Since it’s weekend, let’s start with some good news we can all be happy about. The United Nations has declared internet access a human right, and has called upon all nations to not instate any laws that have the power to cut people off the internet, with France and the UK being singled out because they passed three strikes laws.
The report comes from the hand of Frank La Rue, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. In it, La Rue expresses his concerns over several recent developments, such as arbitrary blocking and filtering of internet traffic, three strikes laws, complete internet blackouts during political unrest (Syria, Egypt), and so on. He believes that cutting users off from the internet violates several international treaties on human rights.
La Rue takes is concerned about governments using the guise of terrorism to censor content on the web. “Such laws are often justified as being necessary to protect individuals’ reputation, national security or to counter terrorism. However, in practice, they are frequently used to censor content that the Government and other powerful entities do not like or agree with,” he argues. See WikiLeaks, for instance.
When it comes to ridiculous three strikes laws promoted by people like Sarkozy, La Rue is pretty clear. “The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest,” he writes, “In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.”
“Given that the Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating inequality, and accelerating development and human progress, ensuring universal access to the Internet should be a priority for all States,” the report concludes, “Each State should thus develop a concrete and effective policy, in consultation with individuals from all sections of society, including the private sector and relevant Government ministries, to make the Internet widely available, accessible and affordable to all segments of population.”
It will not come as a surprise to you that I am in full agreement with declaring internet access a human right. Things like the French three strikes laws are wholly and utterly totalitarian, especially since individual citizens can do very little to protest against these disconnections. The fact that such a law has come into effect in a country which claims to be developed and free (France) clearly shows that despite all our western talk of spreading freedom and democracy, our own governments seem all to eager to disregard these values whenever it suits them.
Sadly, this report is just a first set of recommendations, which will be followed by countless rounds of negotiations to form a treaty on the subject. This means that most of these recommendations will probably be watered down until they become meaningless – so that our government can continue to try and curb the freedom of the web. It just goes to show that freedom of speech is a paper-thin construct that requires constant vigilance – not by governments, but by the people.
But seriously yes I get edgy if the internet is down. And I’m not the only one…
I did my master’s thesis in Africa in a place where there was no Internet access. I had full blown withdrawal symptoms such as nervousness, inability to sleep, etc. After about two weeks there though, the symptoms went away. So yes, I think Internet addiction is a real addiction.
I was actually working on a software development project over there. And even though I started programming before the Internet, I find it difficult to imagine how we as programmers survived before the Internet. Back when the only reference material we had available was whatever books we had in printed form. If something wasn’t working, we couldn’t research it online, etc. It was definitely a retro moment, in addition to causing withdrawal.
Edited 2011-06-04 22:47 UTC
not completly true, in the old days there was BBS’s, usenet etc…
Not for everyone…
But France has indeed been a developed and free country for most of its history !
…it just happens that our current government is not
France has been corrupt most of its lifetime, its just that they pioneered one of the important revolution that had a large historical impact.
Note that other countries are no better. In fact, I don’t know any that isn’t HIGHLY corrupted right now. Small, big, every single of them are.
Oh the humanity.
French governments over the years have proved to be undemocratic.
Just look at how they give two fingers to the EU over legislation & directives they don’t like or outright favour La Belle France.
There was a crisis some years back when they EU ruled that France had to open its borders to non French Lamb.
The Farmers started blockading the roads from the English Channel (sorry La Manche) ports and searcing every vehicly including cars for what they called ‘pirated meat’. The french police (& thus the government) just sat back and ignored the blatant breach of an EU Directive.
If the position was reversed and the UK banned import of French Wine & Cheese the French Gov would be up in arms.
Strange that.
Then there was the unexpected and largely unexplained ‘Non’ from Generale De Gaulle when the UK wanted to join the Common Market in the early 1960’s.
As a disclaimer, I have owned a property in the Pyrenees for more than 20years. The local sheep farmers had no problem with eating British Lamb especially ‘Salt Marsh Lamb’. I introduced them to it years ago. It has a totally different taste to their meat. The same applied to their produce when compared to my local North Downs Lamb.
Next time I try to do a joke comment like this, I’ll put a big animated GIF banner in the middle of it with “DO NOT FEED THE TROLL” written on it
Don’t know how I’ll technically do that yet though.
Dear Thom, didn’t UN say and emphasize the fact that every human being has the right of life?
Actually, according to UN, the right to live is the most basic right of every human being.
We in EU, cherish this right and we respect it.
I wonder how much the government of the USA respects this right.
We certainly value this right.
If not, most trolls like yourself wouldn’t be around to post this kind of trash.
Edited 2011-06-04 21:44 UTC
They probably don’t, I mean.. death penalties, the assassination of osama bin laden.
The US is a pretty corrupt place, I wouldn’t go there.
I’m a little confused how Kasi’s post got modded down and this one didn’t, it’s very off-topic. Oh well, I’m American, but I’m honestly not really offended or surprised. So who cares.
Re: Obama catching Osama they “claim” he wouldn’t go quietly, which is sad because I’m pretty politically apathetic, but even I would’ve preferred him being tried fairly in open court than a hostile standoff. Oh well, what can you do? I wasn’t there, and it wasn’t my call.
It’s not really a corrupt place, the U.S. It’s far from perfect, of course, but it’s a very big place, and you won’t get 300 million people agreeing on anything any time soon. You wouldn’t visit? Well, I’ve never left!
That’s more to do with money and habits and lack of need than anything else. There’s plenty of places worth visiting here (Disney World, Grand Canyon, etc), so don’t rule it out completely. It’s not THAT bad, just to be fair.
Rugxulo, the mod down on my reply actually makes perfect sense – I broke the standing rule about not feeding the trolls.
Why not? You’d fit right in… or at least you’d fit right in with the stereotypical “ignant yanks” who hold moronic opinions of countries they’ve never been to.
Hahaha, oh wow! Good thing the EU is giving me what I deserve.
You do understand that Thom is Dutch, don’t you?
I’ll be the first to admit that i am no big fan of the u.s but wtf???
I think he refers to the fact that some parts of the United States have not abolished death penalty, in opposition with the UN’s position on the subject.
On the other hand, this right of life is very controversial matters with lots of fuzzy areas, so it’s normal that some parts of the world have different positions on it.
As an example, I am against justice being able to pronounce death sentences and for mothers’ right to abortion in the event of unwanted pregnancies, but I can understand why some people would say that being for both or none is more consistent.
Edited 2011-06-05 10:05 UTC
Especially when bombing in Yugoslavia or Libya and shooting civilians in Afghanistan. And how do we regret all these collateral damages.
Every generation or so the USA has to send troops to fight and die for the human rights of Europeans. Something you should know since today is June 6.
While I agree that governments shouldn’t filter or block internet access in the name of national security, I disagree in declaring the internet a human right. The internet is a product or service, it is not a necessity of life.
So is hot water, clean water, electricity or medical care. Or, come to think of it, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and most other freedoms you come to enjoy.
Human right is not the same as free public service. Neither is it only a necessity of life.
Imagine you’d be barred from all and any libraries for sharing your book with 3 friends and allowed to buy books only 10 years in print(point here is out-of-date material). That would be basically what disconnecting you from the global knowledge banks(today aka internet) be 50 years ago. Knowledge is power.
Human kind advanced so fast only because education is a right and to a certain degree is maintained as a free public service in a lot of countries.
Well, actually, access to clean water is pretty much a necessity to human life. Without clean water, we tend to get bacterial and/or parasitic infections and die. The same could be argued for medical care. Without at least basic medical care, quality and length of life would be greatly reduced.
When it comes to the Internet however, one could live a long and healthy life without ever using it or ever having access to it. So I really don’t think your comparison is valid.
Lots of people don’t have clean water. I think your comparison is invalid
I know lots of people don’t have access to clean water. And lots of people in 3rd world countries die every day because of that. The fact that it is a basic human right doesn’t mean everyone actually has it.
My point was that the Internet is not necessary for survival. It’s not even necessary to live a quality life. We all managed to live pretty happy lives up until about the early 1990s without the internet (when it really started to become available to home users). Of course, there is a generation of young people now who never lived in a world without the Internet. I can understand how it might be difficult for them to understand how it was possible to live without it.
It’s even possible to make a legitimate argument that we lived happier lives before the Internet, because we weren’t obsessed with constantly being in contact with the office, etc. But I’m not going to have that debate. I think my point remains that it’s difficult to argue that the Internet is necessary for human life. Clean water definitely is though.
Edited 2011-06-06 02:43 UTC
“one could live a long and healthy life” without a roof over your head, freedom of expression or freedom of religion. Yet those are somehow part of the human rights convention.
BTW: Which comparison? That human rights are not always necessities of life, but stretch much more than that? Or that internet is like a library?
Freedom of religion and expression are products or services?
I’m not just picking. There is, in fact, a fundamental difference between things like internet access, water supply, electric supply, and medical care, and things like religion, expression, and so forth. The former are impossible without modern technology; the latter are possible in any day and age, if we merely respect others.
When organizations like the UN elevate nearly every modern convenience to the status of “human rights”, they make a mockery of the term.
This reason this would be immoral is not because “access to books” is a human right (books are a modern convenience) but because “freedom of expression” is a human right.
Agree. It’s not that internet access should be a right per se, but rather that its major role in modern freedom of press and expression should be legally acknowledged.
If freedom of expression(why did you put it in quotes?) is a human right, why shouldn’t the medium that is predominant in modern society not be?
50 years ago people wrote books, today people write blogs.
+1 to Neolander
Edited 2011-06-07 01:09 UTC
So everybody is in agreement that many people in this world don’t have access to clean water, and are getting sick and dying because of it. Still, we’re arguing about internet access instead of doing SOMETHING about the non-access to clean water.
Well… I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I would say that access to information is a basic human right. Access to information from multiple view points and multiple world sources. And of course, the best way to ensure universal access to information is via the Internet.
Is access to the Internet a basic human right? Probably not. But access to information should be. And the best way to ensure that access is via the Internet.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I probably should have worded my post a little bit better. There is a huge difference between a right and a product or service.
It is necessary, in the 21st century, as a primary and efficient means of distributing accessing information.
The digital age equivalent of a public library and free speech, or something like that.. ask your kids.
Edited 2011-06-05 00:01 UTC
Maybe. I presume the UN’s point of view is a free speech/access to information argument. I won’t argue that the Internet is the most-used information conduit in the world today
On the other hand, “Free speech” at one time meant jumping up on the nearest tree stump and saying your peace. You were free to talk, or not. Others were free to listen, or not. But in general it was wholly based on the actions of the speaker and listeners; no one else, not a corporation, not a government, had to provide the “infrastructure” for them.
I suppose if the UN’s position were refined to, “if I am willing and able to pay for Internet access at reasonable (yeah, there’s still a weasel word) rates, I should have access to it, and should not be subject to arbitrary disconnection”, I could support it. But “the public must bear the burden of getting everyone on the Internet” is something else entirely.
The point is probably moot, however. This will likely be roundly ignored by large monetary and governmental interests, as with the death penalty mentioned earlier. The US once upon a time had to break up AT&T’s telephone monopoly, and it has been trying to reestablish itself under different names ever since.
Today internet is very similar to public libraries, so no wonder that a lot of people will agree to that. And some forward thinking countries are already enacting laws that effectively make internet access a human right. Though not to be confused with free public service, which is very different.
I know 1 guy, I can’t say he is my friend anymore. He just told me about american soldiers in Irak. He said he saw a lot of nasty things being done by US soldiers. He said he saw american soldiers killing civilians in Irak just for fun. He said that he and another romanian soldiers, have smack the faces of some US soldiers, they have beaten some US soldiers very hard. Word is some italian and french soldiers, did the same. After they saw americans killing civilians in Irak, they tried to beat some american soldiers.
And of course nobody in their right mind condones killing civilians or even unjust wars, so it doesn’t matter if you’re American (as I am) or not. I agree that would make me very angry to see that, but vigilante justice doesn’t work (and usually isn’t fair), so I don’t condone violent retaliation. They should arrest the alleged soldiers and put them on trial, not beat them. It’s a real crime and should be treated as such, not just ignored or handled in a back alley somewhere. (Though I think it’s fair to say this is just rumor and hasn’t been proven, so let’s not call all American soldiers war criminals.)
Here’s the rumor :
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327
Where do you call home, exactly? Twitter?
This rambling, third-party-hearsay drivel doesn’t deserve a response. But I have a suggestion for you: why don’t you go fight a war, get shot at, get IEDs going off all around you, and see if you come back with a halo floating over your head?
Whether you believe the war is right or not, those guys over there are just trying to perform the task they have been given, and stay alive in the process — no mean feat. And I do not believe that the vast majority of them are the sadists you would have us believe they are.
Oh — and Iraq has a Q on the end.
Edited 2011-06-05 19:03 UTC
Would you say the same of the Germans in Russia?
Because the excuse you are providing is suitable for every and any soldier of dictators, tyrants and aggressive oligarchies.
I agree the post was pointless, but in some languages, such as Spanish, Iraq is spelled with a K.
It is not a human right to be on the Internet. The UN, once again, just boggles my mind on how stupid and ineffectual they are.
you’re boggling my mind right now.
Human rights are defined by humans. Hate to break such stuff for people like that.
Defining Internet (in it’s current state) has a right makes complete sense. There are several other similar rights, and psst, they actually all make complete sense.
Depends on which philosophy believe in, Locke or Hobbes. Hobbes = Rights are defined by man. Locke = Rights are defined by nature.
http://jim.com/hobbes.htm
Edited 2011-06-05 00:06 UTC
It probably shouldn’t be required, but some schools, jobs, bills (taxes?) can’t be done without the Internet. So while it’s true you could in theory do it the old-fashioned way (snail mail), I’m not sure anymore that’s really even available, much less fashionable. Sad to say.
I’m pretty sure that internet access isn’t a human right, but I don’t really care.
I am pretty sure that the UN needs to either get off its collective ass and do something about, y’know, war, poverty, disease, slavery, etc; or at least shut the hell up about internet access when we as a world haven’t gotten the basics down.
I cannot understand these two statements at the same time:
“States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely…such as the so-called ‘three-strikes-law’ in France”
“The constitutional council of France effectively declared Internet access a fundamental right in 2009”
Why?
Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
Great right… but if you break the law by murdering someone, your right to liberty is taken away and you are sent to jail.
Similarly, if you break the P2P law, you can have your internet right taken away.
How hard is that to reconcile?
Edited 2011-06-05 05:50 UTC
“How hard is that to reconcile?”
Both examples seem irreconcilable.
One can’t go around making exceptions to fundamental rights and continue stating that those rights are fundamental.
The contradiction is hypocrisy, in my opinion.
This contradiction can by avoided by stating that the right to life has a greater value than the right to liberty. Keeping a criminal unpunished puts the life of people in danger, maybe that’s not worth the liberty of the criminal.
This, on the other hand, is pure hypocrisy, doing so basically says that the media industry’s pleasure is worth more than the people’s freedom of speech.
but P2P is not “speech”, it’s sharing coprighted material, denying the creator of that material his right to monetize it at his discretion (now, hate majors as much as you want, dont ever buy from them, but if one -whoever- wants to produce something AND sell it, that principle must hold)
those who do p2p cant invoke freedom of speech at their defense, because they abuse their freedom of speech rights, in order to deliberately go against the law – and it would be hypocritical of them to say they do it “to spread culture” (games, sw, britney spears music and blockbuster movies are hardly “culture”..)
OTOH, one could say that depriving one of internet access forever is an excessive measure, when the copright law already prescribes fees and penalties, and that would be agreeable…
Edited 2011-06-05 09:23 UTC
I don’t say that people shouldn’t be punished for breaking copyright law, I say that removing internet access is an excessive punishment that should be anti-constitutional if it’s not already.
Nowadays the internet is used for much more than sharing files. It is one of the main communication medium of our age, so it is certainly something that should be protected by freedom of speech and freedom of press.
Removing someone’s right to access the internet because he has published illegal material on it is IMO just as disproportionate as removing someone’s freedom of press because he has published hateful racist or homophobic content in his journal. The person should certainly pay a fine, maybe go to jail, but certainly not lose his/her ability to publish something because he/she has publicly expressed questionable opinions.
Edited 2011-06-05 09:43 UTC
We should acknowledge the differences between revenge, punishment, and corrective measures.
While corrective measures are a social necessity, punishment can be and often is counterproductive.
Furthermore, the definition of “criminality” is depending on the actual societal environment. (Think of the Nazi German race laws .) Thus, law alone is no replacement for ethical decisions.
In certain circumstances you have to act illegally if you want to stay humane. The responsibility is yours. It’s your chosen path.
“Furthermore, the definition of ‘criminality’ is depending on the actual societal environment. (Think of the Nazi German race laws .) Thus, law alone is no replacement for ethical decisions.”
Being lawful does not imply being ethical or visa versa.
Ah philosophy.
Some of you are using a different definition of “human right” than the UN. Internet is a big deal, and it fits with what the UN does. The idea is to make life good.
The UN’s definition of a “right” is so comical that you would think the entire system was put into place by teenagers.
The UN can’t give you rights any more than it can take them away. The UDHR is so at odds with itself that it is meaningless; the document is riddled with logical fallacies and contradictions.
The only way anyone can have the “right” to housing/internet/medicine/food is by taking away the rights of other people. The whole UN charter exists to enslave populations by picking their pocket with one hand while giving them handouts with the other.
Like?
*chirp* *chirp*
That doesn’t make any sense. You must have a twisted definition of “right”.
Aye carumba!
The UN sucks.
Why can’t I edit the title.
Oh,, I goofed.
Edited 2011-06-05 19:57 UTC
Yup. I’m totally reporting you to the cyberpolice right now. And the state police, too.
The UN has no credibility on human rights, to begin with:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thor-halvorssen/united-nations-its-ok…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rig…
The “American” politicians will ignore it like it does everything else.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights…
The reason why there is a US. Also, the reason why “American” politicians, and “American” citizens will ignore this. No man (or woman) can grant nor take away these rights.
I don’t know what France’s three-strikes law is all about. But I can see circumstances where someting of that ilk would be reasonable. For instance, if someone is committing an “internet crime” like hacking into where they don’t belong or sending SPAM or viruses. For things like that, it should be just as reaonable for a court to suspend their internet access as it is to suspend someone’s driving privileges because they were going 100mph in a school zone while lots of children were busy crossing the street. After Kevin Mitnick got out of jail, he still wasn’t allowed to touch a computer for years, as part of his probation.
I’m still of the opinion that the vast majorty of IP volation is a purely civil matter and that the government should not step in and treat it as a criminal violation. Thus, removing internet access for someone downloading songs is wrong. On the other hand, there are people who violate copyright on a large scale, some of them actually making money from it. That goes way beyond simple file sharing and IS criminal. And THEN, a could should be able to take away their internet access. I don’t see how this is any different from a court telling you not to leave the country or even cross state lines if you’ve committed a criminal act.
Is this right a ‘born to have’ right?
Any ideas?