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.'"
Agreed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who feels that the Internet is a "human right" should read Bastiat's The Law. (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)
It is not a right itself. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, keeping the government from blocking the Internet IS a right. That's the right our right to free speech in one of its most powerful forms.
Re:Well that's funny, cos my country just (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? Only a philosophical weakling would bring that up at this point.
Yes, there is a little bit of hand-waving in ethics as far as the metaphysical question of where rights come from, however, if you undermine it you'll find that pretty much every system and scope pre-supposes it, if you take it away in all forms, you have anarchy.
Unless you shot the person in front of you in line in the back of the head this morning, because they were there, you aren't the type of anarchist that actually believes that, and thus, are a liar and a hypocrite by asserting there is no underlying rights.
Rights are obvious, because when they are not there, the model predicts the rest of the "stuff" isn't either.