Internet As a Human Right
According to a recent poll by the BBC, four out of five people believe that Internet access should be a fundamental human right. Jono Bacon and Stuart ‘Aq’ Langridge explore the nuances of the issues involved such as what we consider the Internet, how it could potentially work, how different countries have approached the issue and what the potential could be if the Internet was truly enshrined as a core human right.
Remember, we are the very start of the conversation! This is a phenomenal opportunity for a fun and vibrant conversation in the Shot Of Jaq community. What do you think? Should it and could it be a human right? If so, how could it be controlled, how would be restricted and how could it be funded? Share your views in the shot comments below…
44 Comments to “Internet As a Human Right”
Leave a Reply
It would be regarded as unacceptable to respond to infringing photocopying by denying people the right to use libraries. It seems even more problematic to deny a whole family access to job listings, e-governement, the most accessible method of freedom of expression and what is often the primary means of communication merely due to accusations of infringement based purely on a spoofable IP address and no court verification.
Oh, and it’s going to take 4chan about 5 mins to start spoofing people off the net, too.
I think the Finnish have it right when it comes to access.. I mean you can’t force people to get an internet connection but if they want one they should be able to get it without paying an arm and a leg. Where I live there are areas where you can’t get cable and people have to use 3G.
Also if the internet is a basic right it should be indiscriminate. It’s just like the freedom of speech: it’s up to the people to decide what they want not to any government body… well there are some exceptions but baring any infringement on other peoples rights there should be no restrictions.
Oh and if it were up to me I’d abolish copyright. Maybe replace it with something like the right to be credited for ones work and the right to be compensated if it is used for economic gain. Get those so called artists back to a honest job…
Without wishing to derail the discussion, how are artists doing a dishonest job?
OK taking the discussion way off topic.
Is it morally right that the Beatles, a group that disbanded 30 years ago earn £1Million per year. Why is an sculptor only paid once for their art work. Or an Architect have so much less impact on our society that they only earn a single fee for a job.
The rights that copyright enables has massively distorted the arts and needs reform.
You mean, like copyright?
ok I’ve got to the end of the shot now … great one guys !!
What I’d like to add regarding the importance of internet access compared to other problems is that internet is really important for the development of 3rd world countries. Africa has very slow and fairly expensive internet connections. Most people in South Africa for example are limited to 3G connections. So in an age where the developed world relies so heavily on the internet for business you can imagine this is a real issue. Poor countries are caught in this loop where they can’t afford anything better and what they have is not good enough.
My internet connection is solely a matter between myself and my ISP. As such it should only be governed by my own and my ISP’s freedom of contract. Government intervention in any form (including any subsidy of service or infrastructure) is something which I totally oppose. As far as I am concerned there exist no such things as “human rights”; only private property rights and the freedom of contract which can be exercised by the owners of that property (including their own bodies) over it.
Government, whether national or international, should leave these things well alone.
Where does life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness fit into that scheme? They seem like valuable attributes to have, to me.
I agree that those are tremendously important things. Indeed, they are wholly compatible with and even arise from the very ideas of self-ownership and private property.
I don’t see where “liberty” fits into that, unless you take a maximal view that no-one has the right to lock you up or punish you for any reason whatsoever because of your sovereignty over your body, in which case we’re gonna disagree on this
I am going to guess from what you have said that you are an American. I think you will find that your government is busy negotiating a treaty where your Internet connection will become a matter between you, your ISP, the music companies, the movie companies, the software companies, and any other large company who feels like getting involved. And yes, the government will stay out of the picture and let whoever has the most money dictate the terms.
If you happen to have more money than some of the world’s largest multinational corporations, well then congratulations to you. Most of us however are not quite so fortunate at that and would like a bit of protection from the rich and powerful.
Actually, I’m English.
Would you support anti-trust as a form of intervention to preserve a free market, though?
Living in France I have the joyous HADOPI so this one is fairly relevant for me! I find it relativly disgusting the way the whole law was pushed through over here. Even so far as the head of French TV who is a friend of Sarkozy had a one sided debate tell us all how great the law was etc.
I really think internet access has to be protected becasue it seems with regards those in the RIAA and similar organisations will stop at nothing to attack what is basically my lifeline to earning my living for a start. Aq said the French passed a law that it was a right in France, I’m not entirely sure how they can then go and pass a law like HADOPI. I really do hope someone does step in becasue there is a very serious and dangerously powerful set of groups out there than who’d like nothing better than to side beside us as we go online.
I don’t doubt some people do indeed infringe, but as those above have stated, forging an IP is no big deal and if your kids end up knocking out the family income then it’s a bit of an issue!
Can you explain what HADOPI is?
‘The HADOPI law or Creation and Internet law (French: Loi favorisant la diffusion et la protection de la création sur Internet, “law promoting the distribution and protection of creative works on the internet”) is a French law introduced during 2009. The law attempts to control and regulate internet access as a means to encourage compliance with copyright laws. “HADOPI” is the government agency created by the eponymous law.’
The very short version is three strikes law for France, complete with very harsh IP penalties and weak protections against wrongful accusation.
And that HADOPI has Increased the amount of p2p file sharing activity, as people now know that they are OK using p2p until they have received 2 letters.
Wow I just reread what I wrote there.. clearly so enraged by the French judicial system that words are failing me..
Great shot guys. I agree with Aq that if you’re going to guarantee the right to Internet access, you can’t discriminate between, say, Facebook and Wikipedia. Facebook obviously has a lot of “legitimate” uses beyond playing FarmVille (and even playing online games could be considered important if you are, say, making a living as a games programmer), and BitTorrent has legitimate uses beyond downloading Kanye West albums – distributing Linux, as a small example! (Though I understand you were playing devil’s advocate with some of your comments, jono
)
I think the bigger problem is the practical challenge of actually getting broadband Internet access to everyone, should it be declared a human right. That’s where I agree that maybe figuring out better ways of distributing food to people should take precedence over figuring out how to get broadband to people in rural areas.
I agree.
I think my point about choice of sites is that if someone wanted to use the Internet just to consume entertainment, should that be considered a human right. I think if we break practicalities down, right to information and help we would all agree is a human right, but I am not sure that if someone only uses the resource for entertainment if that counts.
What do you think?
It’s a good point in theory, jono, but the problem is, practically, how do you discriminate between people using the Internet for entertainment vs for work? Even if selectively blocking sites like in China were a good idea, it wouldn’t be enough, because many sites can be used for both entertainment and “legitimate” purposes. Even Wikipedia – I’ve spent hours reading about various topics on there for no purpose other than my personal amusement.
If we’re talking about someone suing specifically on the claim that they don’t have access to play online games, then, well, they’re basically an idiot.
They could easily make the claim that they needed to be online for some other purpose, and then go ahead and play those games once they got access. Without Big Brother looking over their shoulder, who’s to know?
And a further argument – if the idea of a human right is to preserve “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, then playing games and wasting time should be allowed under the “happiness” bit. Sure, illegally downloading music off BitTorrent should not fall under the heading of human rights, but there are already other laws against that (even if they are widely ignored).
I think you highlight the complexities involved in the issue well. I think we would all agree that if the Internet was a human right and it was only ever used for the purpose it was intended for and not abused (particularly with people claiming their human rights were violated for playing Farmville at work) it would be a good thing. I just don’t how much of a reality that could be.
What I was talking about is not so much that we should block access to certain kinds of content, but instead that we should have measures in place to prevent the litigious from making insane claims and foobaring the system.
I would disagree on the basis that some people may only use the internet for entertainment – but that entertainment may comprise their entire social structure (whether by choice or for medical reason, etc.) I think the internet has to be a right for all regardless of use – even trolls need to be fed from time to time.
The problem I see is in determining what is and what isn’t proper content. I learn a lot by following technology people on twitter – but others may only post about what they are having for lunch – would we say that it is ok for the one to use twitter and the other not.
An excellent shot!
I think this is all part of a much larger argument: is free access to information a human right? If access to the Internet is considered a human right then what about access to books? Magazines? News papers? Public speeches? Political proceedings? How does a government ensure that all these sources of information are available in a non-discriminatory manner? Does it become the job of a government to set up a well stocked, free access library within 1 kilometer of every home?
Personally, I think access to information is a fundamental human right. Even before “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” Jefferson wrote of the fundamental equality of man. Unequal access to information seems, to me, to be incongruent with the fundamental equality among humans upon which the very concept of human rights is based.
My ideal solution would be a network of free public libraries across the globe (with free, uncensored, broadband internet access in each), together with laws requiring all publishers to include at least one copy every published work in the network. Any individual could walk into a library, get access to the internet, read the latest news, and request text publications from anywhere in the network.
That is an interesting slant: should we legally require publishing to provide information freely available for the greater benefit of the human race, such as in libraries?
I think the subject is very relevant to everyone, considering that “three strikes” seems to be part of the new ACTA treaty that is being negotiated in secret. What “Internet as a human right” would mean in this context is that you can’t have your Internet connection shut off just because Sony Music says so.
Just for the record, I don’t pirate music, videos, or software and I have no desire to do so. For those who do such things, there are already existing laws to deal with these matters.
“Internet as a human right” is essentially recognising that the Internet has taken the place of the mail, the newspaper, and (to a large extent) the telephone. What is the point of having a “freedom of the press” if you can outlaw presses? What is the point of “freedom of speech” if you can silence the means of speaking? I think that this is the point which is being addressed. “Freedom of the press” doesn’t mean the government has to buy me a printing press. It does however mean that Sony Music doesn’t get the right to come in and smash my presses just because they don’t happen to like what I have to say about them.
The net is a service not a right. Food and water is a right lets sort that out first before we start adding power, computers and the internet. In the western world internet access isnt a need but its very useful. I think at least in Europe and the US we should have some sort of base level broadband available to everyone for free. In Ireland we are moving from analog to digital country wide TV and it would be great to include dsl speed internet with the changeover.
The internet is the wild west at the moment but if the governments give us free internet it would have to be restricted by the law of that country. It makes perfect sense.
Is it wise to suggest that we fix one thing (food, water) before other things? Can’t they happen in tandem?
Very interesting shot, guys!
In the end it all boils down to the old discussion between civil and political rights (or 1st generation rights like freedom of speech, demonstration and so on) and social and economic rights (or 2nd generation rights like right to food, shelter, water, education and so on). This is a very old debate that got a lot of fuel from the Cold War with the Western block favouring 1st generation rights and the Eastern block favouring the 2nd generation.
What it means in practice is: should the state actually do something positive or should the citizens just have a negative title? 2nd generation rights cost money for the state whereas allowing someone to speak his mind is free. Whereas 1st generation rights are important, the question is what good they are if you cannot use them due to lack of education or because you don’t have time to go on demonstrations because you have to work 18 hours a day to earn your living.
In this debate it means that restricting internet access to a mere first generation right would allow us to fight back against the state when it prevents information (like in China) or blocks our access (like in France), whereas a second generation right would mean that the state has to take active steps so that the whole population is able to access the internet.
Especially in the country of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” a large part of the population is very poor and marginalized and has no access to the internet. As mentioned before, this means that they don’t have access to online job markets, educational facilities (including Wikipedia) and also entertainment and social interaction (whereas Farmville is complete bullshit for everyone here, a 12 year old girl probably has a hard time if she is the only person in class who cannot herd online cows).
The next interesting point would then be where the 3rd generation rights come in – group centred rights like the right to a sustainable environment or the right to development. Are Western states under a duty to facilitate broadband in developing countries that cannot afford it themselves or shall we go on like we do now and send our telecommunication companies over to make a business out of poverty?
The internet is not a human right! Internet access is not a human right either! Lets examine the three most basic human rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. First up, life. In every country, that I can think of, murder is illegal, minus the case of a convicted felon sentenced to death (very controversial though). This is not really disputed except in the certain fascist and communist countries that slaughter millions (Stalin or Mao anyone?). How does this pertain to internet access, it does not. The internet does not have the ability to give or take life. Those who make a living on the internet do not have right to internet access either. They have a choice of using and earning a living on the internet. They don’t have to work over the internet, they chose that. For those claiming they can’t find a job, because they don’t have internet access, I say they don’t want job if they are too lazy to get off their ass and go look for one. Have you tried the unemployment office, they have the internet available for job searching. Second, liberty, what does this right encompass? It encompasses one ability to have thoughts and ideas, with out fear of persecution or imprisonment, and/or theft of those ideas. Another aspect of liberty is the ability to have free will and control over ones self ownership. The argument that the internet should be a right because freedom of speech is a right, under the definition of liberty, is rendered moot because if one does not have internet access does not mean that this same person cannot have ideas or thoughts and/or speak about said things. It just means if they want a audience that is larger than their community, they will have to purchase the SERVICE from an ISP (whether it be broadband or dialup). Third, the pursuit of happiness, what does this encompass? This encompasses ones ability to go out and pursue what ever it is that makes them happy. It does NOT guaranty them happiness, it only guaranties that they will be able to PURSUE it. It disgusts me, the amount of people saying things like, health care is a right, or the internet is a right, or even that education is a right. These things are not a right, they are privileges! If these things were required to make this country (U.S.) as prosperous as it is, then they would have been in the bill of rights, other wise this country (U.S.) would have never gotten as far as it has. Why does everyone want this stuff for free? Do you work for free, because, that will be the next step! It is when you have the government trying to micromanage ever aspect of your life that you begin to loose your rights.
But surely if the Internet is becoming an ever increasing place where you have to find information to help pursue the liberties and rights covered by the declaration of human rights, it becomes something which we should also provide access to?
Essentially what I am saying is that if we rely on the Internet more and more, does it not become a critical part of our lives?
Adam: I could be wrong, but you seem to be assuming that the internet is a free (as in speech) market. You also seem to be assuming that access to the internet is legally obtainable. Both assumptions are correct only within a very limited parameter space.
Part of the question here is whether access to the internet is protected. That is, should a government or any other organization or individual be able to prevent a person from accessing the internet? Should a government or any other organization or individual be able to censor the internet?
Another way to phrase the question is, “Has the internet become so pervasive and so necessary for modern society that denying access to the internet is equivalent to physical imprisonment?”
The US Founding Fathers lived in very different times. Many of them saw no problem with the forced slavery of a minority population, or killing one another over petty arguments. Both were legal. Today, neither is. Just because the US Constitution does not mention internet access does not mean it should not be enshrined as a right, just like free speech.
Btw, quick tip, Busby, if you want to reply to someone (such as Adam), you can hit the ‘Reply’ link on their message.
Adam…welcome back to 1500 Education is not a right? seems like you benefited from it. This isn’t the “teabagger” forum you know
I wouldn’t necessarily call it human right but in point when everything is online here (bank, government bureaucracy etc…), it would also be nice everyone to have access to all this.
Anyway, I used to live countryside with absolutely horrible internet connection but I don’t know has this changed to better after they decided that everyone should have chance to access broadband in Finland. I doubt at least at the moment.
There should also be a right to not be on-line.
I can see the time when you have to interact with some authorities electronically. What if I don’t want to file my Tax return electronically but send in a paper form!
Interesting point: we haven’t really explored whether human rights should cover not requiring a given resources.
Do you think this could be applied elsewhere?
Has Jono drunk the copyright cool-aid? did anyone notice the scorn in his voice when he talked about downloading “kanye west’s” new album? Now of course I know you were being sarcastic but you raise a good point in my mind. Downloading copyrighted music shouldn’t be part of my “human right” but the way the laws around it are being crafted(at the behest of big content(c)) we don’t have any rights at all. So far here in the usa the only way they can say “no net access for you and your whole family” is if you have committed some infamous crime using a computer BUT in that case there is due process not just the “I accuse you” 3 times scenario. this gives too much control to ip holders(usualy not the artists they claim to protect)
If something is a basic human right, one consequence of that is that people can’t be deprived of it – even prisoners. So just because you’ve locked someone up for burglary, it’s still morally wrong to deny them food or shelter or clothing.
Internet access does not fall into that “basic” category. And neither does liberty, actually – because people can be deprived of it after due process. So maybe internet access falls into the same category as liberty – you can’t be deprived of it without due process.
As for the positive “governments should do more” version of it being a human right, I’m in agreement with Tim Sheridan. Private enterprise has done a pretty good job in the UK of providing internet access.
If you live in the middle of nowhere, there are positives and negatives to that. Positives: peaceful environment, beautiful scenery. Negatives: internet access is more expensive and slower (satellite). Why should the taxes of those who choose society over isolation be used to mitigate the downsides of the choices of people who chose isolation over society? They have every right to make that choice, but they need to accept its consequences.
Let’s all make sure we understand one thing: liberty is a human right.
From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Article 13: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
And the caveat: 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.”
In other words, if the exercise of your human rights is deemed to violate the human rights of others, society may remove from you the ability to exercise those rights.
For the full declaration: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Was anyone arguing that liberty isn’t a human right?
Food, water and shelter.
Then some form of Internet access for all and something like the cheap clamshell laptops to be distributed
and that would help greater than books in education.
I see other people have long between me to the punch. So I’ll just offer a me-too comment…
Access to the Internet should never be a “human right”. Look, I get grumpy just like the next guy when my Internet connection goes down. But can I live without it? Yes. I somehow lived for the longest time without touching the Internet or the Web. Yes, my life is bettered by the Internet/Web but it isn’t something I need to live.
Besides everyone here should know the following routine: a) Declare that something is an essential service. b) Now claim to regulate it to improve it. c) Botch the whole damn thing with incompetent bureaucrats, sleazy politicians and greedy corps. d) Now said something sucks. e) So now to fix suckiness GOTO a. Ad infinitum.
Part of the point I was trying to make in the discussion is that “human rights” have been declared repeatedly to be more than just the bare minimum for survival. You can live without freedom to worship, too.