Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Should the internet be considered a human right?


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 JosiahK

JosiahK

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:00 PM

Posted 05 June 2011 - 10:15 AM

As per this thread.

My feeling is that such a ruling is really quite pathetic. Billions of people live without any kind of internet access at all, as did all people a century ago. People are still living without enough food, and the UN is complaining that they don't have internet access? That seems a tad steep.

My feeling is that such a decision actually degrades human rights themselves, making more fundamental things like "the right to life, liberty and security of person" less valuable.
Quod non mortiferum, fortiorem me facit.
I don't read minds. Please help everyone by answering any questions and reporting on the results of any instructions. Query any concerns and explain problems or complications.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,763 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:00 PM

Posted 05 June 2011 - 06:27 PM

My thought is, lets assume it is a right for a second or two here. The UK is basically saying theyre taking it away from people who are using it to break the law as punishment. So, if the internet is a right, whats wrong with taking it away? In the US voting and owning firearms are rights, but they can be taken away if you commit certain crimes (felonies, and they should take these rights away) so what is wrong with taking the right of "Internet" away from those commiting internet related crimes? There isnt any really. If internet is not a right, then again, there is no moral reason against taking it away from people misusing it. So either way you look at it, the UK has the "right" to take away the internet from people who would use it for evil, and the UN needs to pull its fingers out and let the countries run themselves.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#3 Animal

Animal

    Bleepin' Animinion


  • Site Admin
  • 35,511 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where You Least Expect Me To Be
  • Local time:03:00 PM

Posted 05 June 2011 - 11:32 PM

I see it as a human right to have free and open access to the Internet. I don't feel that it is a human right to have Internet access provided. By this I mean if I don't have the financial ability to pay for Internet access and the library has it available to me I should have the right to access the Internet. The issue here is that if there is a revolution in a country and people are rising up against human rights atrocities, the dictatorship cuts off all Internet access to quell the communication of a minority. That becomes a human rights issue where everyone loses Internet access, and this is the point of where it becomes a human rights issue. It's not that governments must provide access. It's that governments should not deny all access to a free Internet in the effort to silence critics of that government.

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown (1938-1994)


A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination circles the world." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#4 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,763 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:00 PM

Posted 05 June 2011 - 11:56 PM

in that case I agree with you animal, but the original issue was they were denying internet to people use it to commit illegal acts, such as pirating and hacking-I see that as justified. Now denying the internet to someone just because they believe differnetly then you thats a different matter altogether.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#5 Animal

Animal

    Bleepin' Animinion


  • Site Admin
  • 35,511 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where You Least Expect Me To Be
  • Local time:03:00 PM

Posted 06 June 2011 - 12:07 AM

I was responding to the second quote regarding Syria. Not the British and French copyright/hacking criminal acts response. Criminal activity is criminal activity as defined by law, justifies a response by those charged with it's enforcement.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. ~ Baretta

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown (1938-1994)


A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination circles the world." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#6 Drovers Dog

Drovers Dog

  • Members
  • 1,048 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Local time:08:00 AM

Posted 06 June 2011 - 04:02 AM

I am with Animal here, no one should ever to use the Net Illegally.


the_patriot11,

You did actually say this,

The UK is basically saying theyre taking it away from people who are using it to break the law as punishment.

That is what enacted Animal and I.

It is about the UN?

No Offense, I make many typos, my self, but that one really could have led to confusion? Animal did himself proud by trying to correct it, I just tried to clarified it from another way?

Just some Aussie think? If I am wrong, sorry?

Ray.

Edited by Drovers Dog, 06 June 2011 - 04:23 AM.

What ever you give to others, you will get back doubled, Just make sure you only give Nice Things?......DD saying

There is a saying, "You just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" it means "to be happy with what you have and not look for the impossible"......DD saying

The "Spirit" of the people who died, on that terrible day 9/11 will NEVER REST until such time as the "Imbeciles" that caused it, are eliminated through out the World.....DD saying

What is a Dog?

#7 Drovers Dog

Drovers Dog

  • Members
  • 1,048 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Local time:08:00 AM

Posted 06 June 2011 - 04:34 AM

@ JosiahK

You received some very Positive Replies, now look for Positive feed back, with Links?

I will love to see you do it, Mate. :thumbsup:

Ray.

Edited by Drovers Dog, 06 June 2011 - 04:35 AM.

What ever you give to others, you will get back doubled, Just make sure you only give Nice Things?......DD saying

There is a saying, "You just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" it means "to be happy with what you have and not look for the impossible"......DD saying

The "Spirit" of the people who died, on that terrible day 9/11 will NEVER REST until such time as the "Imbeciles" that caused it, are eliminated through out the World.....DD saying

What is a Dog?

#8 JosiahK

JosiahK
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:00 PM

Posted 06 June 2011 - 10:55 AM

Whether it is appropriate to strip rights from criminals aside, what aspect of the internet is seen as a human right?

Is it the ability to communicate?
Access to information?
Facebook and similar socialization sites?

The internet is far too big to say it is a human right in itself. Clearly there isn't a fundamental human right to play World of Warcraft, download illegal songs movies and programs, browse pedophile pornography, etc. (in order of decreasing acceptability)

Edited by JosiahK, 06 June 2011 - 11:56 AM.

Quod non mortiferum, fortiorem me facit.
I don't read minds. Please help everyone by answering any questions and reporting on the results of any instructions. Query any concerns and explain problems or complications.

#9 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,763 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:00 PM

Posted 06 June 2011 - 11:18 PM

To a point, in my mind, at least in america, we have the right to pursue life liberty, happiness etc. People enjoy the internet. I think a law abiding citizen should indeed, at least have the ability to have the internet if said person can afford it. Its not something I think that the government should pay for or anything like that, to me its like a car, we have the right to purchase a vehicle, or a tv if we can afford it, the internet should be the same, unless they do something to revoke that. You drink and drive, you lose your right to drive, you use the internet to steal you lose the internet.

And it was no typo, it is france and the UK that has decided to take the internet away from people misusing it, and they should, it is the UN that is stepping in and arguing, and the UN should take its fingers out they have absolutly no right to tell a country what laws it can and cannot follow, the UN was meant as a peacekeeping organization, and that is what it needs to be, to step in and help keep peace between countries, not govern them. UK taking the internet away from criminals isn't a act of war on anyone and is none of the UNs business.

Edited by the_patriot11, 06 June 2011 - 11:20 PM.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#10 Animal

Animal

    Bleepin' Animinion


  • Site Admin
  • 35,511 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where You Least Expect Me To Be
  • Local time:03:00 PM

Posted 07 June 2011 - 12:46 AM

To all the above by the_patriot11: + 1 :thumbup2:

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown (1938-1994)


A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination circles the world." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#11 Drovers Dog

Drovers Dog

  • Members
  • 1,048 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Local time:08:00 AM

Posted 07 June 2011 - 04:23 AM

You have my Vote on that as well, the_patriot11, there is NOT ONE PERSON IN THIS WORLD THAT HAS A RIGHT TO ACT ILLEGALLY, I DON'T CARE WHO! IF THEY ACT ILLEGALLY THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED. End of Story.

Ray,

Edited by Drovers Dog, 07 June 2011 - 04:24 AM.

What ever you give to others, you will get back doubled, Just make sure you only give Nice Things?......DD saying

There is a saying, "You just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" it means "to be happy with what you have and not look for the impossible"......DD saying

The "Spirit" of the people who died, on that terrible day 9/11 will NEVER REST until such time as the "Imbeciles" that caused it, are eliminated through out the World.....DD saying

What is a Dog?

#12 killerx525

killerx525

    Bleepin' Aussie


  • Members
  • 7,220 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia
  • Local time:09:00 AM

Posted 07 June 2011 - 09:16 AM

I also agree with you Ray although have no argument points here to share.(I SUCK at debating, that is why i didn't join the debating team :whistle: ) Also you guys are awesome with debating espcially that topic about evolution vs creation, that went berserk :crazy:

Edited by killerx525, 07 June 2011 - 09:17 AM.

>Michael 
System1: CPU- Intel Core i7-5820K @ 4.4GHz, CPU Cooler- Noctua NH-D14, RAM- G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Kit(4Gx4) DDR3 2133MHz, SSD/HDD- Samsung 850 EVO 250GB/Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB/Seagate Barracuada 3TB, GPU- 2x EVGA GTX980 Superclocked @1360/MHz1900MHz, Motherboard- Asus X99 Deluxe, Case- Custom Mac G5, PSU- EVGA P2-1000W, Soundcard- Realtek High Definition Audio, OS- Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit
Games: APB: Reloaded, Hours played: 3100+  System2: Late 2011 Macbook Pro 15inch   OFw63FY.png


#13 JosiahK

JosiahK
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 269 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:00 PM

Posted 07 June 2011 - 06:23 PM

What seems to be the original report can be found here:
http://documents.latimes.com/un-report-internet-rights/
If anyone sees it on a site that seems to have a greater association to the UN it would be nice to know, likewise if there's a copy of the PDF that can be downloaded to the local machine.


I agree very strongly with the apparently prevailing view that people who break the law should be punished, that it would be appropriate in some cases for such punishment to involve denying access to the internet, and that the UN has no real business in saying what laws are made by sovereign states.

The points that they are making are interesting however, especially the one numbered 20. They say that it's an article 19 of the UDoHR issue, being the right to free expression. They also include the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" as important.
They actually acknowledge that the exercise of such rights should be restricted where the rights or reputations of others are concerned, and where it could cause public disorder or a loss of national security. It seems to me that not only is stolen copyright clearly accounted for in the first restriction, even the demonstrations in the middle east are accounted for in the second. Regardless of which side you take (one man's freedom fighter is another man's guerrilla terrorist) they certainly aren't good for public order!
Quod non mortiferum, fortiorem me facit.
I don't read minds. Please help everyone by answering any questions and reporting on the results of any instructions. Query any concerns and explain problems or complications.

#14 Eyesee

Eyesee

    Bleepin Teck Shop


  • BC Advisor
  • 3,545 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the middle of Kansas
  • Local time:05:00 PM

Posted 07 June 2011 - 10:18 PM

The last time I read the Constitution of the United States of America was last month.

Last I read, the only "human rights" are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That is good enough for me!

Nothing about internet access.

Edited by Eyesee, 07 June 2011 - 10:19 PM.

In the beginning there was the command line.

#15 MacFall

MacFall

  • Members
  • 18 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:00 PM

Posted 07 June 2011 - 11:11 PM

How can something which did not exist for the first God-knows-how-many thousands of years of human existence possibly be a right?

Rights are moral propositions (since they imply that they can be justly maintained through force), and as such can logically only be things which are available to all people, in all situations, at all times. If internet is a right, then man has been engaging in constant moral failure from the beginning of his existence until the mid-1990s. Any assertion of a right to something opens a Pandora's box. Once the principle is established, anything that anybody wants enough can be considered a "right" if they get a government to agree with them. If internet, why not video games? Why not Ferraris and vacations in the Bahamas?

Furthermore, any supposed right to something necessarily violates someone's rights against aggression, which is what the concept of rights originally meant. Essentially, everyone who has not aggressed against another person has a right to be left alone. If you're not shooting anyone, nobody can just come up and shoot you. If you haven't stolen anyone's car, nobody can just take your car without permission. And if you haven't stolen anyone else's internet, then nobody has a right to force you to pay for theirs.

You can argue from other (necessarily utilitarian) directions that the state ought to coerce people to provide for other people's internet, but don't call it a right. A person has no more of a right to internet at another person's expense than he has to chocolate ice cream at another person's expense.

But then, by the same standard, it is just as true that a peaceful person's use of the internet, justly acquired, cannot be justly interrupted. The supposed right to the internet in this case is a confusion of the matter - what is actually being discussed is the right of people to go peaceably about their business without coercive interference. A peaceful person has the right to use his justly-acquired internet access not because of a right to the internet, but because that is an expression of his right against aggression. The state, as usual, has confused matters by calling something a "right" when they mean that it is a privilege - something that they can threaten to take away if you act in a manner of which they disapprove, irrespective of your actual rights.

In the end, this only serves to show the hypocrisy of the government. They call something a right, a moral proposition implying inalienability and universality - but then completely fail to treat it as such.

Edited by MacFall, 07 June 2011 - 11:18 PM.

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users