[governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR

Thu Jan 5 08:33:14 EST 2012

Dear all

I'd like to raise three issues:

First, the Special Rapporteur expressly referred to the Internet as having become a "tool" for realizing a range of human rights. I don't see the point Vint Cerf's is trying to make, when he writes that "technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself". This is what I understand "tool" to mean: an "enabler". To me, he seems to be on the same page as the Special Rapporteur in this regard.

Second, the human rights dimension of access to the Internet and to content is more complex a question than might appear at first glance. In his oral statement, Mr. La Rue highlighted the two dimensions of access: access to Internet and access to online content. Both pose specific, but interrelated human rights challenges. Using the  Internet as a facilitator for other human rights presupposes access to the Internet in the first place (connectivity) and then unfiltered access to content. (I've blogged about these two kinds of access here: http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2011/11/two-kinds-of-access.html)

Third, it doesn't serve the human rights discourse to differentiate between "civil rights" and "human rights". Human rights encompass, inter alia, civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights. The 1993 Vienna Declaration reminds us in para. 5 that all human rights are "universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated". Hanging one's argument on one arbitrary definition - civil rights as constitutional endowments and human rights as dignity-based concepts - means ignoring much of the intellectual contribution of half a century of human rights theory.  

It is true that declaring a right to Internet access might not be the best approach to ensuring that more people have access to the Internet, and unfiltered access to Internet content. But I do not see whether declaring, as Vint Cerf did, in a NY Time editorial, that there is no such thing as a right to Internet is a more valuable contribution to the debate and to the goal of ensuring (both dimensionsn of) Internet access for all. 

Best

Matthias

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von Carlos A. Afonso
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 05. Jänner 2012 13:07
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
Betreff: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR

Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and diversified space which represents this network of networks in its multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance going on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right.

The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- this is trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate executive decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" dreams and delve into the communication rights debate?

fraternal regards

--c.a.

----------------
Carlos A. Afonso
Instituto Nupef
----------------
www.nupef.org.br
www.politics.org.br

On 01/05/2012 10:03 AM, Ginger Paque wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-hum
> an-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
> 
> Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here 
> for those who may not be able to access it:
> January 4, 2012
> Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF
> 
> Reston, Va.
> 
> FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around 
> the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices 
> that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because 
> thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have 
> happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to 
> communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously.
> 
> It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about 
> whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The 
> issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped 
> down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In 
> June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a 
> report by the United Nations' special 
> rapporteur<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/06/united-n
> ations-report-internet-access-is-a-human-right.html>
> went
> so far as to declare that the Internet had "become an indispensable 
> tool for realizing a range of human rights." Over the past few years, 
> courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have 
> pronounced Internet access a human right.
> 
> But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: 
> technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a 
> high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it 
> must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, 
> meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. 
> It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted 
> category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For 
> example, at one time if you didn't have a horse it was hard to make a 
> living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a 
> living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I'm not sure where I would put it.
> 
> The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes 
> that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like 
> freedom of speech and freedom of access to information - and those are 
> not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular 
> time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed 
> as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the 
> Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.
> 
> What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a *civil *right?
> The same reasoning above can be applied here - Internet access is 
> always just a tool for obtaining something else more important - 
> though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger 
> one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are 
> different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, 
> not intrinsic to us as human beings.
> 
> While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a "right" 
> to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of 
> "universal service" - the idea that telephone service (and 
> electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the 
> most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are 
> edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because 
> ensuring access is a policy made by the government.
> 
> Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue:
> the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human 
> and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible 
> and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining 
> information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow 
> people to exercise their human and civil rights.
> 
> In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to 
> empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users 
> online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms 
> like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. 
> Technologists should work toward this end.
> 
> It is engineers - and our professional associations and 
> standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and 
> Electronics Engineers - that create and maintain these new 
> capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology 
> and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise.
> 
> Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by 
> which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an 
> appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection - 
> without pretending that access itself is such a right.
> 
> Vinton G. Cerf <http://www.icann.org/en/biog/cerf.htm>, a fellow at 
> the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice 
> president and chief Internet evangelist for Google.
> 
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> Diplo Foundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> 
> *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: 
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org*
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t