Vint Cerf On Human Rights: Internet Access Isn't On the List 398
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.'"
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (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/ [theatlanticwire.com]
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:4, Informative)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't say anything about being heard (except that the Government may not limit your ability to let them judge your claim of grievance... but that's not really the same as you are saying [if I interpreted correctly])
It simply says Congress can make no law which establishes any religion as "national". It also states that Congress shall make no law preventing you from speaking, reporting, or gathering peacefully or petitioning the Government to remedy a grievance you have.
I don't see where you interpret it as a "freedom to be heard". Naturally, as a human (with proper hearing) you inherently have a freedom to hear something, but The First does not say that you should be able to hear what I'm saying right now, just like I don't have the freedom to hear what someone is saying in L.A. right now from the other side of the country. If I want to hear it, I can travel, get Internet, buy a paper, or some other method to hear what they are saying, but it doesn't guarantee that I should be able to hear it... only that there can be no law preventing them from saying it.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:2, Informative)
It's the legal test of a right in this country, and that's the only one that matters at the end of the day.
What he's saying is that making internet access illegal would infringe on your rights to free speech / assembly. There's no need to specifically say, "you have a right to access the internet."
Re:Communication is a human right (Score:5, 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.