far more sensible to just decide how it should be rewritten (starting from a clean slate) than try to guess what the person who originally wrote it meant - it really doesn't matter.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
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.
There's a huge difference between preventing access and providing access. The government cannot prevent access to the internet, as it would be an infringement of your rights to freely publish material. However, they are under absolutely zero obligation to provide you with access.
Too many people conflate the right to access something at whatever cost is required with a right to access something at whatever cost they desire.
So you believe you have a right to be provided with the means to publish in any method you so desire?
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.
That's not how rights work. Exercising rights does, in some cases, require money, unless you believe you have the right to appropriate any property you desire without compensation.