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

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<CA+=oXB+_2LKrB5_mE5bCwOVLW4X_6P41U9T+P4N2mBZidQH3SQ at mail.gmail.com>, at 
08:26:54 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Ivar A. M. Hartmann 
<ivarhartmann at gmail.com> writes
>I think the title might actually be misleading. It all depends on what
>conceptions of 'human rights' and 'civil rights' are adopted.
>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.
>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.
>
>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.

The idea that Civil Rights are a subset of Human Rights with a short 
term historical context applied to them is probably the way to square 
the circle.

Can we doubt that "a right to life" is fundamental? But the Civil Right 
of murderers not to be the subject of a Death Penalty is still debated.

>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.
>
>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.

As Vint is talking about "Access" (using the IGF terminology) this is 
indeed almost entirely a technology thing.

If you go further than that you'll soon get into difficult territory 
like a potential human right to have Facebook or eBay account, or to 
send Spam to anyone you want to.

>On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 07:38, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>  In message <4F05927F.3040302 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:07:27 on Thu, 5 Jan
>  2012, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> writes
>
>
>>    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.
>
>
>  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).
>
>  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.
>
>
>
>>    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?
>
>
>  You could try asking him.
>  --
>  Roland Perry
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  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
>

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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