So I've Heard That Some People Want To Add "Internet" As A Human Right
 

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

And this raises several complicated questions - for instance, what would the connection speed need to be like? Does it matter if you're running the 'net via a 286 and Windows 95 compared to a laptop with Vista? What would the fines and penalties be for someone if they deny internet access to others?

Here's a link to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, we've had discussions in the past about the internet itself, where things like Internet Bullying have taken place, some of us even going as far to say that the internet has replaced mainstream news for them. It's not uncommon for the internet to be on top of things information wise.

The internet is actually a tool. It allows us to look at various places, peoples and life styles. We can get information about travel plans, healthy sexual choices and talk to grandma while we're three thousand miles away. There's a lot to do on the 'net, and there's a lot we can use it for. It's revolutionized and in all likelihood, defined a generation. That being said, there's also a lot out there that's not helpful, but I'm trying to make a point here.

Human Rights are there to ensure that every human be provided for, that we try to be good to others to the best of human decency. There's obviously situations where it doesn't happen like that, but for the most part, we believe that these rights are essential to apply to everyone, and that they are followed. That being said, we're talking about a legal document that argues that everyone is equal, that everyone has the right to a working government - and the fundamental freedoms, that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Charter (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.

And we want to squeeze in there that everyone is entitled to an internet connection? I believe that the internet is great, and as a tool, it works well. I just don't think we should stick it in there somewhere. It's a luxury, not a right. Anything that would follow suite would just be a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Link 3 Is the internet a fundamental human right? Was one of the questions asked to more than 27,000 adults from 26 countries around the world. The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC World Service found that 87% of internet users felt internet access should be the “fundamental right of all people”. Of non-internet users polled, 71% said they should have to right to access the web. Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens.

I agree that no one should be denied internet access due to race, color, creed or religion, but I don't think that it is, or should be, considered a human right.

In a world where the internet is simply essential, or atleast is a powerful tool for those who have acces to it vs. those who do not, it needs to be achknowledged as some sort of basic right.

Then again, making it a humanright is also adding one more to the list that most of the world doesn't really have.

Are we talking about the right to access the internet or being actually provided with the tools to do so? Those are very differnet things.

If it were made a human right, it would obviosly be about "acces to the internet".

I can't help but feel this is a desperate attempt to kick China in the balls. Granted, there's also the issue with telecom companies trying to gain censorship control of the Internet in the US, but they're not getting as far because people like me are constantly writing in to Congress to stop them.

By the way, if you want to get current info and a helpful organizational structure for the issue in the US, there's http://www.freepress.net/.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit stupid? The internet, a human right? Seriously? It doesn't matter how important it is, it's not essential to living, which is what one would assume would be basic criteria for being considered a human right.

Yes the internet is powerful and pretty much dominates the world and keeps much of our civilisation running these days (stock markets, international business, news, etc), but so do cars, and oil tankers, and planes. Do you considered those to be human rights as well? No, probably not, because that would be stupid.

In response to these comments:
This is a tool. This is not essential to surviving.

The internet has something to do with all of these.

The way I see it, making acces to internet a human right would limit attempts by certain parties to try and benefit off of the internet at the expense of "the consumer" ie. people. The internet has become a major media. The internet is the press, self-expression and a social forum among other things. These are all basically human rights.

I'm thinking this is not arguing for "Right to have the internet in your home at all times and costs be damned," as much as arguing for "right to have your internet access unrestricted and uncensored by third parties." Such as with the Net Neutrality issue, or as Blues mentioned, China in general.

Right to have access in your home, or in general?

Because where I'm from libraries are free and have computers with Internet access.

Nope.

This is ridiculous, that's like saying the mail and TV should be free, which would mean we'd use socialist practices to distribute them which is NOT the answer for computers.

We'd probably get Macs -_-


No, no, no, if ANYONE wants to get a computer its like $300-400 for a small notebook that runs XP, and internet is already provided gratis by most coffee shops now adays.

I'm sorry, what?

Ignore Lev, everyone else does.

Also

Freedom of speech, press, arms bearing, quartering troops etc. aren't necessary for living, either. Rights aren't about what you need to not die, rights are about what you need to be treated fairly, and as has been said, access to knowledge and information is a large part of that, and the internet is a large part of that. It's like books, nobody can say "You're not allowed to read this" just as nobody should be able to say "You don't get to see what the rest of the world is up to". If you can afford your own books/internet, super great, more convenience for you. If you can't, libraries are supposed to be there to give you access to both those things at no cost.

So no, access to information being a human right is not "a bit stupid" or a new idea.

The press still make you pay for newspapers. We pay tv licenses for our tvs, and we pay monthly subscriptions for things like sky and digital tv, which have a great many more channels expressing every known format of thought, artistic expression and belief, and full time news channels. We pay telecoms companies for phone calls.

We pay for this stuff, just as we pay for internet access and pcs. So why should the internet be free? It's a business. Most of it is run by corporations. Those corporations want to make a profit. They make you pay to access it, they rent out servers for other people to host their own sites, where they can sell their own products. It is not a human right.


That above quote I believe is more to do with with allowing people to have freedom of thought, beleif, opinion, expression, and to be able to write and speak what they will, without being persecuted for those beleifs and thoughts. They are still within their rights to make people pay to listen to them though.

Having the internet be free for everyone isn't really on the table here. Also see DFM's post.

Yeah I'd forgotten you'd said all that. Pretty much was I was trying to say. And I never said that access to information was stupid, merely that rectifing the charter to say "everyone should have internet access" was stupid and pointless, because yeah, you might as well throw tvs and radios and newspapers and mobile phones and half a dozen other things on there as well.

It kinda goes without saying that people are well within their rights to watch tv and surf the net.

As long as it isn't specified more clearly, if and when it comes up people can just say "It's just the internet, it's not like it's a basic human right or anything".

What



But yeah, I think its suggesting everyone has the right to uncensored internets, but calling its a "right" is misleading and kinda dumb. I think a large number of the supposed 80% who said they want it to be a right just want free internet.

re, "internet is not necessary to survival" - neither are guns, but holy fuck if you try to call them anything other than a right in the US.

From what I've heard so far, it's less a case of the internet being so very integral to our very society that everybody must have the right to use it, and more an issue of free speech. Free speech is a right (isn't it?) and the internet is one of the most powerful ways of free expression there is. Perhaps it shouldn't be a direct human right, but the obstruction of internet access by a government should definetly seen as something that is morally extremely suspect.

I'm guessing that the use of Twitter and Youtube during protests in Iran ifluenced this decision as much as the conflict with China.

Well so is a megaphone but those aren't a right, are they?

A megaphone will get your voice heard in a radius of a hundred yards. The internet lets you talk to everyone else who has internet.

I guess that the difference between other forms of media, such as, say, newspapers or radios, is that the internet lets individuals express themselves, whereas newspapers are the voices of just a few individuals, summing up what's happening. They're far more vulnerable to bias or government censorship.

And no, I'm not saying the internet can't be censored as well, or that people on the internet aren't biased. But using the internet, the bias of a few, high-ranking individuals can't outweigh the opinions of the masses.

I believe any technology must be free to buy sell, and be made available, and be given a chance to be made more available as society demands, barring ethical, and extenuating circumstances.

I don't think the government should pay for people on the individual level but allow tax money to pay for such things on the regional level, which is done for the most part everywhere in America, thanks to institutions like the library, and on the extreme level the experiments in WiMax.

The "right" part of the internet should be that they don't block off internet access for censorship purposes, and only intervene when other people's right to use the internet is interfering mine, namely, arresting hackers, spam mailers, and various other ne'er do wells on the internet, as well as their own governmental agents who may violate my privacy online.

Anyone who recoils in shock and outrage at the thought of internet being a human right is under the strawman assumption that it is inherent to the human being to have internet, or that the government should give everyone at least a free dial-up connection, which is just silly. And that making it a human right is unfair to other nations is an even sillier concern, because most world governments are STRIVING to bring more internet to their people, due to popular desire and the commercial value of a nation with internet, anyway. It wouldn't even be mud in the eye of countries who use censorship, as internet means an easier time for disseminating their internal ideology and communicating between branches against sedition.

I don't see much in the way against Internet as a human right other than knee-jerk reactions and maybe ultra-conservative fears, and even if there are downsides to the internet with its' increasing accessibility, the more people communicating also leads to greater understanding.

If compared to the right to bear arms, it's virtually the same, I want to guarantee that I can buy, sell, and use them but I also want the government to keep people from buying, selling, or using them in a way that might harm me. Then, the logical step to create harmony is the creation of education to make people aware of the dangers of using guns to encourage people to use their right responsibly and avoid misuse.

The equivalent to gun control education is likely nettiquette or advanced communication education, to teach rhetoric, grammar, and proper debate so that people do not use their ability to use the medium of communication poorly.

Yes.

No, but I never said I agree with the right to bear arms either. I am not american, thus I don't believe that to be a "right" at all. Especially when people like this get hold of them.

I would just like to point out that making something explicit that is heavily implied is never actually a negative thing. Its a nice idea that everyone presented with the facts would come to the same conclusion but it rarely happens. Even in this thread that is apparent. Some people think its implied as a right via other rights and some people don't. Stating it explicitly side steps the argument entirely. You waste a little time right now but you avoid wasting more time later every time an issue involving it comes up. That would be things like censorship, spam, hacking, throttling, etc. If free, that is free not as in free of charge but free of restrictions, internet access is a right then the answer to all of those problems are much more immediately clear. If it isn't you basically have to approach them on a case by case basis and waste all that time and energy generating precedents instead of doing it all at once with a right.

I think we've just reached or are reaching a point where lack of some kind of internet access limits one's ability to function in society. Either everyone who has it has a big advantage (job listings, social networking, email), or everyone who doesn't is at a major disadvantage (some businesses don't even do snail-mail billing anymore, other won't accept resumes any other way). It may not be at the point where lack of internet access puts you in a lower class yet, but the gap is only going to get bigger as more people realise it's just cheaper and faster to do shit online.

I may be completely mistaken here, but aside from mandating some kind of general public access, wouldn't having the internet as a basic right mean forcing businesses that have people doing contract work in remote locations to provide some kind of access? That seems like it'd be a good thing in itself.

I don't really like that the internet is becoming such an integral part of society, but it is happening, and I don't think it's going to stop. Sooner or later we're going to reach a point where not having access is a crippling disability.

You must construct additional pylons.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

And you call yourself a physicist.

No, I did not read the articles yet.
 

Just publically available, which we already pretty much have anyway. Someone mentioned earlier that you can already get internet access at most libraries.

As far as water goes, I'm pretty sure anyone can just go down to a river (or hell, a public washroom) and take it if they want. You pay to have it piped to your house.

Technological Determinism is not the best.
 

In all honesty, I haven't either. I was just basing my post off what's been said in this thread. So we're both terrible people.

I pretty much agree, but the extent of public availability doesn't need to be the point.

The point, or my point anyway, would be to stop or at least control this.

I don't know about rights but here in the U.S. at least they're pushing to grant everyone access to high speed internet by an unspecified date (it was supposed to be 2010 but let me check...yep, still stuck with overly priced satellite internet with a 250 MB cap except between the hours of 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. as my only high speed option, I'd say that's a no-go). I think that's something that should be pushed for. If the "right" is implying that everyone should have access to the internet in the sense that they should have access to reasonably price high-speed interent, then it's at least a goal worth shooting for, even if adding it to a bill of rights is kind of extreme.

By the way, not sure if everyone here is aware of the fact that people in rural areas don't have access to reasonably priced high-speed internet via cables, there are still lots of households that are stuck either with dial-up or way overpriced and underwhelming satellite internet. Again, not sure this is a RIGHT, but damn if it isn't something that should be fixed, since there are a lot of people at a disadvantage. If you don't think it's a disadvantage to only have dial-up internet, think about some simple things: have you ever tried to take an online college course that has large video files on a dial-up connection? Downloaded a large file? Tried to voicechat with someone important? Had six disconnects while trying to email a resume or file your FAFSA online? Yes, internet access is still something to strive for for many people. It's not so important as to be a right but it's definitely leaving a lot of people at a disadvantage.

Let's be specific.
 

If we're talking about the right to go out and do what is necessary to get access to the internet without nobody from the government coming by to say "NO INTERNET FOR YOU" or imposing restrictions on your service (e.g. Great Firewall of China) then yeah, that's an obvious free speech right.

If we're talking about the right to say "Hey, I want some internet" and someone somewhere has to get you that internet no strings attached, not so much.

That said, as a discretionary matter providing Internet service as a public utility looks like a good idea.