
Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations - taylorbuley
http://mashable.com/2012/07/06/internet-human-right/
======
presidentender
The concept of "rights" is growing less useful, I fear.

~~~
qq66
The resolution doesn't seem to say "Everyone should get free Internet." It
says something to the effect of "Restricting people's online expression is a
violation of their rights," condemning what Syria or Egypt's governments did
when they shut down Internet to prevent citizens from coordinating
revolutionary activities.

~~~
kiba
They might as well just say "freedom of expression".

~~~
dllthomas
I'm not sure that protection an individuals freedom to express themselves
necessarily entails protection of the transport of encodings of that
expression - I would rather see that latter protection made explicit.

------
ctdonath
The USA Constitution was way ahead - by some 225 years - with its "1st
Amendment" protection of freedom of speech, of press (publishing), and of
association. Gorvernmental interference of what someone says, how someone says
it, and who they work with to say it, has long been prohibited. Nice to see
the UN catch up. Notice, however, the difference between not interfering vs.
forcing others to facilitate : negative vs. positive rights.

~~~
twelvechairs
This isn't really 'catching up' in the way you say. The UN declaration of
human rights already says "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.".

This move by the UN seems a deliberate point to ensure 'the internet' cannot
be excluded from these bounds. I'm not sure the USA has yet been so explicit.

As a side point for educative purposes only - the US bill of rights was not
the first to enshrine freedom of speech and press for a country - that was the
French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (though both built
on the English bill of rights, which enshrined freedom of speech for
parliamentarians).

~~~
maratd
> the US bill of rights was not the first to enshrine freedom of speech

No, of course not. We all get our ideas from somewhere. Much of American law
and concepts come from English common law. The English picked it up from the
Romans and Germans. So on and so forth.

However, the US bill of rights is certainly the longest lasting. It is my
understanding that the US constitution is the oldest constitution that is
still in effect.

~~~
pyre
What about the Magna Carta[1]?

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta>

------
scott_meade
The motion does not say that Internet access is a human right.

The gist of the motion is captured in the affirmation 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"
[<http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/64/51/6999c512.pdf>]

The UN is simply affirming that the media through which a expression is
conveyed should not change the understanding that freedom of expression is a
human right.

~~~
sirclueless
Not just the form of media, but also communication across sovereign borders.
That is, Egypt can't make a media bubble and say, "Sure, our citizens are free
to use the internet to express whatever opinions they like to other Egyptians.
It just has to be on the Egyptian twitter on Egyptian servers."

------
roryokane
The Chinese delegate stipulated that the “free flow of information on the
Internet and the safe flow of information on the Internet are mutually
dependent” while signing the resolution. I think his supposed reasoning is
that if people are scared of encountering “unsafe” things on the Internet,
they will avoid the Internet and thus lose opportunities for speech. But that
still seems pretty unconvincing – I’m having trouble understanding how the
rest of the Human Rights Council can let China pretend to support the
resolution when it has such a weak defense for its censorship policy.

------
aszepieniec
Just who is going to use violence against whom so that whose rights are not
violated?

------
aioprisan
I hope that we won't be forced to sign up for Internet service or pay
additional taxes to allow for this human right to be spread and given to
everyone as part of a government mandate- I mean tax- by buying the service
from private companies.. All kidding aside, how much do you want to bet that
in the next 10 years, we'll all be mandated to purchase or pay for Internet
access?

------
noarchy
I'd prefer a right to use the internet freely, rather than have a right to
free internet. "Western" governments are rushing as we speak to catch up to
the internet censorship of countries like China and Iran.

------
sigzero
The UN can say it all it wants. That doesn't make it true.

~~~
alan_cx
You too, right? And round and round we go....

------
zacharycohn
So how do this and "3 strikes" rules (when your ISP kills your internet
connection because you got caught pirating 3 times) get along?

~~~
alan_cx
US or EU? As an EU resident, I see the 3 strikes being, er, well, struck out
after years of court battles and misery for users.

Interestingly, as far as I can tell, the 3 strikes thing wouldn't last in an
EU court anyway as it contradicts a lot of existing human rights law.

One problem the UK government has is that it is on a program of moving
essential government services to the internet, so cutting whole house holds
off the internet would deny public services to people. Worse still, innocent
by standers and / or kids. The schools my kids go to extensively use the
internet for homework, etc.

In the end, 3 strikes will fail, if it ever gets enacted. Like I say, all we
have to do is suffer for a few years while it happens. Why do we have to go
through this pain? Because certain industries that pour money in to party
funds refuse to change. So, rather than prop them up with public money,
government uses law. Quite vile, but there we go, we voted these people in, so
its "our" fault.

(Edited typo)

------
yobbobandana
Is there any written statement by the UN about this?

------
adventureful
Going to have to start by proclaiming that several other things are human
rights before you get to Internet access.

Access devices are a human right. Electricity is a human right. Access to
telecom lines (of some sort) is a human right. Access to mobile or a spot to
plug into is a human right. Transistors are a human right. Storage is a human
right. Some kind of electronic or digital display is a human right.

~~~
kkowalczyk
First, this is a set not a list so it's nonsensical to rank those in
importance.

More to the point, I don't read that proclamation as "everyone is entitled to
internet access".

I read it as: no-one (specifically government) should be able to take away
your access to internet.

The difference is not that subtle.

It's important because it counters a growing world-wide tendency to take away
your access after some minor infractions like copyright infringement.

It rightly recognizes that access to internet is almost a necessity to conduct
your daily business (in first world countries, at least) and denying that
access creates incredible hardship and can ruin lives (ruin not at all
rhetorically; if you, for example, make money via etsy or odesk, taking away
this income might push you over the poverty line).

------
gogobyte
The problem is I despise UN because it is an organization of dictatorships
mainly, and extremely corrupted one.

~~~
accountswu
You mean it's a dictatorship run by the minority rich western white countries
that force their imperialism on the majority of the world through the various
arms of UN? That the US is able to impose sanctions on Iraq and now Iran even
though the majority of the world is opposed to the sanctions? That the US is
able to shield Israel from any sanctions despite its grave violations of human
rights, its refusal to end the military occupation, its refusal to allow
Palestinians to have their land back (whether 1967-occupied 22% or the
1948-occupied 78%), its refusal to allow the right of return to non-Jews who
were kicked out in 1948 (under UN law the refugees forced out or those left
voluntarily have the right to return) and its insistence to allow Jewish
immigrants to settle in the land being stolen every day by demolishing homes
and evicting non-Jewish owners?

[http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/state-dept-says-it-is-not-
cons...](http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/state-dept-says-it-is-not-consistent-
on-human-rights-violations-involving-israel-and-neighbors.html)

MS. NULAND: We have no reason to believe that it is not credible. It’s based
on eyewitness accounts, and they’re reporting from a broad cross-section of
human rights figures inside Syria.

QUESTION: So the next time Human Rights Watch comes out with a report that’s
critical of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians, I’ll assume that
you’re going to be saying the same thing, correct; that you think that the
report is credible, it’s based on eyewitness accounts?

MS. NULAND: As --

QUESTION: And you’re not going to say that it’s politically motivated and
should be dismissed?

MS. NULAND: Matt, as you have made clear again and again in this room, we are
not always consistent.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=peaceful+settlement+of+the+q...](https://www.google.com/search?q=peaceful+settlement+of+the+question+of+palestine)

[http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/resolving-the-israel-
palest...](http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/resolving-the-israel-palestine-
conflict-what-we-can-learn-from-gandhi/)

Year

Vote

[Yes-No-Abstained]

Negative votes cast by… 2005

156-6-9

Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau

2006

157-7-10

Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau

2007

161-7-5

Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau

~~~
sirclueless
The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than
the rest of the world combined. Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing: there
are some cogent arguments that the lengthy peace enjoyed in Europe since WWII
has been largely due to the constantly present American military force and
economic hegemony. Countries in Europe and Asia are willing to stomach U.S.
presence because the U.S. has not been an imperial power since Palau in 1947
(and, excluding Liberia circa 1840-something, it has never had a mainland
colony).

It's obvious that the U.S. will never try to wrest sovereignty from a stable
Western-style representative government, so countries are willing to let the
U.S. solve the so-called "Security Dilemma" for them. If this means giving
them effective veto power over U.N. resolutions for such time as they retain a
military hegemony, so be it. There are a lot of benefits to having a hegemon
in power, and as Empires go, the American Empire is relatively benign unless
you think that American cultural influence will destroy the world or
something.

~~~
saraid216
> The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power
> than the rest of the world combined.

Um. This isn't true according to an Economist article I'm having trouble
finding. Switching over to Wikipedia, China has the largest active military by
a good 8.3 million troops; you'd have to find some explanation that can
convincingly say that America has more power by another measure.

Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel)

~~~
majorlazer
I think you meant 830k (not 8.3M) troops.

Military size is only a small factor when comparing world super powers. Going
by that Wikipedia list, North Korea's military isn't too far from the US
military. But we all know how that war would go.

~~~
saraid216
Yeah, sorry about that. I was pretty tired last night.

