Thread: Internet access is a human right

United Nations report: Internet access is a human right
June 3, 2011

Internet access is a human right, according to a United Nations report released on Friday.

"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," said the report from Frank La Rue, a special rapporteur to the United Nations, who wrote the document "on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression."

La Rue said in his report that access to the Internet is particularly important during times of political unrest, as demonstrated by the recent "Arab Spring" uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, among other countries.
From the report:

The Special Rapporteur believes that the Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency in the conduct of the powerful, access to information, and for facilitating active citizen participation in building democratic societies.

Indeed, the recent wave of demonstrations in countries across the Middle East and North African region has shown the key role that the Internet can play in mobilizing the population to call for justice, equality, accountability and better respect for human rights.

The report notes that while the Internet has been in existence since the 1960s, it is the way people now use the Internet, across the world and across age groups, with "incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life," that makes the Internet an unprecedented force.

DOCUMENT: Read the United Nations report

"According to the International Telecommunication Union, the total number of Internet users worldwide is now over 2 billion," the report said, also pointing out the huge growth in the number of active users on Facebook, which has surged from 150 million in 2009 to 600 million this year.

La Rue also urges governments to eschew laws that allow for people's access to the Internet to be blocked.

From the report:

The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States' international human rights obligations, whether it is through the application of existing criminal laws to online expression, or through the creation of new laws specifically designed to criminalize expression on the Internet.

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.

La Rue describes the Internet as "revolutionary" and unlike any other communication medium such as radio, television or printed publications, which are "based on one-way transmission of information."

The Internet, on the other hand, is an "interactive medium" that allows not only for the sharing of information, but also "collaboration in the creation of content," which makes people "no longer passive recipients, but also active publishers of information."

As such, the Internet can be a tool of empowerment and aid in the protection of and access to other human rights -- as well as contributing to growth economically, socially and politically -- benefiting mankind as a whole.

From the report:

Such platforms are particularly valuable in countries where there is no independent media, as they enable individuals to share critical views and to find objective information.

Furthermore, producers of traditional media can also use the Internet to greatly expand their audiences at nominal cost. More generally, by enabling individuals to exchange information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders, the Internet allows access to information and knowledge that was previously unattainable.

This, in turn, contributes to the discovery of the truth and progress of society as a whole.

But while La Rue argues that Internet access is a basic human right, he also notes that giving people that right isn't yet always feasible in every nation. But that shouldn't stop governments from trying to give their people affordable access to the Web.

From the report:

Given that access to basic commodities such as electricity remains difficult in many developing States, the Special Rapporteur is acutely aware that universal access to the Internet for all individuals worldwide cannot be achieved instantly.

However, the Special Rapporteur reminds all States of their positive obligation to promote or to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and the means necessary to exercise this right, including the Internet.

Hence, States should adopt effective and concrete policies and strategies –- developed in consultation with individuals from all segments of society, including the private sector as well as relevant Government ministries -– to make the Internet widely available, accessible and affordable to all.

latimesblogs.latimes.com

Absolutely. Governments must give their people Internet, so they can ban wikileaks, blogs and anything else that they might possibly oppose.

The problem with this concept of "rights" is that UN behaves as though these ineffable wispy things called "rights" exist (a bit like how people assume that the "soul" or "mind" exists).

The problem is that "rights" are by definition a "moral vector", in that they don't exist independent of a cultural context (i.e. origin) or objective (i.e. direction). So to buy into the UN's highly axiomatic definition of "rights", by implication, you have to buy into their culture and their objectives; yet it's palpably obvious that their culture and objectives is at odds with very many human cultures extant in the world.

"Rights" are a ruleset defined within an ideological system - like a religion or political value-set: a subjective moral system. Defining an objective moral system, without some basis in evolutionary psychology, risks becoming a lowest-common-denominator system, and susceptible to the prisoner's dilemma.
Take away the actual ideological systems that humans invent as part of their development of civilisations to increase their adaptiveness (i.e. evolve), and nobody actually has any "rights" at all... just the rational chemo-biological drive to survive and prosper.

Reading between the lines, as the UN is more inclined towards the Atlantic world's cultural grouping, this statement amounts to a declaration of cyberwar on most of the states of the developing world. It is effectively a pretext to any NATO cyber-strikes or "defensive actions" that are looking increasingly inevitable as China looks for ways to have it's cake an eat it in terms of: suppressing it's population; maintaining a fascist bureaucracy; and maintaining double-digit (or near double-digit) growth.

In terms of the UN's culture, the legitimate grounds are that they officially believe that all people should have freedom of expression... but in the real world, there are many sound legal, moral, pragmatic political and economic reasons why they shouldn't.
What they are really saying is that they want revolutions to take place in these countries, and, in terms, the UN is effectively advocating regime change.

You can't really call it a "fundamental human right", because those can only really be the ones that support our basic biological needs for survival as individuals, as members of a group, or as a species.

People have lots of time to waste on a Sunday, don't they.

That's a pathetic response harry, even for your usually poor standards.
I found Nemo's post very interesting, there are points I hadn't considered.
I guess it's just a bit too much for you to comprehend, but surprised you didn't work your favorite angle into it about wogs getting shot for being ungrateful cunts.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

The problem is that "rights" are by definition a "moral vector", in that they don't exist independent of a cultural context (i.e. origin) or objective (i.e. direction). So to buy into the UN's highly axiomatic definition of "rights", by implication, you have to buy into their culture and their objectives;

But surely that's why the U.N. exists in the first place- to create a framework where the concept of rights can be seen outside of existing borders.

Originally Posted by Neo

That's a pathetic response harry, even for your usually poor standards.
I found Nemo's post very interesting, there are points I hadn't considered.
I guess it's just a bit too much for you to comprehend, but surprised you didn't work your favorite angle into it about wogs getting shot for being ungrateful cunts.

Whoa, big boy, I didn't say it wasn't a valid post. But it obviously took a long time to compose, hence my comment.

Take a chill pill, dude.

Although personally I think the UN is an utter waste of time, unless you really like the idea of a global government telling you what to do, and what you can read and see, instead of your own scum sucking, bottom feeding national politicians and international corporations.

The nearest thing we've seen to holding anyone accountable on the Internet is a bunch of plebs outing Ryan Giggs on Twitter.

Which of the points he made had you not considered?

You can't really call it a "fundamental human right", because those can only really be the ones that support our basic biological needs for survival as individuals, as members of a group, or as a species.

On that basis, the UN is a dismal failure, as it has palpably failed to address what I consider to be the biggest threat to our species, which is overpopulation.

Fair do' harry.. I apologise. I was jumping the gun. Just the way I read it.

Well I was considering the commercial implications and the personal info trade off of internet expansion and why the UN would put its name to what has become such a money making, power concentrating venture, but I didn't really consider the political implications, although that is apparent on reflection.

Either way it's not what I expect the focus of human rights to be on from the UN (the internet as an access to an egalitarian commercial market for rural farmers and craftsmen, would seem far more benign as the focus for a UN report) but it does seem whichever way you look at it, there are is unspoken question of who stands to gain the most from this report and who's hand is guiding the UN's focus on the subject of internet expansion.

Well as we've seen with the shagger Giggs case, the freedom of speech the Internet offers can find itself at odds with national law in many cases.

For example, in China making critical comments of the government can land you in jail; even receiving an unsolicited email that does so can get you into hot water.

Do you think the UN is pushing Internet access for all as a means of empowering people with the right to free speech and, by extension, giving them the representation they deserve?

Because I don't. I see the UN as looking after the national (read: governmental) issues of its members, and I think it comes out with idealistic statements like this merely to justify its existence.

It's one thing to make glib statements about human rights, but when it only really represents the voices of those at the helm, it makes little difference.

You only have to look at how the superpowers cling onto control of the Security council to deduce that.

We'll see how much this empowerment is supported by the UN if the "Arab Spring" snowballs and the Arabian Gulf falls to anti-US Islamic religious oligarchies, and the oil price starts whizzing past the $200 a barrel mark.

To quote:

The Special Rapporteur believes that the Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency in the conduct of the powerful, access to information, and for facilitating active citizen participation in building democratic societies.

Funny how the US is trying to jail or emasculate everyone associated with Wikileaks, isn't it? Perhaps the "Special rapporteur" should consider launching a well-aimed barb in their direction, don't you think?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

People have lots of time to waste on a Sunday, don't they.

I can touch type.

Originally Posted by WilliamBlake

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

The problem is that "rights" are by definition a "moral vector", in that they don't exist independent of a cultural context (i.e. origin) or objective (i.e. direction). So to buy into the UN's highly axiomatic definition of "rights", by implication, you have to buy into their culture and their objectives;

But surely that's why the U.N. exists in the first place- to create a framework where the concept of rights can be seen outside of existing borders.

...by ignoring the varying concepts of rights that exist inside different borders?

That very sentence is basically a direct challenge to the belief systems of large numbers of people who didn't grow up in the environment that you did.
You might be able to find some apparent overlap of rights, but scratch away the surface and you find that the status of that particular right is quite different in another culture from what it would be in yours, and so your insistence on importance has no cultural resonance for your "audience".
Are you then, from their POV, going to patronise them by insisting that they need to be educated to come round to your way of thinking?! (Certainly we get that a lot from the left in the UK, trying to re-educate BNP-supporters, and suggest that their views have no legitimacy as an ideology, which is quite presumptuous to say the least).

In the real world, every group has a hierarchy, the UN is a group, and has a hierarchy, and that hierarchy is determined not by some noble words on a bit nicely headed paper, but by good old fashioned "guns and butter".
The composition of the hierarchy within a group determines the pervading culture.

You can see this in any group - take ThaiVisa and TeakDoor, they have their own hierarchies, with dominant "actors" who determine the culture of the group and thus the "rights".
Most of us on TD have experienced the different sets of rights that exist in these two parallel worlds... if you imagine TD and TV as two countries, how would you contrive an organisation that could accommodate both their cultures?

Both will have red lines that they won't budge on, so you'll end up with some kind of "live and let live" scenario.

Aside from that, you have the external influence of Thai law that affects what people can say; and, on top of that the etiquette differences between members from different countries and regions within countries, classes, education levels - all interest group inthemselves affecting the culture of the site.
There's obviously a common set of values that make people prefer TD over TV, and it also comes down to a "live and let live" compromise.
I reckon that the fundamental difference between TV and TD is that TV is top-down and Marxist, so every mod becomes a toadying crony to those above them; and TD is bottom up and Darwinian, where skirmishes regularly take place.
TV = herbivores; TD = omnivores.

Even if you could unite these two nations under a common system, as in all groups - even groups of two, there would be a struggle for dominance.

Same as in your own marriages, one language and culture dominates, and that is based on the same sort of carrot and stick principles, including forcing concessions.

So when it comes to the old "why can't we all just get along" truism brigade, they are living in a theoretical paradise - a utopia - which however pretty on paper, does not manifest in the real world... it is a group and there is a power struggle for cultural dominance within it.
The only way you can construct your socialist paradise is by force - forcing concessions - forcing members to give up parts of their culture and adopt parts of another by way of negotiation... and the negotiation won't be on the basis of enlightened reason, but on each UN member's struggle for power in the hierarchy of the group of nations.

It's all game theory... sorry to bore... zzzzzzz

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

...by ignoring the varying concepts of rights that exist inside different borders?

What rights do you see in Burma for example? I understand what you mean, but it's better to have an organisation like the U.N. than to not.

Originally Posted by WilliamBlake

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

...by ignoring the varying concepts of rights that exist inside different borders?

What rights do you see in Burma for example? I understand what you mean, but it's better to have an organisation like the U.N. than to not.

And just what difference has the UN made to the rights of the Burmese?

What he said..

Careful what one might absorb regarding anything U.N.
Ulterior motives and misdirection are usually their clarion.

Well it would seem so, and the hidden agenda is as a tool to propogate the message of the military-industrial line. The guise of human rights is laughable at best.

I dunno about all that shit, but they're a bunch of bummers.

Congratulations folks , an interesting debate

^I'm currious where do the bleeding hearts and do-gooders stand on the issue?
Do they toe the UN line of dogma?

Seems to me the internet is having more of a polarizing effect to the middle eastern can of worms.
The rational voices dont seem to get heard. Especially concerning Israel, few want to discuss the fact that the Hamas and Hezbola refusal to recognize Israel is an untenable step towards any peace in the ME.
I see the internet fueling that hatred and division.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

^I'm currious where do the bleeding hearts and do-gooders stand on the issue?
Do they toe the UN line of dogma?

Seems to me the internet is having more of a polarizing effect to the middle eastern can of worms.
The rational voices dont seem to get heard. Especially concerning Israel, few want to discuss the fact that the Hamas and Hezbola refusal to recognize Israel is an untenable step towards any peace in the ME.
I see the internet fueling that hatred and division.

A very good point, Mr. Earl. In many cases, the Internet gives voice to people who really are best not heard.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

^I'm currious where do the bleeding hearts and do-gooders stand on the issue?
Do they toe the UN line of dogma?

Seems to me the internet is having more of a polarizing effect to the middle eastern can of worms.
The rational voices dont seem to get heard. Especially concerning Israel, few want to discuss the fact that the Hamas and Hezbola refusal to recognize Israel is an untenable step towards any peace in the ME.
I see the internet fueling that hatred and division.

A very good point, Mr. Earl. In many cases, the Internet gives voice to people who really are best not heard.

Like me, for example.

Of course, you're assuming that there's some right to censor as well as a right to be heard. I argue that there aren't really any rights, just competing "actors" (individuals or organisations are both forms of system), and each naturally tries to assert what's in it's interests. Organisations and people want to get their message across by whatever means to influence inevitable change.
So, the very act of you saying that some people shouldn't be heard is demonstrating how one system (of values) wants to assert itself over another (the people you think should be censored); your targets may or may not feel similarly inclined (usually lefties want to censor righties, but not the other way round), either way, neither side has any "rights", except the subjective rights as defined by their "culture"; but I suppose you could argue for objective rights being sort of like the laws of nature/evolution - that every system has the right to do whatever it takes to make itself more adaptive, to survive.... it's a form of bare-bones morality.

Strange story that one. Obviously the bloke is a fucking weirdo.