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.'"
Reword it then (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the right to communicate with the world community.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (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.
Running water? (Score:5, Insightful)
Positive vs Negative Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Access to Communication (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.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a natural right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property and Happiness (I'll argue real-estate, material possessions, and non-material happiness in this comment). You don't have an intrinsic right to property and happiness, just a right to be allowed to earn them. So the government doesn't have to provide you with a job, housing, food, healthcare or internet access for free. They just have to make sure a system is in place to allow you to make those things happen.
Individual societies can decide the implementation details. Maybe that means a social safety net of the government providing all that. Maybe it means an extreme of a true command economy where needs are provided for regardless of ones contribution to society. Maybe it means something extremely libertarian where the only government is civil courts and the only public lands are roads and markets. However, a society is not intrinsically backwards because they decide that internet access is not free, if your free to get a job to pay for an internet connection.
Re:Running water? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Running water? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Running water? (Score:5, Insightful)
ho ho ho (Score:2, Insightful)
in your house, among your friends, in your neighborhood, or in a public park which you can put a stool and step on it to give a speech
so, you have a right, but the means to exercise it are not your rights. so basically, whomever has the most money can publish newspapers, run tvs or appear in tvs, and all the rest 95% people like you just end up 'free speeching' among your own social circle
and in contrast, internet access as of this point fixes all of these - you CAN actually exercise that free speech right AS it should be - in a way that it would matter. you can broadcast to millions if they are interested, you can be read for millions if they are interested, and these cost you very minimal amounts.
take it away and what remains ? only the means to exercise your free speech as a rather vocal member of your own small social circle.
totally harmless. as they want you to be.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:5, Insightful)
Print all the leaflets you want, we'll throw you in jail for littering.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (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.
What is a "Right"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Inalienable rights are inherent in your existence. They are not given to you by a government, although a government should protect these rights from infringement by others. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
Thus, internet access is not a right. But you do have the right to access the internet, should you so choose.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
But guess what? Neither socialism nor capitalism are human rights.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:3, Insightful)
So, what. You have a right to run a Gutenberg press, but not to publish a blog?
You have the right to publish a blog, yes, but the ability to get to the internet to publish said blog is not a given, just as publishing a book is a right, but having access to a press to print said book is not a given.
Enabling oppressive governments (Score:5, 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.
Trust your government! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure that there are some Libyans, Syrians, Iraqis and North Koreans that might take issue with your statements. Oh, and Jews. And Tibetans. And Bosnians. And Cambodians. And Chinese. And like, Half of Africa. But those are just the few I could rattle off in 30 seconds, there might be more.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (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)
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:4, Insightful)
"The right to access the internet shall not be infringed" is an example of a negative right. "The right to 100Tb/sec internet" is not.
However, if you do not specify the minimum bandwidth, countries will just offer 30bps and will be compliant with this, even though, 30bps is pretty much the same as nothing with current website sizes.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:5, 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.
A simple test. . . (Score:5, 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:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:3, Insightful)
You just restated what tangelogee said. Access is an opportunity, not a guarantee. Lots of people arguing seem to believe that a right equals a guarantee, which is much more than the government not being able to ban access.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (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.
Re:ho ho ho (Score:5, 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.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:4, Insightful)
So around here farmers, local computer technicians, and mechanics don't deserve net access or reliable cell coverage because they "chose" to live in the country? If it weren't for folks like my neighbors you wouldn't even eat pal. Why should we subsidize your f**king roads that aren't even in this state? ESPECIALLY since the state here will not even pave MY road. Why should I help subsidize the extra law enforcement required with such population density? Why should I help pay for your schooling? Why should I pay for the environmental cleanup required because your city is a cesspool. Why should I pay taxes, some of which go to supporting the telco that's willing to provide DSL to you and not me?
Apparently you're pretty young. Farmers are people too and a lot of them make good use of the net if available as a vast resource of agricultural information.
AND for your information, the running of fiber to "last mile" residences was SUBSIDIZED ALREADY. In the late 90's the telcos took a LOT of money from the government to roll all this out. They found a loophole and bought a satellite company so they can claim they provide broadband and pocketed the rest.
As far as wireless goes, 802.16 would be great out here but nobody is rolling it out, 802.11 wouldn't cut it with the distance between nodes without really pricy gear. Nobody is willing to fund such a thing in this area due to the rough shape of the economy and without financing from a bank (or a very wealthy friend) who believes in you, it's not going to happen. I want the net infrastructure that was paid for already because the second someone DOES roll out 802.16, suddenly DSL will be magically available cheaper.
You seem to not realize that the telcos take a LOT of tax dollars, including mine. I deserve reliable net access just as much as you do. I'm not willing to give up my family home and move my children to a more crowded dangerous environment just for net access that should have been run to my place a long time ago. Their claim now even after they installed the proper equipment a few miles down the street was "Oh, we can't run DSL down a dirt road." which I know to be false. With all computers and game consoles effectively REQUIRING internet access these days, not having unlimited broadband is not an option and without it it puts smaller rural businesses at a great disadvantage and means children will have even less access to educational materials.
Hell, my son's school sends home assignments that are internet-based. It's not a "luxury" or "convenience" anymore. It's required. Once state agencies and institutions MANDATE certain things to be done on the internet, then yes, you should help subsidize my internet access. Just like I subsidize unemployed bums and their shelters in your city.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people are missing your sarcasm and your poorly hidden leftist presumptions.
Yes, it's within the rights of [some people within] a population to say "...we're going to build the infrastructure..." but unless there is unanimous consent, you're stealing from some people to pay for it. It's not the word "socialism" that makes it wrong, it's the theft.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the Internet that is the subject of our liberty but the access to it.
Reminds me of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
It's the principle that you are guaranteed the unrestricted opportunity to get or do something as an individual, not that government must pay your expenses in doing so.
Strat