4 ms·

Interesting definition of a fundamental right. All the usual suspects (speech, movement, association, due process, etc) don't depend on technology (and, inciden

by pmccool 17y ago

Interesting definition of a fundamental right. All the usual suspects (speech, movement, association, due process, etc) don't depend on technology (and, incidentally infrastructure). I just can't come around to the idea that access to telecommunications is "fundamental".

potatolicious 17y ago
I think it is - it also depends on how the question is phrased. I don't think anyone owes anyone free broadband internet access - we have the right to free speech, that doesn't mean you get to use the postal service for free. It does mean, however, that we recognize the overwhelming good for society that a system that carries free and open speech can provide, and make efforts to ensure it is accessible to all. Similarly, for the internet I think our stance ought to be that it is something that provides an overwhelming good for not only this country, but for the globe in general. For this reason we should be ensuring that it is affordable and reliable to all. Likewise, I think it is a right in the sense that no one should be denied access to it. Nowadays so many critical, vital functions to a normal life is online (searching/applying to jobs, basic information retrieval, etc) that short of some grave, enormous threat, no one should be barred from using the internet.
- cromulent 17y ago
  That's how it is seen here in Finland. The idea is that all residents will have the services they need, regardless of financial or social status. They have simply added internet access to the same list as public transport, wheelchair ramps, etc. Makes sense to me.
tjgabbour 17y ago
I think it's similar the right to food. _Human Rights, A Very Short Introduction_ mentions that the right to food is shorthand for a complex set of obligations concerning "food security": * Obligation to respect: Immediate, basic obligations include that a government can't undermine food security (like unjustified crop destruction and land evictions), must plan for the population's needs, and can't allow discrimination regarding access to food. * Obligation to protect: A further level of obligation is protecting people's food security from interference by others. (This may include regulating food safety, ensuring that indigenous people with a close cultural link to land have a title to it, etc.) * Obligation to facilitate: A further one is to facilitate food security. Like stimulating employment so people can afford it, land reform, and developing distribution and storage facilities. Or providing food or social security to those who can't work, such as the infirm. Almost all of this could be applied to internet access.
- pmccool 17y ago
  I disagree with this analogy. Without food, you _die_.
roundsquare 17y ago
It depends. I can see it for "being allowed to access the internet is a fundamental right" but not "having access to the internet is a human right."
philwelch 17y ago
The "right to health care" and the "right to education" both depend heavily on infrastructure and technology.
- pmccool 17y ago
  Yes, but they aren't meaningless without it.
mo34 17y ago
Given that only about 20% of the people in the world have Internet access, wouldn't it be rather surprising if 80% thought it was a 'fundamental right'?

by pmccool 17y ago

potatolicious 17y ago

I think it is - it also depends on how the question is phrased. I don't think anyone owes anyone free broadband internet access - we have the right to free speech, that doesn't mean you get to use the postal service for free. It does mean, however, that we recognize the overwhelming good for society that a system that carries free and open speech can provide, and make efforts to ensure it is accessible to all. Similarly, for the internet I think our stance ought to be that it is something that provides an overwhelming good for not only this country, but for the globe in general. For this reason we should be ensuring that it is affordable and reliable to all. Likewise, I think it is a right in the sense that no one should be denied access to it. Nowadays so many critical, vital functions to a normal life is online (searching/applying to jobs, basic information retrieval, etc) that short of some grave, enormous threat, no one should be barred from using the internet.

cromulent 17y ago
That's how it is seen here in Finland. The idea is that all residents will have the services they need, regardless of financial or social status. They have simply added internet access to the same list as public transport, wheelchair ramps, etc. Makes sense to me.

tjgabbour 17y ago

I think it's similar the right to food. _Human Rights, A Very Short Introduction_ mentions that the right to food is shorthand for a complex set of obligations concerning "food security": * Obligation to respect: Immediate, basic obligations include that a government can't undermine food security (like unjustified crop destruction and land evictions), must plan for the population's needs, and can't allow discrimination regarding access to food. * Obligation to protect: A further level of obligation is protecting people's food security from interference by others. (This may include regulating food safety, ensuring that indigenous people with a close cultural link to land have a title to it, etc.) * Obligation to facilitate: A further one is to facilitate food security. Like stimulating employment so people can afford it, land reform, and developing distribution and storage facilities. Or providing food or social security to those who can't work, such as the infirm. Almost all of this could be applied to internet access.

pmccool 17y ago
I disagree with this analogy. Without food, you _die_.

roundsquare 17y ago

It depends. I can see it for "being allowed to access the internet is a fundamental right" but not "having access to the internet is a human right."

philwelch 17y ago

The "right to health care" and the "right to education" both depend heavily on infrastructure and technology.

pmccool 17y ago
Yes, but they aren't meaningless without it.

mo34 17y ago

Given that only about 20% of the people in the world have Internet access, wouldn't it be rather surprising if 80% thought it was a 'fundamental right'?