The Internet as a Human Right

[MasterDex]

For some time now, especially after the Arab Spring, there's been a drive to make the internet one of the inalienable human rights. Reading an article on Techspot about Vint Cerf's (the creator of the TCP/IP protocol) opinion brought it to my mind once again. It's hard to argue with his logic but I still find myself torn. Its effectiveness during the Arab Spring, the Iranian elections and in many other cases cannot be denied and I personally couldn't see myself enjoying life as much without it but it's very difficult to view it as an inalienable right when it's merely a tool for communication.

 

So what are your thoughts on it? Should it, in particular, be a human right? If it was, where could this lead us in the future in regards to human rights?

Edited January 11, 2012 by MasterDex

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

This isn't a subject that I know much about. What other forms of communication are considered human rights and who determines this? The UN?

[Thursday Next]

It depends on what you mean by "the internet". The flow of information should not be restricted by the government, but that doesn't apply on an individual level.

 

I don't think access to the internet should be a human right. If itwere, then a teacher confiscating the mobile phone of a student could easily be argued as a breach of human rights law for taking away their access to the internet.

 

I think human rights should be limited to what people actually need to be people. So, life, food, freedom, accommodation, education should all be human rights. These have been needed by humanity in one form or another since people were people. There are too many people who don't even have these without adding to the list "access to the internet".

[Kovach_]

@FDS Yeah, the UN "votes" on any new additions to the '49 HR charter, that is, the various committees that govern them.

 

And yeah, i don't think it should be added. Internet right now is so much more than just a medium for information sharing, and while many would find life without it harder, it's not really neccessary for existence nor does it define us as TN said. You can still read the papers, watch the news on TV, buy stuff in stores etc.

 

For some time now, especially after the Arab Spring, there's been a drive to make the internet one of the inalienable human rights.

Is there any one or any body that's actively working on this, or is it just "internet talk"? Because i'd like to read more about this (not counting that article you already posted).

 

I don't mean to be rude, but this sounds to me like way too big of a thing to be pushed around by some people that really have no better things to do. #firstworldproblems and all that.

[MasterDex]

Believe it or not but it's actually the UN that are pushing this idea of the internet as a human right. Here's the full UN report if you want to read it: 22 page .pdf

 

For those who don't want to delve into it right now, or at all, here's the summary as laid out on the first page of the report:

 

Summary

This report explores key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek,

receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet. The Special

Rapporteur underscores the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to

enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a

range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole. Chapter III

of the report underlines the applicability of international human rights norms and standards

on the right to freedom of opinion and expression to the Internet as a communication

medium, and sets out the exceptional circumstances under which the dissemination of

certain types of information may be restricted. Chapters IV and V address two dimensions

of Internet access respectively: (a) access to content; and ( B) access to the physical and

technical infrastructure required to access the Internet in the first place. More specifically,

chapter IV outlines some of the ways in which States are increasingly censoring

information online, namely through: arbitrary blocking or filtering of content;

criminalization of legitimate expression; imposition of intermediary liability; disconnecting

users from Internet access, including on the basis of intellectual property rights law; cyberattacks;

and inadequate protection of the right to privacy and data protection. Chapter V

addresses the issue of universal access to the Internet. The Special Rapporteur intends to

explore this topic further in his future report to the General Assembly. Chapter VI contains

the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions and recommendations concerning the main subjects

of the report.

 

Essentially what the UN wants to do is make internet access a human right so as to increase their 'power' against dictatorial regimes that censor or shut-off access to the internet. I can understand their reasoning behind it but I still find it hard to accept it as an inalienable human right. That said, the report also urges against cutting internet in cases of IP infringement and could, should SOPA go through, be the path to protecting the freedom of the internet as that bill could easily be seen as censorship of the internet. Despite all that however, I'm still torn on the issue. I'm sure we'll be hearing more on it in the coming months as the Arab Spring continues and SOPA gets close to passing.

 

This isn't a subject that I know much about. What other forms of communication are considered human rights and who determines this? The UN?

 

Yeah, it'd be the UN that would determine it but as of now, there's no other specific form of communication considered to be a human right to my knowledge.

Edited January 11, 2012 by MasterDex

[deanb]

http://www.wired.com...-a-human-right/ - The UN brought it up last year.

 

http://news.cnet.com...10374831-2.html - Finland has made basic internet access a right (we're kinda working towards similar, in fact I'm sure this year was the deadline)

 

http://www.guardian....t?newsfeed=true - and this is a recent (As in 1 hour ago) article that popped up in my search for those two examples. It's similar to MasterDex's above, but a bit more to it.

 

 

I agree with Thursday (and Cerf). It's a useful tool, but it is not something that is needed to live a free and healthy life. It's a method of getting to other rights such as education, freedom of expressions and speech. Being able to watch Netflix is not the same as not being chained up to make addidas t-shirts. I think that in countries that are able to supply the infrastructure then something like what Finland has should be put in place on a country level so that everyone has free access to at least a basic form of internet. But I don't think the UN should be stepping in to make rights on it just yet. Maybe a right to an open and free internet (where available). Which would stop countries filtering internet and companies stripping access n such forth, without making the access itself a right. (and tbh what good is a right to internet access if it's only to some gimped connection that only goes to www.everythingisgreatinchina.cn?)

 

 

@Kovach:

You can still read the papers, watch the news on TV, buy stuff in stores etc.

The state ran papers, the state ran TV, the state ran stores.

Internet is global, and therefore most of the time out of the hands of the state. Though once again, as Cerf says, it's not a right in itself but an enabler.

[Kovach_]

^^ Yes, but then that's a general free speech or censorship problem, with internet being just a part of it. I was speaking more in line of "what if internet stopped existing", guess i should have written that better, sorry. And thanks for the links both of you, gonna read up a bit on that.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Kovach_

[TheMightyEthan]

That said, the report also urges against cutting internet in cases of IP infringement and could, should SOPA go through, be the path to protecting the freedom of the internet as that bill could easily be seen as censorship of the internet.

Here's the US's response if the UN says SOPA violates their charter on human rights:

 

 

(I'm opposed to SOPA, but that is what the US's response would be.)

[Battra92]

The UN is absolutely out of its mind considering that the Internet is somehow a human right. A human right is something that you are born with under natural law (whether governed by God or by nature - whichever you choose to believe.) Thomas Paine in his wonderful Rights of Man stated that rights can never be granted by any charter as that would imply that they could be taken away.

 

It's kind of sad when people think the internet is of the same league as the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

This issue gets muddied and confused a lot of the time, with some conservatives equating the internet as a human right to the government's providing subsidized internet for all. The internet is a human right inasmuch as it corresponds with free speech: in the same way that the Constitution guarantees US citizens the right to free speech but does not provide the pen or paper with which to exercise that right, so the internet is an extension--but not a freely provided tool--of the Bill of Rights.

 

Edit: In other words, the government doesn't have to foot your internet bill, but they must not restrict internet access.

[MasterDex]

The UN is absolutely out of its mind considering that the Internet is somehow a human right. A human right is something that you are born with under natural law (whether governed by God or by nature - whichever you choose to believe.) Thomas Paine in his wonderful Rights of Man stated that rights can never be granted by any charter as that would imply that they could be taken away.

 

It's kind of sad when people think the internet is of the same league as the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

 

Human rights are in no way governed by god or by nature, though they may be influenced by such. It's because of human rights charters, written and created by man, for man that we have human rights in the first place - like the rightto free speech and the right to freedom of religion. Though Rights of Man was a great philisophical piece, Paine's view on rights and how they are granted is a bit idealistic. Were it left to "God", very few humans would have rights and the chosen few would have the right to own the rest as slaves. Were it left to nature, rights would be thrown out the window altogether and our rights would extend only so far as each individual could defend them, or as Thomas Hobbes put it :

"to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto."

 

Though they may be born from idealistic thinking, our human rights charters are the legal constructs of man and are open to change, regardless of how inalieanable and concrete we believe them to be.

 

It's hard to view the internet as anything but a privilege or mere tool as a westerner but were it not for the internet, critical information to the survival of many would have been surpressed - which is why the right to the internet (.ie. that it cannot be taken away, suppressed or censored) is a sticking point for the UN at the moment. There's little that rouses a crowd like a "human rights violation" and anything against the UDHR is considered as such. If the right to the internet were added to the UDHR, it would give the UN more power, enabling them to impose sanctions against nations that supress the internet.

 

I feel like I'm playing Devil's advocate here, perhaps I'm more in favour of the idea than I first thought. Disregarding, for a moment, whether the internet should or should not be a human right, what do ye think could be the negative effects, if any, of such a right?

[TheMightyEthan]

I would be behind a right to the free flow of information (freedom of speech, access to the speech of others, etc), but I think saying the Internet is a human right is stupidly specific.

 

Is the telephone a human right? What about the telegraph? Postal service? Smoke signals? I mean, it's just silly to break it down to specific technologies when you can cover it all with a more generalized statement of the right.

 

@Battra: From a theoretical standpoint rights may have their source in God or nature or otherwise be inherent, but until those rights are enshrined in the laws of men they're pretty meaningless from a practical standpoint.

Edited January 11, 2012 by TheMightyEthan

[Mister Jack]

I'd worry more about making health care a human right first.

[fuchikoma]

I agree with P4 and Ethan if I get what they're saying. I think the Internet should be considered a "human right" not in that anyone is obligated to connect people to it, or subsidize it, but rather if a government like Syria starts turning on its people and they try to communicate, but their Internet or other communications are cut off to stifle them, it should be considered a violation of their human rights. Personally, I'd like to go one farther and say that SOPA, or other national censorship schemes are also in violation of people's rights.

 

That said, I believe "rights" are actually "oughts." People seem to assume nothing can violate their rights, but in fact anything and anyone can. They ought not to though, and in a perfect world, they wouldn't. They're a wonderful idea, but I think people give them too much credit these days, at least the "first world." If a nuclear-armed power violates its people's rights, you know who comes to save them? Probably no one, sadly.

[TheMightyEthan]

Hell, if a small country in Africa violates it's people's rights no one comes to save them (unless it threatens our supply of oil), or at most a half-hearted effort is made.

[excel_excel]

Yeah I agree with what ye have said, it shouldn't be a human right. But I suppose access to any information should be or would that be eduction that would fall under?

[deanb]

Many of what the internet can do/facilitate does fall under a few current human rights such as education and freedom of speech/conscience/protest.