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

[Ginger Paque]

Another interesting blog by Aldo Matteucci can be found at:
http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/internet-access-as-human-right-mr-cerf-shoots-himself-in-the-foot/#comment-617with
the title: "Does the technology tail wag the human rights dog?"


What Mr. Cerf said ("Internet access is not a human right" [1]) is not
unusual; it is something many of us discuss, even (horrors) agree with. The
value of his editorial is in the debate it has catalyzed. While this is a
semantic argument, it is an important one that helps us define strategies
and approaches as we search for solutions. Here is how I look at it.

Mr. Matteucci makes an excellent point that “'Human rights' are not
self-executing: they represent legitimate aspirations – not obligations",
and a point he made earlier, “'Freedom of speech' is an abstract right. Its
exercise necessarily relies on technologies..." is even more important.

Under the UN Declaration on Human Rights[2] (UNDHR), we all have a set of
inalienable human rights, no matter who we are, no matter where we live.
What we may or may not have is the ability to exercise these rights. The
exercise of these rights may be legally interrupted because we have broken
the law. They may be illegally (or legally in exceptional circumstances)
interrupted by government action or decree. Or their exercise may be
supported or hindered by selective legal and/or practical implementation.
State sovereignty allows each country to establish its own triage to apply
their funds and energies as they see fit. We cannot decide for another
whether water, food or information are their highest priorities, so their
application or practical administration must be a local or regional issue.
What the UN and others can do is (attempt to) ensure that the the
implementation (exercise) of human rights is not prohibited.

Our rights are protected under the UNDHR. Their exercise, as both Mr. Cerf
and Mr. Matteucci agree, often, and in the case of Internet, undoubtedly,
rely on technology. Although access to information will help solve other
ills, the triage priority assigned to Internet access is not as clear cut
as 'breathing, bleeding, beating'. If Finland can manage to make Internet
access a legal right, congratulations, and more power to the Finnish.  But
if another country must make safe water, food and medicine a higher
priority, I can understand that. I think we must be concerned about the
hindrance or prohibition of the exercise of any human rights, as we work
towards the local implementation, in the way we each have set our
priorities.


[1]           New York Times, January 4, 2012;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?_r=1

[2]          UNDHR: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml


On 8 January 2012 10:43, Vanda UOL <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

> Vint Cerf have been always alert to the public interest of the Internet.
> The
> new interplanetary technology. For those not familiar with the development,
> will bring lots of innovation in our field. I do agree with Vint Cerf in
> this regard: Internet is the best tool for democracy and guarantee of the
> HR. not an HR itself. To be one, several other discussions must be made,
> with a better rationale than universal access.
>  All the best,
>
>
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> IT Trend
> Alameda Santos 1470 – conj. 1407
> 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil
> Tel + 5511 3266.6253
> Mob + 55118181.1464
>
> Dissemine esta idéia
> www.criancamaissegura.com.br
>
>
>
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome
> de
> Carlos A. Afonso
> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2012 10:07
> Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
> Assunto: 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120108/785ccb73/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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