
Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights? - zebrafish
With the explosion of machine learning and artificial intelligence, the ever decreasing cost of storage and compute, and the apparent disregard for individual privacy on the part of both government and industry, which rights would you include in a &quot;Bill of Modern Rights&quot;?
======
Top19
I can't answer this question, but just to put it in context, the United
Nation'a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, put together after World War
II, is a truly beautiful document. I had never read it or really knew anything
about it, but if you read through it, it's an absolutely inspiring vision of
humanity and of a world that one day might exist. It's wording is concise,
clear, and beautiful.

Here's the foreword from the most recent published copy:

"The Universal Declaration promises to all the economic, social, political,
cultural and civic rights that underpin a life free from want and fear. They
are not a reward for good behaviour. They are not country-specific, or
particular to a certain era or social group. They are the inalienable
entitlements of all people, at all times, and in all places — people of every
colour, from every race and ethnic group; whether or not they are disabled;
citizens or migrants; no matter their sex, their class, their caste, their
creed, their age or sexual orientation."

And here is the original document:

"Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood."

Sorry not to hijack this thread and I know you technically said Bill of
Rights, which is also very inspiring, but I feel like less well known in the
US."

~~~
ams6110
Theoretically beautiful, like most utopian visions. The reality is that most
places that the UN is involved in are human rights hellholes.

~~~
Top19
And to answer OP's original question...

Right to Birth Control: we're never going to agree on abortion but can we at
least get this? A long time ago women would usually stop getting their periods
after 20...because they were constantly pregnant until 50 when menopause
started. Having larger amount of children might very well be unsustainable in
a world with less jobs and that demands a lifetime of learning (by both
spouses) to stay employed and take care of yourselves, let alone 3, 4, 5+
children. If male birth control ever comes out I think this would become even
more viable too.

Right to Internet: I don't have great reasons for this but can anyone think of
a bad one for this? Like birth control could be found to have terrible side
effects, perhaps some welfare plan might cause mass dependency, but literally
is there any bad reason for guaranteeing internet?

~~~
talmand
Why stop with right to Internet? Why don't we just stop this silly game and
declare that everyone has a right to anything that they could possibly want?
Someone creates a technology in the future that may help people's lives in
some significant, or even small, way? I declare I have a right to it and
demand someone else pay for it to provide to me.

~~~
Top19
Initially, your point was "grinding my gears" lol. My reasoning was "'x is
good". You took that (and this next part could be wrong so please accept my
apology if it is but I tried to break it down into concrete math terms) and
said "no it's not, because '20x' is bad, and if we do 'x' then that means we
almost certainly will commit ourselves to '20x'".

But......You do have a point though. When extremist interpretations can be
made...haha they almost certainly will (Islam, the Bible, anything related to
communism, capitalism, etc).

How do you get around that? No contract is really bulletproof, there is a
spirit to every law and document. That spirit I like to think is applied
through good systems, common sense, and good leadership.

~~~
talmand
Yes, it's a tough one. I consider many different ways of possibly dealing with
it. I start with the notion that no matter how well a system is designed, it
will eventually fall apart and requires a reboot. Sometimes actions prolong
the system, sometimes they hasten its demise. These days I'm wondering if an
automatic and irreversible sunset clause on every rule in the system might
help. To force the people to rethink things from time-to-time. That way the
rules don't slowly degrade over time as people "tweak" them for their own
benefit. New people have an opportunity to contribute to the rules as opposed
to being dictated by rules created by people long dead.

It would have to have term limits on the people involved in making the rules
for the system as well.

Everything would have to be staggered though, can't have everything up for
renewal at the same time. Too easy to cause chaos of which some people will
take advantage.

But, most likely, it won't matter in the long run because my thoughts are
around the idea of trying to prevent the always inevitable violent upheaval of
the status quo to "make things better". Which only means get rid of all the
crappy rules we've forced on ourselves to return to a time the rules were fair
and made sense. Which, of course, eventually goes downhill again.

------
zachrose
If the 2nd Amendment is for A) self-defense without the government, or B)
eventual resistance against the government itself, then surely it should be
interpreted to protect strong encryption.

~~~
zebrafish
Agreed. The wording of the 2nd amendment doesn't lend itself to encryption
though which could be an issue.

~~~
didgeoridoo
I hadn't ever really thought of this, but cryptography has sometimes been
considered a "military munition" for purposes of restricting export:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States)

Is there any existing jurisprudence defending citizen access to cryptography
on 2nd Amendment grounds?

~~~
zachrose
There's this one xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/504/](https://xkcd.com/504/)

But no, to my knowledge this legal argument has not been made in court.
(Here's a Motherboard article about the possibility:
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-second-
amendm...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-second-amendment-
case-for-the-right-to-bear-encryption.))

So far I think it's more interesting to consider as a political argument than
a legal one: conservatives who like guns should (IMHO) have every reason to
oppose state-weakened cryptography, as much as that might fracture the law-
and-order conservatism from libertarian conservatism. (Also, there is no
universe where a militia with automatic weapons and tapped email is really
going anywhere.)

------
Akarnani
The Right To The Best Available Deal:

To have all applicable financial / tax regulations applied to you
automatically.

This way you don't have to discover tax breaks/credits/deductions — they just
get applied to you.

This is important and effects something like 250M Americans.

Outside of criminal and civil law, much of the US system of government is
enforced financially through the tax code.

The benefits of the Internal Revenue Code are applied unevenly because richer
people are able to develop the sophistication or acquire service providers who
help them make sure they are getting the best available deal.

Can you imagine if hackers/coders got better deals on products Amazon then
non-coders? It would be absurd to say "well, learn to code or higher an
engineer and you'll save $1000 a year!" That's a pretty close metaphor—we say
"get financially literate! The information is out there! get an accountant!".

Computers, tech, machine learning, and AI are great at making sure all
Americans get The Best Deal Available.

~~~
beaconstudios
I wonder if having tax breaks apply to everyone that could take them would
genuinely cause a Cloward-Piven collapse
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy),
it's a strategy for collapsing a welfare state by doing exactly what you
described, based on the theory that welfare benefits and tax deductions are
not designed to handle 100% use).

------
DarkKomunalec
Right to a defensive trial: If you are prosecuted, you should be allowed to do
nothing, let the court sort it out with a free, publicly-assigned defender,
and _if_ you don't like the verdict, you can dispute it in a second trial.
That way you only have to spend money and time defending yourself against
suits with serious merit. Would seriously hurt patent trolls, and all
nuisance/extortion lawsuits in general.

------
avaer
Freedom from imposition by any non-public government process. If the
government does anything it must be open to public knowledge and scrutiny.

------
dTal
How about:

    
    
      A community has the right to transparency in the forces that govern it.
    

The principle may seem familiar, but it is not currently applied in a broad
sense; Facebook's News Feed algorithm, which can swing elections, is secret.
So is Hacker News's. Our behaviour is carefully shaped and we are not allowed
to know how.

------
EliRivers
The right to privacy of thought, and the right to think anything.

~~~
zebrafish
Crucial in a world where prosthetics and embedded sensors in your body could
soon become common place.

------
jakeogh
The Preamble to the Bill Of Rights is important:
[http://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/pre...](http://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/)

------
Chris2048
I expect this post the become massive, as questions like this are so large a
kind of bike-shedding exercise goes on, but my own 2c:

I think religious rights should have never evolved the way it did.

Religion is clearly different from creed color, etc, it also includes belief,
personality, motivation etc. Instead of becoming power real estate for
established religions to fight over (do 'cults', or atheist institutions get
the same protections), it should have evolved into the right to believe
anything that doesn't motivate you to break the law; in other words,
protection against though-policing.

The flat-earthers should get the same protections as catholics - the right to
hold any belief, be it on faith or otherwise.

~~~
maxerickson
In the US they pretty much do have the same rights.

~~~
Chris2048
the same rights in terms of outcome? They don't literally use the same
legislature, because AFAIK flat-earth beliefs do not qualify for religious
protection.

In fact, some believers wrap their belief structures in an established
religious structure, it seems, _just so_ they have those protections.

One specific concern about this:

Don't like gays? sorry bub, go to jail. Have a religious basis to not like
gays? protected! I choose _this_ contentious example to show that any belief
protected by religious rights, should also be protected when otherwise having
no religious basis; and also _why_ some beliefs shouldn't be protected, even
if religiously based.

When all beliefs not barred are permitted, there will be a lot more motivation
to bar specific kinds of belief - at the moment, the established religions can
push exceptions for their specific beliefs. Put another way - if religion
isn't special, then either racist belief is as valid for a neo-nazi as it is a
church, or that belief is an invalid for a church as a neo-nazi.

~~~
maxerickson
Note that I said in the US, where we have openly racist groups that do not
claim to be religious organizations.

~~~
Chris2048
They have to use different laws if they want to get protection though, and are
liable to "hate" laws that religious organisations be more immune to?

~~~
maxerickson
No, not really. Our speech protections are pretty universal.

There are hate crime laws, but they largely are additional charges in cases of
violence.

A church probably has an easier time demonstrating that they are a non profit
for tax purposes.

------
psyc
The right to innovate and invent without anxiety. To me this means clarifying
copyright and trademark, reducing their abuse by claimants, and abolishing all
patents altogether.

------
rlpb
Freedom of communication. In other words, "unreasonable search and seizure"
extended to all communications. The same caveats - the authorities should be
required to obtain an individual and targeted warrant before being allowed to
(attempt to) intercept, and this should be granted only upon reasonable
suspicion of a crime as determined by a judge.

If they fail to intercept, they could always get warrants to secretly surveil
the suspects, swap or backdoor their hardware, etc.

------
zebrafish
I haven't seen anything on here about the right to be forgotten which I
believe is extremely important.

I also think the right to human autonomy is absolutely crucial. I want the
freedom to choose to drive my own vehicle. I don't want a self-driving vehicle
to dictate where I can and cannot go.

I really think, and this is entering muddy waters, that there should be a
right to anonymity. I should be able to say or do things without people
knowing who I am.

~~~
igk
Right to be forgotten is iffy, because we should have the right to hold public
figures accountable, and that is where it would be mostly used. If you get
arrested for drunk driving, lose all respectability in your community, and
then remove it form the net, your life is still fucked. But if you are Donald
Trump, having the right to immediately depublish things until it is proven
that you are person if interest is usefull.

A right to privacy and a data letter (every outlet and company must inform you
via mail about any data, articles etc on their servers/in their publication in
which personal information about you is involved, if they are either supplying
a service or writing the story) would fill most of that niche in my opinion

Right to autonomy I agree, that is basically stallmann. First sale doctrine,
freedom to tinker, software freedom...things like this

Right to anonymity goes into dangerous territory again...you should have a
right to not be surveilled(privacy), which makes it harder to connect you to
your speech (good). But if somebody figures it out,having the right to stop
that is ...dangerous again.Especially with the bullshit idea that corporate
money is speech, that right would make it illegal to unmask bribery

------
meric
Is "right" the correct abstraction? An alternative might be "obligation".

Bill of obligations:

Article 1: All parents are obligated to either support their children and
provide their physical and educational needs, and give them the emotional
support they need to grow up or leave them up for adoption at the earliest
opportunity.

Article 2: Adult children must financially support their parents by a
percentage of their income while their parents are over the age of 65.

Article 3: The nearest relatives with income to a person with disability are
obligated to support that person financially.

Article 4: The government have obligation to help the needy, the disabled, the
elderly, the abandoned, to search for their nearest relatives and garnish
their wages and income to ensure the persons' needs are fulfilled.

Etc etc. Instead of centralising social welfare payments through the
government, we can place this obligation back towards those nearest to those
who need help. Instead of paying taxes to the government for who knows what
causes, they go directly to those nearest to us, and if supporting them is too
onerous, search for the next nearest relatives.

These articles obligations can be extended to include companies, governments,
institutions. Any entity that doesn't fulfil their obligations can be sued by
anyone, rather than only when they violate the plaintiff's "rights".

~~~
gambiting
This goes directly against personal freedom though, especially points 2-4.

What if you were abused by your parents and/or had some other issues with
them, and you haven't had any contact with them for 30 years? Should you still
pay them after they get over the age of 65?

In general, the whole idea is upsetting to me, over here in EU we pay massive
taxes but they guarantee people in need are taken care off, "garnishing wages"
of nearest relatives sounds just stupid.

~~~
igk
It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is
more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases,
even if we are in a bad situation. You have a right to education, health care,
political participation etc., and part of that right is to be able to
_actually_ do it (i.e., "I could if I chose not to work today, but then I
can't eat"). Property is a means to freedom, not an end, and can be touched
more easily. Hence, taxes are (more) ok.

In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for
freedom. "Negative freedom" \- don't force me to do things, don't touch my
house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I
have the means - is more dominant. Hence, people don't seem to like the idea
of having to pay for "other peoples freedom". It's more palatable to think of
taking care of just your kids/relatives - there is a limited number of them,
and you can probably do that without actually giving up a lot of property. Buy
a big house, move your parents in there, you still have a big house
afterwards.

Of course, this also leads to (or is equivalent) to a "fuck the poor" mindset

~~~
talmand
>> In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis
for freedom.

This doesn't exist in the US anymore, maybe for a long time. People think it
does, but it does not.

>> "Negative freedom" \- don't force me to do things, don't touch my house,
don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have
the means - is more dominant.

People like to think this too, but it doesn't work out that way for most
people.

~~~
igk
Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just
from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in
your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and
his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not _only_ because
of rigging

~~~
talmand
It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board
change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our
liberty and property rights over decades.

Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine
traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain
for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local government
can't get tax increases passed, etc.

There's likely more easily found but those are the first few I can think off
the top of my head. Note that in some areas of the US this sort of thing
happened and there was instant backlash against it in some jurisdictions. But
in others the government moved along just nicely thank you very much.

People think of their homes as their "property" and maybe there is some basis
in "freedom" in that. But most people don't "own" that property in the first
place. Property can mean many different things and many different aspects of
property are in a constant state of seizure by government for its own ends.

~~~
igk
Ah, I misunderstood you then. I got the impression you mean that the _mindset_
had changed. What you describe seems to indicate that the mindset is still the
same, but the reality is changing. And in my opinion, this is exactly due to
the mindset. Especially the thing about fees to sidestep the aversion to
taxes. The police and eminent domain thing sounds like corruption, and maybe
also correlates with your idea of freedom: if freedom is something which is
enabled by society and the restrictions and opportunities that come with it,
you risk some of your freedom if you act in a corrupt manner. If freedom is
something that property gives you, and society is only there to protect your
property because warlording is stressful, then trying to get away with small
corruption becomes desirable.

Your last sentence confirms me in this. "The government" is made up of people
who got into power for idealistic or selfish reasons, yet you refer to it as
its own entity and concept. This gels well with the "lay of mine" concept of
freedom, less well with the "we as a whole enable us all" flavour.

Obviously, I am biased, and I might be interpreting things. If so, please
corrent my misunderstandings if you have the time.

~~~
talmand
I don't fully agree with everything you say, but it's close enough along the
lines of what I'm saying that I can't disagree with it either. It's a
complicated thing with a huge gray area surrounding it, there's room for
multiple trains of thought that can be reasonably correct. I think that's a
fact many people tend to forget when discussing such matters.

But I would say that the mindset hasn't changed per se, but I think it's
starting to get there.

------
bbcbasic
The right to total privacy in email and messaging communications.

The right to a speedy trial - you get freed from jail ROR if not tried within
3 months.

------
emhac
The right for the energy (food, fuel), insulation (clothes, room) and
information (internet) necessary to live long and prosper.

------
NicenJehr
Freedom of Information:

Its rediculous that one can be jailed, thieved or killed for: possessing
someone else's number, telling someone a secret number, or refusing to share
the correct number with someone.

These problems only exist because society believes in, and enforces, ownership
of ideas

~~~
afarrell
So, given that a jpg is just a very large number, I infer from your framing
thst you are in favor of legalizing:

\- leaking someone's private medical records

\- sending weapons designs to a foreign power

\- selling photos of child abuse

Correct?

~~~
gambiting
All three actions you listed can remain illegal, while owning the
information(or to keep with the analogy "a very large number") should be fully
legal.

It's not illegal to have a case full of medical records, but stealing them or
releasing them without permission is illegal, no?

~~~
talmand
Depends on the item in question; sometimes mere possession of an item, even if
obtained legally, can be illegal.

------
krapp
Why do we need a "Bill of Rights" at all?

Rights exist because they are insisted upon and asserted by the people, not
because a government or a document declares that they exist.

------
vivekd
The right to be secure from unreasonable electronic Surveillance

------
jchen11
Free access to internet and online university for those that can't pay for
brick and mortar degrees would be reasonable in terms of cost and efficacy.

~~~
Gustomaximus
I feel one of the bigger challengers for online university is the examination
system as much as the course.

If someone could organise a monthly 'exam hall'. Over time you could even
build prestige on these courses same as large university if you can guarantee
the examination process is robust.

Thinking about it... I think you'd need;

\- A place where people have to physically turn up.

\- Paid/volunteer monitors do a proof of person ID check and some photo or
physical ID check as students notoriously do other student exams in some unis.

\- Exam content has to be original to avoid rote leaning form doing past
exams.

\- Exam content to be provided at test commencement on individual screens,
communal projector or print out in the room that only get released as the exam
starts. This way People cant gain early access to anything.

\- Web cams must be set up to show the exam room so effectively there is
another level of monitors and the physically present monitors are monitored
too. This again would reduce the risk of graft.

\- Exam paper/results must be collected immediately from exam with something
to ensure the person who did the work uploads their own, e.g. At the end of
the exam people are called by name to walk to the front of the hall and scan
their paper.

I'm sure there would be a bunch more to it than that but it seems to me once
you could guarantee results are genuine there is a great opportunity to have
recognised online courses that can have all the prestige of unis (less
networking effect). Without believable results it will always be a challenge
and learning will be for learning sake, not the recognition factor
universities provide.

------
alistoriv
The right to food and shelter. It really is ridiculous that we don't guarantee
access to basic human needs.

------
Jessinho
hello friends can you help me

