I think the title might actually be misleading. It all depends on what conceptions of 'human rights' and 'civil rights' are adopted.<br>Cerf clearly opts for the concept of human rights as rights "intrinsic to us as human beings". While that has been historically a popular notion, it's certainly not void of flaws and there are points to be made in favor of another notion, that human rights are "conferred upon us by law" (not declared by law, rather created by it). Indeed, a working distinction is that of human rights as those conferred by international law and fundamental/constitutional rights as those conferred by national constitutions. <br>
So Cerf's notion of civil rights seems to actually be the same as that of human rights, for people who believe that these are rights created by law, in whatever political level. And he concedes Internet access might be considered a civil right. <br>
<br>Also, he puts forward the notion that human rights are timeless. If something is "among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives" today, but maybe wasn't tomorrow (or yesterday), then it can't be a human right. Cerf states that "[i]t is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted
category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things." I firmly disagree with this view, as I believe Norberto Bobbio and others have offered a better explanation of what constitute human rights: historical achievements of society that begin to exist when they can and must. So there's no difficulty in acknowledging that something might be a human right today but not in 100 years - and vice versa.<br>
<br>Lastly, on the "means to an end" issue. It can reasonably be argued that all human rights are means to enabling human dignity or the pursuit of happiness. That is to say, they aren't ends in themselves and therefore there's isn't a problem in recognizing that (a right to) Internet access isn't an end in itself.<br>
<br>I fully support Carlos' remark on a vital point: saying Internet is merely a technology depends on one's concept of what the Internet is. I don't support the view that it is merely a technology. <br><br>Best,<br>
Ivar<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 07:38, Roland Perry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In message <<a href="mailto:4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca" target="_blank">4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca</a>>, at 10:07:27 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Carlos A. Afonso <<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca" target="_blank">ca@cafonso.ca</a>> writes<div class="im">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and<br>
diversified space which represents this network of networks in its<br>
multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just<br>
technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance going<br>
on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as<br>
well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
What Vint is saying is that while there's strong support for a right to communicate, that doesn't mean there's a right to have every means of communication (that's where he's coming from with analogy about horses).<br>
<br>
There's also a right to free movement, but this doesn't prevent most administrations making the holding of a driving licence a privilege rather than a right, which can be taken away for comparatively minor infringements.<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- this is<br>
trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate<br>
executive decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" dreams<br>
and delve into the communication rights debate?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
You could try asking him.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- <br>
Roland Perry</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
______________________________<u></u>______________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/<u></u>unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/<u></u>info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/<u></u>translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>