Vint Cerf On Human Rights: Internet Access Isn't On the List

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vint Cerf On Human Rights: Internet Access Isn't On the List

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 5, 2012 @07:42AM from the coffee-ice-cream-narrowly-beat-it-out dept.

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.'"

21 of 398 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well that's funny, cos my country just by DCTech · 2012-01-05 07:42 · Score: 4, Funny

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.
1. Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just by Shakrai · 2012-01-05 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just by nospam007 · 2012-01-05 07:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Your country? Which one is it?
  The UN declared it a human right.
  http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wikileaks-internet-human-rights/38526/
3. Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just by Qzukk · 2012-01-05 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just by Millennium · 2012-01-05 08:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just by tangelogee · 2012-01-05 08:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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)
6. Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just by radish · 2012-01-05 09:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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"
7. Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just by Fjandr · 2012-01-05 10:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just by Pieroxy · 2012-01-05 11:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ... and cutting out the cable/telephone companies KILLS JOBS.
  So that's what killed him. Thanks for the info, I thought it was cancer or something.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
Reword it then by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-05 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's the right to communicate with the world community.
Running water? by grahamsaa · 2012-01-05 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Running water? by zerosomething · 2012-01-05 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly! Rights are not something that requires work by another party for you t have them. The right to free speech doesn't require anyone to do anything. You can talk all you want and publish your own paper, if you can pay for it. But you don't have any right to be published by someone else. It requires them to do something they may not want to do which would violate their rights. Christian news site foo has absolutely no obligation to publish articles from Muslim news outlet bar.
  
  --
  It all starts at 0
2. Re:Running water? by whoever57 · 2012-01-05 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  I think his point is that the technology by which you obtain such things should not be considered a right. For example, While having ready availability of water is important, the way it is delivered may not be -- having water delivered through pipes by your local water company is not really necessary -- you could have a well instead. The Internet is a delivery mechanism and what it delivers is vitally important, but other delivery mechanisms may make the Internet obsolete in the future.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
3. Re:Running water? by bobcat7677 · 2012-01-05 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The point Vint Cerf is trying to make, and is immensely important in this discussion, is that there is a big difference between a civil right and a basic human right. There is nothing wrong with making internet access a civil right if the government/people agree that that is justified in the given culture. But to exalt something as unnecessary to human existence as internet access to the status of a "basic human right" is a grave mistake and should be carefully avoided. This is because it de-values the really important stuff like the right to not be tortured or right to not be murdered.
It is not a right itself. by chrisphotonic · 2012-01-05 07:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Positive vs Negative Rights by SaroDarksbane · 2012-01-05 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Access to Communication by profplump · 2012-01-05 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Enabling oppressive governments by goldspider · 2012-01-05 08:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
A simple test. . . by JSBiff · 2012-01-05 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Communication is a human right by bws111 · 2012-01-05 10:51 · Score: 4, Informative

"Free press" does not, and never has, meant that any and everyone has access to a press. "Free press" does not, and never has, meant that any and everybody has access to the materials printed. "Free press" means that IF you have a press the government does not control what you print.
Re:ho ho ho by Fjandr · 2012-01-05 10:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.