UN Declares Internet Freedom a Basic Right 161
The United Nations Human Rights Council has passed a landmark resolution (PDF) declaring that internet freedom is a basic human right. They wrote: "...the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." The council also called upon all countries to 'promote and facilitate access to the Internet.' The article points out that this comes alongside a report from the Pew Internet Center, which asked a group of internet stakeholders how they think firms in the private sector will handle the ethical issues that arise with countries wanting to censor or restrict internet access. The responses were varied, but skepticism was a recurring theme: 'Corporations will work around regional differences by spinning off subsidiaries, doing what's needed to optimize on future profits.'"
Ok Then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ok Then. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe if they all go onto Second Life and get slaughtered by Assad's flying penis swarms the UN will put a stop to that.
Re: (Score:2)
no because no one is stopping you from saying it. even if you are moded down people can see it. you have freedom to say whatever you want, also i have the freedom to ignore whatever i want and filter it however i want done in this case via a moderation system
Re: (Score:1)
Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...
First world problem...
Re:Ok Then. (Score:4, Funny)
First they came for the netflix streams, and I didn't speak out because my plea to be saved from the abusive, well-armed government officer at my door wasn't a netflix stream.
They could do A LOT! (Score:4, Funny)
Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...
I would go to the UN, complain and then the UN may send a strongly worded letter to Comcast!
Comcast would rue the day they crossed the UN!
Free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
So, since there are dictators who attack their own citizens with military weapons, we can just ignore free speech rights? Internet freedom is a subset of freedom of speech.
I suspect that(aside from the UN's relative fecklessness), the bigger issue will be that the UN's position on "Human Rights" has a loophole in the free speech department that you could drive one of those comically oversized trucks [liebherr.com] used in open pit mining through...
From UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29:
"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
So, can anybody think of any popular restrictions on rights and freedoms that aren't fairly trivial to rationalize under 'morality', 'public order' or 'the general welfare'? Even with the 'in a democratic society' stipulation, that still leaves you a considerable degree of flexibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you left out "solely for the purpose" and "just requirements", so the answer has to be no.
For example, when one bunch of goatherders start massacring another bunch of goatherders (who they never liked) for disagreeing wi
Re: (Score:2)
except the definition of "just" is decide by the ones who are in a position to abuse the loophole.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I see with these resolutions is that they all necessarily must be imprecise in order to have any reasonable application. However, the lack of precision is the very thing that creates loopholes.
I have a resolution: Treat others as you want to be treated. Oh wait, that leaves a loophole for masochists.
Fuck it. Free for all!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I see with these resolutions is that they all necessarily must be imprecise in order to have any reasonable application. However, the lack of precision is the very thing that creates loopholes.
I have a resolution: Treat others as you want to be treated. Oh wait, that leaves a loophole for masochists.
Fuck it. Free for all!
That leaves a loophole for orgyists.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck it. Free for all!
That leaves a loophole for orgyists.
that is not a loophole it is kinda ordering a universal orgy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe OP's point was that the UN issuing a declaration is just about as effective a measure at helping insure free speech rights as trying to stop a bull by yelling at it. The UN is so toothless it can't even stop open genocide: why would you expect it to be able to do anything when mere freedom of speech is at stake?
Re: (Score:3)
The UN is not a government.
It is not a king.
It is not a Dictator.
It is an organization where representatives of some countries agree to certain basic principles.
It's a place where countries can public air their difference. It's a place where different country Representative will be meeting with each other.
You're complaint, just like almost every other complaint against the UN, is based in ignorance of why the UN exists.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the UN is full of unelected career politicians who are paid shitloads to do nothing with our tax money.
We had a politician (Chris Carter) who enjoyed having expensive holidays in Europe with his partner, courtesy of the taxpayer. When his party let him go, he fucked off and never returned to work - still receiving his enormous salary. Once the term was up, he was given a UN job by his ex-PM friend Helen Clark.
That's the type of people who get jobs with the UN. People who like to have hol
Re: (Score:2)
The UN is the most dysfunctional organization going today. It makes the knuckleheads in the US Congress look like a model of prudent leadership which says a lot. Hopefully the Palestinians will continue to try and join more UN agencies which will automatically force the US to end it's participation and monetary support by law.
Re: (Score:2)
Once, while vacationing in the Canadian rockies, I saw an east asian tourist stop a female moose by yelling at it. He went out to take pictures of it from about 25 feet, and it would lower its head to charge. He yelled something at it, and it would look up at him for a moment. She put her head down three or four times - I thought I was going to watch someone die, but eventually the moose wandered off, the tourist having no idea how close he was to bodily harm for a few shots.
Slightly off topic, but just goe
Re: (Score:2)
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the moose
with the sharpened end of an inter-space toothbrush..
Re: (Score:2)
They want the US out of the UN because they opposed Bush's wars and now there is butthurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Ineffective at what? They seem pretty effective at creating a public forum where countries can be heard on an equal* footing.
The debating until EVERYONE agrees is called democracy.
*some states are more equal than others -- mostly those who have nukes, just like in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
The debating until EVERYONE agrees is called democracy.
no in a democracy it only requires a majority to make a decision. what this actullly is is stupidity because you can never get a group of people of greater than ten to agree universally with out objection. try that with hundreds of people from all over the planet with different culture religion moral code motivation and conflicting interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly - they do have a way, but certain member states are opposed to those ways and will use their veto rights to get proposals to use them dismissed.
You could suggest that they do away with the veto power - but then you'd have to concede that the U.S. gets to lose its veto vote on any Israel/Palestine issues as well.
( Note that the above two are generally the Security Council, not the Human Rights Council - but I can
Re: (Score:3)
The UN isn't a body of power. That's the part both its fans and the NWO paranoids get wrong all the time. The UN is largely everyone getting together and talking things out. That there is nobody with a big stick to enforce the rules is exactly what makes it so challenging - but it couldn't be any different, because if there were you'd need another level to get the big guy in line.
The UN can not stop Assad from using tanks because everyone involved, especially countries like the USA, do not want the UN to ha
Re: (Score:2)
From your link:
All military personnel working under the Blue Helmet are first and foremost members of their own national armies
That's the point. The UN doesn't have any sticks of its own, it does borrow sticks from its members on occasion.
But yes, NATO or not, the whole point of the UN is that it is the place where member countries agree on whether or not it is ok to intervene somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Oldie but goodie [theonion.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...
Yeah, I see the intent of this, but once again it flies in the face of American Business Interests so the government (or those parts owned by Corporate Masters) will have a vocal opposition to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you beat me to it. I'll add illegal nuke production, genocides, pirates, etc.
But we all have online right, damnit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I made a light-hearted joke on the premise that common Chinese small arms are relatively inexpensive and generally closely based(to what degree knocked-off and to what degree licensed based on the degree of Sino-Russian chumminess or lack thereof at the time of production) Russian AK designs, and that having China sending them to the KKK would hurt demand for the product of domestic arms manufacturers.
You might need to re-calibra
Re: (Score:2)
> AK
> American weapons
Just proving how little you actually know about something you hate so much.
You are, I hope, aware that there are AKs made in the USA [ak-47.us]. They are characterized by their higher build quality and higher accuracy as compared to typical examples (besides their imprints, of course.)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true. We need to send Assad several cruise missiles.. In fact they self deliver. What is his address? we can send 12 of them right now.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But those arms manufacturers are the Job Creators! And it would be immoral not to let them flood the world with weapons.
Arms manufacturers are people, my friend.
[next up: "Guns are people, Supreme Court decides in landmark case"]
Re: (Score:3)
[next up: "Guns are people, Supreme Court decides in landmark case"]
One second... does this mean that guns DO kill people? Or just that people kill guns... my head hurts.
Re:Ok Then. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and it gets worse. Even when it's inside a gun, a bullet is the same as a fully developed gun, with all the rights of those guns.
And removing a bullet from a gun any way besides being fired through the barrel, is considered murder.
Mod up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Remember that a right doesn't necessarily mean that you are owed that thing by society. Some right are like that. For example the right to vote implies that you are owed the opportunity and reasonable means by which to vote. But most enumerated rights are things that you must not be barred from. For example free speech. The right of free speech means you are free to speak your mind, it does not mean that someone somewhere owes you speech. So for the GP's rights to enjoy the arts or paid time off, it's reas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When it enabled talks that allowed you to be born into a world without nuclear fallout and a functional ozone layer for example?
Re: (Score:2)
i thought that was the result of a stalemate between rushia and america and their threats of invasion and nukes on those trying to aquire nukes, and as for the ozone layer we never really got rid of the aerosol cans that were the supposed cause of the hole.
Re: (Score:2)
What was the main avenue of talks between these two nations during this stalemate?
Re: (Score:2)
If by "lately" you mean "before most Slashdot users were born", then yes. Things designed by a committee tend to suck, regardless of what the things are. They tend to suck more the larger the committee is, and even more when the members of the committee have hugely divergent agendas.
Good results tend to occur when A starts doing something (or A and B agree to be compatible in some way), C observes the good results, and C decides to follow the example. Repeat for D, E, F, etc. If some existing behavior of C
Re: (Score:2)
No [factcheck.org]. FYI, the link is to a page dispelling rumours about Obama signing away free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
except the un actually has no governing authority of its own, it has it is essentially peer pressure for independent national bodies. so this declaration is in reality an unenforceable platitude. also what teeth the us dose have is based on the founding members military and economic sanctions. most of those come from the US and other like goverments who feel just fine in ignoring everything the un says China ignores it the US ignores it and Russia ignores it, and the people that this is aimed at primarily i
Sounds great! (Score:2)
So we can start by restoring everything taken off the Internet by DMCA takedown notices, right? Since that's the leading cause of Internet censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
In similarly important news... (Score:1)
My crazy neighbor Jimmy just declared he is High Gnome King of the 3rd Parallel Crux of the 14th Arm of the Correlian Empire.
I'm sure people will get right on that, too.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
My crazy neighbor Jimmy just declared he is High Gnome King of the 3rd Parallel Crux of the 14th Arm of the Correlian Empire.
I'm sure people will get right on that, too.
Yeah, well, Obama campaigned on 'Hope and Change' and people believed that.
The bar is pretty low these days.
Re: (Score:2)
And there has been changes and things are better. You're point?
Re: (Score:2)
it did change. it changed from bushs buddies/crooks to obamas friends/crooks it is change just not a meaningful one.
heres a link to an image that i think sums it up
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=e24&channel=fs&tbm=isch&tbnid=6WJ89esdLNNTWM:&imgrefurl=http://memebase.com/2011/04/22/memes-very-demotivational-bushbama/&docid=Xc7LS8I8Gf1MRM&imgurl=http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/demotivational-posters-change.jpg&w=450&h=5 [google.com]
Re:In similarly important news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe they think that no matter how bad he would still be better than Romney?
South Park was right when they satirized our political system as voting between a doucebag and a turd sandwich. The only thing that will truly change our country would be to change the actual political system itself, and that will never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm a little of the thought that Romney couldn't get worse that an Obama 2nd term...unbridled by the need for re-election.
And well, we've seen how 'effective' Obama has been...the 'great' decisions he's made, and the 'upstanding' appointments he's made for important positions (Holder, etc) so far. And how he's kept promises (*ahem* no lobbyists *ahem*)
[rolls eyes]
But give him a 2nd term and this time Obama will do bet
Re: (Score:2)
He's not flawless in my eyes, nor most other people's eyes -- but he's a damn sight better than any other credible candidate for the presidency.
Maybe if someone else could put up a candidate that wasn't a joke, you wouldn't have to worry about us poor misguided souls voting for someone that you (probably irrationally) despise.
Also, lose the "hope and change" criticism. People voted for him for his substantial policies as well, not just the fluff slogan (which, btw, is something every fucking candidate has)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not flawless in my eyes, nor most other people's eyes -- but he's a damn sight better than any other credible candidate for the presidency.
I haven't noticed any credible candidate for President since Clinton. And he was only a good President because he lacked the support in Congress to screw things up.
Interesting... (Score:1)
Anyone else find it interesting that Russia, China, and Iran - the three named in http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/18/1429257/the-uns-push-for-power-over-the-internet are all missing from the list of countries at the top of the resolution.
Won't work (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So as a human out smart them. A buddy of mine did. he has a cover over his patio painted to look like his patio. you cant see what is going on from the sky and it looks as if nothing is out of the ordinary.
Turn to military strategy to hide from your own government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not sure that helps.
Re: (Score:2)
So as a human out smart them. A buddy of mine did. he has a cover over his patio painted to look like his patio. you cant see what is going on from the sky and it looks as if nothing is out of the ordinary.
Turn to military strategy to hide from your own government.
Is it made of tinfoil?
Just don't say anything mean. (Score:4, Insightful)
"...Now give us control of the root DNS servers so we can take down anyone daring to express unpopular ideas about WWII, religion, socialism, or the latest pseudo-royal who can afford a super-injunction to hide the bink he boinked."
Oh boy...that's almost funny... (Score:3)
Does that mean that UN itself is going to stop turning around, and trying to take it over every other week. And go hand in hand with the dictatorships of the world to throw the shackles on the rest of the world in order to protect their "sensitives" from the rest of us?
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean that UN itself is going to stop turning around, and trying to take it over every other week. And go hand in hand with the dictatorships of the world to throw the shackles on the rest of the world in order to protect their "sensitives" from the rest of us?
Of course not, you silly person.
They're the good guys. They're in white (and that pretty blue).
They're on your side.
Re: (Score:2)
"oliver's army is here to stay,
oliver's army are on their way..."
Re: (Score:2)
"and I would rather be anywhere else than here today..."
Same rights online as offline (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of what the resolution says is that the Human Rights Council "...[a]ffirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online..." (emphasis added)
This is pretty much opposite the legal situation in the U.S. at least, where the government can demand access to your ISP's logs and the courts pretty much go along with it, but they still need a warrant to put you under physical surveillance.
I would tag this "sudden outbreak of common sense" except that I expect this resolution will have even less impact than the typical U.N. resolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, UN resolutions seem to be more 640x480 than 1920x1200, if you know what I mean.
Horrible headline (Score:5, Informative)
Yet another horrible headline. The resolution doesn't declare the Internet a basic right, it declares that the Internet isn't exempt from the protection of basic rights. Not even close to the same thing, though it doesn't surprise me that Soulskill apparently couldn't tell the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another horrible headline. The resolution doesn't declare the Internet a basic right, it declares that the Internet isn't exempt from the protection of basic rights. Not even close to the same thing, though it doesn't surprise me that Soulskill apparently couldn't tell the difference.
I was about to pile on, but you're misreading the /. headline, which is almost plagia^H^H^H^H^H^Hidentical to the Times headline.
The headline says "UN Declares Internet Freedom a Basic Right", not the Internet itself as a basic right. Unless they changed it, or something.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline says "UN Declares Internet Freedom a Basic Right", not the Internet itself as a basic right. Unless they changed it, or something.
What, you mean like net neutrality? Oh, wait, no, you mean the same freedoms we enjoy everywhere else, but online? That's not internet freedom, that's just freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the term "freedom" in the modern context usually means "freedom to use or access," and not "freedom of expression."
The use of the title was acceptable in the article itself, because the difference was made clear. In the context of the Slashdot summary, where most people don't seem to bother with the article, the meaning is not at all likely to come across accurately.
Re: (Score:2)
I should also add that, the singular usage of the term "basic right" reinforces the impression of the a singular freedom being discussed, rather than an entire class of rights with respect to a new medium.
The nice thing about Slashdot is its users frequently end up providing good reminders of where more clarity is needed and where it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unfortunate you didn't log in to be snarky (you should always be willing to stand behind your snark), so the clarification of context reply went elsewhere.
Hypocrites (Score:1)
This is the same group that tried to get the ACTA treaty passed everywhere and NOW they say Internet access is a basic human right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we're all reassured (Score:2)
That governments will show the same care for freedom of the Internet that they show for freedom of speech, right?
It only follows... (Score:2)
I think it only follows that some access to the Internet, and some freedom on the Internet, will need to be recognized as a basic right. It may sound silly, but think of it this way: If "freedom of speech" is a basic and inalienable human right, how divorced can that "free speech" be from communications infrastructure?
The internet is the way that people are communicating and organizing. It's where we share thoughts and ideas and artistic expression. Denying access to the Internet today would be roughly
The UN is a joke. (Score:2)
The UN is a joke. The US will never ratify this and implement this in our laws. It only applies to those "other" UN members. Take the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty which was implemented 17 years ago, but we have YET to ratify it because the conservatives have a huge problem with children having rights or their own views and feelings being taken into account on things like education, parental placement, etc. as well as being prohibited from the death penalty if you are under 18 years ol
Re: (Score:2)
as well as being prohibited from the death penalty if you are under 18 years old
Because everyone under 18 is clearly mentally childlike and should never be held actually responsible for their actions. Even though we let you *drive* at 16.
I've never understood the weird idea that "you're not really an adult until 18. Wait, no, until 21. Unless you go to other countries. Hey, why do all our young people act so childish?"
Conspiracy hat on (Score:2)
Ron Paul is championing internet freedom as a key tenant of individual liberty in the 21st century. The UN is declaring internet freedom a basic right.
Large portions of the population of the United States do not trust the government. The "two party system" is broken.
Solution? Give more power to a one world government. Trust the UN to do what the corrupt US government, beholden to their corporate masters cannot/will not do.
Something stinks here. Control over the internet is one of the only levers of pow
Re: (Score:2)
That is true. The larger point I was trying to address is that we should resist any steps that consolidate the Internet into the hands of a global body. That is the final piece of the puzzle for total control. As long as individual countries are able to do what they will (think the Pirate Party in Sweden), we will still have some semblance of the Internet as the founders intended it. Once we have a global body in charge of it, kiss it goodbye. It will be a generation before every gets an IPv6 address a
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, considering how the US government is yanking internet domain names from individuals and companies who are not even in the US without due process (think MegaUpload), a UN body couldn't act much worse than that. Of course, I'd rather see ICANN controlled by Iceland rather than the US or the UN, but that will remain a pipe dream.
Ron Paul Agrees with the UN (Score:3)
*all* freedom of expression? (Score:2)
0 - 0 = 0 (Score:2)
Even China, which filters online content through a firewall, backed the resolution. It affirmed that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice.”
The Chinese delegation was probably laughing when they voted. Sure, same rights, no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
UN's Idea of Freedom (Score:2)
UN Decleares the internet a basic human right.
I would be careful though, because the UN's idea of freedom isn't meant for _you_ it is meant for _them_.
As in, _they_ want to track, control and insure everyone is connected so that _they_ can have access to track, control and insure....insure nothing changes, and only those approved changes happen to further their control and tracking efforts of every single man, women, child, cat, dog on the planet.
That way they continue to live in luxery while you are put i
you have to look carefully (Score:3)
At the timing of news stories, to see the conspiracies in action behind the scenes
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/06/0021254/ron-pauls-new-primary-goal-is-internet-freedom [slashdot.org]
It is clear Ron Paul is an agent of the fascist UN. We have been fooled!
(this post is sarcasm, not actual paranoid schizophrenia)
Ho hum (Score:3)
Which has about as much meaning as if my local Girl Scouts got together and passed a resolution declaring that internet freedom is a basic human right.
wait, what? (Score:2)
Basic human rights is what we need to survive: food, water and shelter. WE DO NOT NEED THE INTERNET TO SURVIVE.
The UN is a running joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you're talking about an artificial construct. I'm talking about a biological system. :)
Re: (Score:2)