Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 5 January 2012 16:22, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them. Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. Thoughts? You don't need a new right. The human rights include education and access to be able to participate in your culture. A human banned from using the internet would not have access to culture, and will be banned from participate in it. Based on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights 5.5 5.7 5.7.* Practical terms: The ugly conclusion is that you can put a men in jail, but that don't include ban such men to access the internet. Say, you put in jail a cracker. The judge as to remove him from two rights, the right to freelly walk anywhere, and the right to post in his favorite forum/mail list. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip With all due respect to Vint, I think that it isn't now, but it will be. Regards Marshall But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them. Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. Thoughts? Cheers, -- jr 'yes, I know I'm early...' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:22:52AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. There's a pretty big gap between providing subsidized service because it's good for people/society/the government/business/whatever and a human right. The government subsidizes lots of things, roads, electric service, planting of wheat that doesn't make any of them human rights. A few years back I read the Wikipedia page on Human Rights, and it made me realize the topic is far deeper than I had initially thought. There really are a lot of nuances to the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights Broadband, to me, is not a human right. It is something that makes our society more efficient, and improves the quality of life for virtually every citizen, so I do think the government has a role and interest in seeing widespread, if not universal broadband deployment. Failure to provide broadband to someone is not a human rights violation though, and the idea that it is probably is offensive to those who have experienced real human rights violations. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpVyBYeJVbQO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers of something else and the Internet would fit there. Zaid On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them. Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. Thoughts? Cheers, -- jr 'yes, I know I'm early...' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 5 January 2012 15:22, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. There is a subtlety here too - when we grant a monopoly (e.g. to operate a physical loop or in licensing spectrum) in return we often place a universal service obligation on the operator in order they don't abuse their monoply by not providing service to less profitable customers. This isn't the same as a right to a phone. Aled
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
- Original Message - From: Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them. Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers of something else and the Internet would fit there. Well, I dunno... as I think was obvious from my other comments: TV and Radio are *broadcast* media; telephones and the internet are not; they're *two-way* communications media... and they're the communications media which have been chosen by the organs of government we've constituted to run things for us. You hit the important word, though, in your reply: *access to* food, clothing, and shelter... not the things themselves. The question here is is *access to* the Internet a human right, something which the government ought to recognize and protect? I sort of think it is, myself... and I think that Vint is missing the point: *all* of the things we generally view as human rights are enablers to other things, and we generally dub them *as those things*, by synecdoche... at least in my experience. If I'm not mistaken, Vint's on this list; perhaps he'll chime in. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
- Original Message - From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org Broadband, to me, is not a human right. It is something that makes our society more efficient, and improves the quality of life for virtually every citizen, so I do think the government has a role and interest in seeing widespread, if not universal broadband deployment. Failure to provide broadband to someone is not a human rights violation though, and the idea that it is probably is offensive to those who have experienced real human rights violations. Didn't *say* broadband. Didn't even say Internet service. Said Internet *access*, in the non-techspeak meaning of those words. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them. Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers of something else and the Internet would fit there. Well, I dunno... as I think was obvious from my other comments: TV and Radio are *broadcast* media; telephones and the internet are not; they're *two-way* communications media... and they're the communications media which have been chosen by the organs of government we've constituted to run things for us. You hit the important word, though, in your reply: *access to* food, clothing, and shelter... not the things themselves. The question here is is *access to* the Internet a human right, something which the government ought to recognize and protect? I sort of think it is, myself... and I think that Vint is missing the point: *all* of the things we generally view as human rights are enablers to other things, and we generally dub them *as those things*, by synecdoche... at least in my experience. If I'm not mistaken, Vint's on this list; perhaps he'll chime in. :-) Here is a way to think about it - is denial of X a violation of human rights ? If so, access to X should be viewed as a human right. Denial of food, for example, is certainly a violation of human rights. That is not the same as saying that everyone always will be able to afford to eat anything they want, or in dire circumstances even all they need, but to deny food is certainly to violate human rights. I think that if we had heard that (say) Libya's Khaddafi had denied (say) the people of Benghazi all access to telephony, that that would be regarded as a violation of human rights. (Actually, he did and it was). People would, for example, start dying because no one could call an ambulance in an emergency. It would set the stage for further human rights violations, because no one could alert the world to what was happening. Etc. In 1880, that would not have been true, but today it is. Is the Internet at that level ? IMO, no, but it will be soon. That is not the same to say that everyone will get 100 Gbps for free, any more than everyone gets to eat at La Tour d'Argent in Paris. Regards Marshall Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:09:59AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: Broadband, to me, is not a human right. It is something that makes our society more efficient, and improves the quality of life for virtually every citizen, so I do think the government has a role and interest in seeing widespread, if not universal broadband deployment. Failure to provide broadband to someone is not a human rights violation though, and the idea that it is probably is offensive to those who have experienced real human rights violations. Didn't *say* broadband. Didn't even say Internet service. Said Internet *access*, in the non-techspeak meaning of those words. For the purposes of my e-mail and this point in time, they are all synonymous. That is, if interenet access is a right, providing someone a 9600bps dial up does not, in my mind, qualify. That might qualify for e-mail access, but you can not use a reasonable fraction of the Internet at that access speed. Similarly, denying someone internet service denies them internet access. The only difference between your terms and mine, is that mine are fixed to this point in time while yours is a general concept that may move in the future. One day 50Mbps broadband may not qualify anymore as internet access due to where the interernet ends up. But let's take a specific (famous) example. Kevin Mitnick. From his wikipedia page: During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. If Internet access (to use your term) had been a human right than his human rights were violated by the government when they banned him from using any communications technology. Do we really want to suggest that banning him from using the computer is the same level of violation as enslaving him, torturing him, or even killing him? -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpaCEJDEhpHh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 1/5/12 8:07 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them. Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers of something else and the Internet would fit there. Well, I dunno... as I think was obvious from my other comments: TV and Radio are *broadcast* media; telephones and the internet are not; they're *two-way* communications media... and they're the communications media which have been chosen by the organs of government we've constituted to run things for us. You hit the important word, though, in your reply: *access to* food, clothing, and shelter... not the things themselves. The question here is is *access to* the Internet a human right, something which the government ought to recognize and protect? I sort of think it is, myself... and I think that Vint is missing the point: *all* of the things we generally view as human rights are enablers to other things, and we generally dub them *as those things*, by synecdoche... at least in my experience. If I wrote a blog article that criticized the government and it was shutdown along with my Internet access I wouldn't say that my right to the Internet was violated. I would say that my right to free speech was violated. Regardless of one way or two way communication it is communication. Zaid
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 1/5/2012 11:29 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:09:59AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote: Didn't *say* broadband. Didn't even say Internet service. Said Internet *access*, in the non-techspeak meaning of those words. For the purposes of my e-mail and this point in time, they are all synonymous. That is, if interenet access is a right, providing someone a 9600bps dial up does not, in my mind, qualify. That might qualify for e-mail access, but you can not use a reasonable fraction of the Internet at that access speed. Similarly, denying someone internet service denies them internet access. The only difference between your terms and mine, is that mine are fixed to this point in time while yours is a general concept that may move in the future. One day 50Mbps broadband may not qualify anymore as internet access due to where the interernet ends up. I think you're still thinking of service, as opposed to access. Public terminals, say at libraries, are also access. Free public wifi is also access. But let's take a specific (famous) example. Kevin Mitnick. From his wikipedia page: During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. If Internet access (to use your term) had been a human right than his human rights were violated by the government when they banned him from using any communications technology. Do we really want to suggest that banning him from using the computer is the same level of violation as enslaving him, torturing him, or even killing him? Clearly not, at least at this point in history. Internet access is more like access to transportation; the law implicitly requires you to have it (in the form of being able to compel a person to appear at a given place and time), but not only fails to mandate its availability, but includes provisions for explicitly denying access to it in some cases. Internet access becomes a human right only when your other, more basic human rights depend on it. If a person without internet access cannot obtain food, shelter, or basic transportation, then it is a human right. As an aside, your example is flawed, because judicial punishment does involve a loss, or at least a curtailment, of what many people consider to be basic rights. -Dave
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:29:05 PST, Leo Bicknell said: But let's take a specific (famous) example. Kevin Mitnick. From his wikipedia page: During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. If Internet access (to use your term) had been a human right than his human rights were violated by the government when they banned him from using any communications technology. Do we really want to suggest that banning him from using the computer is the same level of violation as enslaving him, torturing him, or even killing him? Convicted felons surrender a number of rights: freedom (jail terms), the right to vote, etc. And nobody seems to consider that concept a violation (though it *is* of course up for debate exactly what rights it's OK to remove from a felon, and for how long). pgp6JSaKTnATI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:09:59 EST, Jay Ashworth said: Didn't *say* broadband. Didn't even say Internet service. Said Internet *access*, in the non-techspeak meaning of those words. There are those who would say Free Internet access is available at the Public Library and the Community Center counts as internet access. What say the peanut gallery? pgpKCr19Tp8Sq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
It's an interesting question. Most think of the Internet in the context of entertainment and productivity. I would ask that those who do remove themselves from the US (or any other prosperous nation) and think about Internet access in nations that are oppressed or depressed. 1. The Internet allows people to communicate (important in environments where the people are victims of oppression). 2. The Internet allows people to learn (if education is a human right, it's not a giant leap to say the Internet is how you deliver it). North Korea, at least, would be a very different nation with universal Internet access. I think a lot of smaller nations as well. There has never been a greater exporter for American ideals of freedom and democracy than the Internet. On the whole I think it has become something people shouldn't be denied access to. Is boradband a human right? I don't know the answer to that. But some level of access to the Internet (even if it's slow) is something that would make the world a better place if everyone had access. As we think about freedom and how our laws affect the Internet (SOPA, PROTECT IP, etc) this is something we should also keep in mind. On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them. Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. Thoughts? Cheers, -- jr 'yes, I know I'm early...' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:48:06AM -0500, Dave Israel wrote: As an aside, your example is flawed, because judicial punishment does involve a loss, or at least a curtailment, of what many people consider to be basic rights. In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:52:11AM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: Convicted felons surrender a number of rights: freedom (jail terms), the right to vote, etc. And nobody seems to consider that concept a violation (though it *is* of course up for debate exactly what rights it's OK to remove from a felon, and for how long). You both make the same, very interesting point. I want to point folks back to the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights Look at some the substantive rights: - Right to life. - Freeom from torture. - Freedom from slavery. - Right to a fair trial. - Freedom of speach. - Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. For the most part we don't let judical punishment infringe on those rights. (Yes, there are exceptions, and yes, it depends a lot on the location in question. For instance the death peanlty infringes on the first substantive right.) However, for an ordinary criminal (Kevin Mitnick, in my example) we generally require the courts to uphold all of the substantive rights in most civilized societies. _Human_ rights is a very specific subset of a continium of rights. Note that the right to vote is not in the substantive list above, and is taken away by judical process in many societies. Not all rights are human rights. Should you have a right to internet access, just like a right to vote? Perhaps. Are either one the specific class of _human rights_, no. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpUtWdfDd3Ze.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
I think there's a fundamental difference between human and civil rights. Human rights come from our humanity, i.e. us being human. As humans, we can walk, talk, produce things, own property, etc. Assuming that isn't true, the next logical question is where do you draw the line? Vehicles are beneficial to society, can they be a human right? If you keep bringing these type of questions up and substitute any good in place of vehicles, you can see how absurd it is. There's no consistency. I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd. Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would be a violation of their human rights. Civil rights are rights that are provided by societal institutions e.g. governments This makes the most sense to me anyway. I probably need to go read some John Locke. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-human-and-civil-rights/ On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:48:06AM -0500, Dave Israel wrote: As an aside, your example is flawed, because judicial punishment does involve a loss, or at least a curtailment, of what many people consider to be basic rights. In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:52:11AM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: Convicted felons surrender a number of rights: freedom (jail terms), the right to vote, etc. And nobody seems to consider that concept a violation (though it *is* of course up for debate exactly what rights it's OK to remove from a felon, and for how long). You both make the same, very interesting point. I want to point folks back to the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights Look at some the substantive rights: - Right to life. - Freeom from torture. - Freedom from slavery. - Right to a fair trial. - Freedom of speach. - Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. For the most part we don't let judical punishment infringe on those rights. (Yes, there are exceptions, and yes, it depends a lot on the location in question. For instance the death peanlty infringes on the first substantive right.) However, for an ordinary criminal (Kevin Mitnick, in my example) we generally require the courts to uphold all of the substantive rights in most civilized societies. _Human_ rights is a very specific subset of a continium of rights. Note that the right to vote is not in the substantive list above, and is taken away by judical process in many societies. Not all rights are human rights. Should you have a right to internet access, just like a right to vote? Perhaps. Are either one the specific class of _human rights_, no. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:34:32 EST, Jon Schipp said: I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd. Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would be a violation of their human rights. There are those who think that it's a government's responsibility to make sure that people don't die from starvation or lack of access to medical care. Then there are those who think it's OK to let people die in the gutter. pgpffs3RnOcd6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 01/05/2012 11:34 AM, Jon Schipp wrote: I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd. Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would be a violation of their human rights. Human rights are things that no government or person should have the right to *take away* from someone. For example, a government need not provide food to all people who need it necessarily, but they must not prevent people from gaining access to food if they want it. I would argue that the better societies have systems in place for providing access to things that are human rights via the government when no one else is able to step up. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 1/5/12 9:34 AM, Jon Schipp jonsch...@gmail.com wrote: I think there's a fundamental difference between human and civil rights. Human rights come from our humanity, i.e. us being human. As humans, we can walk, talk, produce things, own property, etc. Assuming that isn't true, the next logical question is where do you draw the line? Vehicles are beneficial to society, can they be a human right? If you keep bringing these type of questions up and substitute any good in place of vehicles, you can see how absurd it is. There's no consistency. I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd. Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would be a violation of their human rights. No, it doesn't mean that someone must provide it for you. It means that access must not be denied. Take for example the homeless situation in San Francisco, if the city did not provide shelter for the homeless there would be an outcry our human right violation. If you walk around San Francisco you still see people sleeping in the streets and this is because they choose to but they do have the right to go to a shelter so the city of San Francisco is doing the right thing for basic human right. In India my observation is that people may be really poor but they do not go hungry or denied shelter even though they choose to make it out of a cardboard box. The government makes sure that the lands are protected which is why the slumps are not bulldozed by a developer. This is a good example of human right. Electricity, communication mediums are all things that people get together to bring either as an individual self or a community. Zaid
RE: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd. Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would be a violation of their human rights. There are those who think that it's a government's responsibility to make sure that people don't die from starvation or lack of access to medical care. Then there are those who think it's OK to let people die in the gutter. And as with most things - the 'truth' is probably somewhere between the extremes. Internet access, as a vehicle for free speech, is at least an important civil right. I wouldn't immediately discard the notion that, as a subset of free speech, it is a human right. Internet access, by way of cell phones, has increasingly enabled repressed peoples to expose their suffering to the outside world. One doesn't have to look any further than the protests in Iran after the reelection of Ahmadinejad to see that. When the reporters and cameras have been exiled, and all that remains is the general public armed with their cellphones against the military police armed with rifles, freedom of speech and internet access become the very same thing. Certainly, to an oppressive dictator, internet access and free speech are the very same right. In a modern world, to curtail one is to curtail the other. Nathan
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 1/5/2012 7:36 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworthj...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip With all due respect to Vint, I think that it isn't now, but it will be. With all due respect for the view that it will be, I'll suggest that this entirely misses the point of his op-ed. His point is to distinguish means versus ends and that something as basic as a human right needs to be about ends, not means. Means often change -- sometimes quickly -- but ends are typically quite stable. Discussion about means needs to be in terms of the ends they serve. From the US perspective, speech and assembly are examples of rights. The 'right' to telephone service is not a direct right; it's a derivative of the speech right, I believe. Onerous assembly laws are examples of unacceptable means. The Internet is a set of means. (Zaid's concrete example about blog blocking is also on point.) Broadly, we need to be careful to distinguish between core issues (rights, causes, and the like) from derivative and surface issues (means, symptoms, and the like. It's extremely easy to get caught up with the details of means and symptoms and entirely miss the underlying, strategic issues. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
Free Speech is a human right. It's still a human right when that speech is conveyed over the Internet. To the extent that a government obstructs Internet access by its citizens, it is obstructing a human right. In a capitalist society, human rights are about obstruction, not compulsion. The right to life does not compel a government to provide you with medical care; it merely prevents the government from obstructing your ability to otherwise obtain treatment. Likewise, the right to free speech does not compel a government to provide you with an Internet account. Socialist societies have a different point of view. A socialist government has a compulsion to provide its citizens at least minimalist and at most egalitarian facilities for the exercise of their human rights. On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. Personally, I've always thought it a tragedy that the universal service fund was diverted to provide laptops to kindergartners. I'd love to see it collected from all network service and be applicable to all unbundled rural basic network service. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 1/5/12 8:07 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip The question here is is *access to* the Internet a human right, something which the government ought to recognize and protect? I sort of think it is, myself... and I think that Vint is missing the point: *all* of the things we generally view as human rights are enablers to other things, and we generally dub them *as those things*, by synecdoche... at least in my experience. The basic human right is free speech, this is how the Internet gets protected, by proxy. But then... I think only the US claims to have free speech as a constitutional right. This is not in the mind of many Europeans...
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
Universal Access vs Universal Service It is important to understand the difference. I have argued that Developing countries should only provide Universal Access as the weight of providing Universal Service is way too expensive and would tax too much the business community which is developing the economy so that Universal Service may become a reality one day. On 1/5/12 8:55 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:09:59 EST, Jay Ashworth said: Didn't *say* broadband. Didn't even say Internet service. Said Internet *access*, in the non-techspeak meaning of those words. There are those who would say Free Internet access is available at the Public Library and the Community Center counts as internet access. What say the peanut gallery?
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
I know here in NYC, when the government talks, access is defined as availability, whether utilized or not. j On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:09:59 EST, Jay Ashworth said: Didn't *say* broadband. Didn't even say Internet service. Said Internet *access*, in the non-techspeak meaning of those words. There are those who would say Free Internet access is available at the Public Library and the Community Center counts as internet access. What say the peanut gallery? -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
Not a new line of thinking for Vint. He said much the same thing at our INET in NYC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPc79dlLs0U What's notable is that as a father Vint is more aware than many of the ephemerality of the Internet, and when speculating futurewise at the INET he consistently referred to it as the Internet or whatever may replace it. On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On Thu, January 5, 2012 11:37 am, Zaid Ali wrote: If I wrote a blog article that criticized the government and it was shutdown along with my Internet access I wouldn't say that my right to the Internet was violated. I would say that my right to free speech was violated. Regardless of one way or two way communication it is communication. The Internet is quickly becoming more than just a medium for speech. It is access to services, education, markets, and tools of analysis, among *many* others. Many of the specifics are covered under other rights, so the question is does the whole become more than the parts, and is *that* a right? I'm with the 'probably not quite yet, but soon' group. I don't think it will be long before it is impossible to participate in modern society in any meaningful way without access to the Internet. Vint does have one other point: the tool is not the whole of the thing. What we currently call 'the Internet' could be replaced by a different network, if someone were to invent something that was a good enough replacement. But at this point, I think *that* network would be called 'the Internet' then, and we don't *have* a separate name for the tool from what it does. (With the possible exception of some terms in cyberpunk novels...) Daniel T. Staal --- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. ---
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
Sorry if someone said this but I think it's interesting that the first amendment to the US Constitution specifically lists freedom of speech AND freedom of press, rather than perhaps allowing one (speech) to imply the other (press, i.e., that speech fixed to a medium.) If we use that as a signficiant guide that would seem to say that mere speech is not enough, the right to disseminate that speech to others is also necessary. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
There are no such rights. Each positive right is somebody else's obligation. Being forced to feed, clothe, and house somebody else is called slavery. So is providing Internet access, TV, or whatever else. Doesn't matter if this slavery is part-time, the principle remains the same -- some people gang up on you and force you to work for their benefit. On the other hand the ability to exchange any information with any other consenting parties and at your own expense - without being censored, interfered with, or snooped upon - is indeed a basic human right. --vadim On 01/05/2012 07:45 AM, Zaid Ali wrote: I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers of something else and the Internet would fit there. Zaid
RE: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
There are no such rights. Each positive right is somebody else's obligation. Being forced to feed, clothe, and house somebody else is called slavery. So is providing Internet access, TV, or whatever else. Doesn't matter if this slavery is part-time, the principle remains the same -- some people gang up on you and force you to work for their benefit. This is antisocial nonsense. Governed societies exist because the supporting output of the group is greater than that of the same number of individuals. That infrastructure of government - the social building blocks that obligate us to each other - are not slavery, they are freedom from the anarchists, the equal opportunists (those that hold that we all have, inherently, have the same opportunity to succeed), and the Darwinists. By your logic, librarians are slaves, as are all civil servants. Radio is another of the greatest examples of a means of speech that is universally accessible, and yet we would not call broadcasters slaves either. Absolute nonsense. Nathan
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
The analogy that occurs to me is to roads. People generally have a right of free movement, which implies that if they are capable of using roads (e.g., if they have a car and can drive it), then they should be generally free to do so, certain reasonable legal constraints notwithstanding. And in this case, the reasonableness of constraints arises from the fact that things like driving licenses and road signs are based on clear safety concerns. Mapping this over to the Internet: People generally have a right of free expression, which implies that if they are capable of using the Internet, they should be generally free to use it, certain reasonable legal constraints not withstanding. The human right in question, then, isn't a right to Internet access per se; people aren't entitled to a broadband link any more than they're entitled to live near good roads. (Note, however, that communities typically try to maintain their roads to a certain standard.) Rather, the right is to a certain *class* of Internet access, free of unnecessary constraints. The question of legal constraints and reasonableness is much thornier in this domain; you're not going to kill someone by sending them spam. (Well, maybe with SCADA systems, but we'll put that aside for now.) The obvious cases (e.g., child porn) are to some degree already covered, although there's some variation around the globe (Nazi propaganda in France). The debate over PROTECT-IP is at some level about whether and which constraints on Internet usage based on copyright constraints are reasonable. --Richard On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them. Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone, and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy applies to cellular phones now as well. Thoughts? Cheers, -- jr 'yes, I know I'm early...' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote: There are no such rights. Each positive right is somebody else's obligation. This is antisocial nonsense. If you want to be a slave, that's your right. But leave me out of your schemes, please. May I ask you to remove the guns and violence your representatives are threatening me with if I refuse to participate? Because I don't think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when one party insists on forcing the other to obey. By the way, it takes a really twisted mindset to consider violence towards people who didn't do anything bad to you as socially acceptable. --vadim
