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
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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
