5 ms·

I think access to the Internet + an E-Mail account should be basic human rights. It's infrastructure too important to leave in the hands of private corporations

by dusted 6y ago

I think access to the Internet + an E-Mail account should be basic human rights. It's infrastructure too important to leave in the hands of private corporations. [update] I'm totally okay with this being downvoted, but I'd like the input as to why, if I'm somehow wrong, then tell me ? :)

eddieoz 6y ago
In Estonia it is also considered, since 2001. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/audio/2016/aug/04/internet-access-human-right-2-tech-podcast https://www.theguardian.com/technology/audio/2016/aug/04/int...
- dusted 6y ago
  Yeah, I heard Estonians even get a state-sponsored E-Mail address, which I'd take any day over "hoping that google won't randomly delete me for reasons beyond my control".
  - luckyshot 6y ago
    I'm not sure I want my e-mail stored in government servers... Yet I don't like private companies storing it... And it's too complicated to manage on my own. Damn.
    - dusted 6y ago
      Yeah, I run my own, but thing is, I don't have a RIGHT to do so, I am just lucky that my ISP most mercifully lets me bounce my outgoing mail through their SMTP server, and they blocked outgoing port 25, so that's the only way for me out. I have some right to the domain on which I host my mail, but I don't have a right to a fixed static IP, and I don't have a right to be able to make outgoing connections on port 25 (or any port, I guess?), and I also don't have a right to a bouncer, so in practice, I don't have a right to host my own mail, there's no law giving me the right to demand any of those things, it's up to me to be a combination of lucky and wealthy enough to make it happen.
      - mattl 6y ago
        Did they block port 993? Port 443? Port 80?
        dusted 6y ago
        Those ports are not important, they are for my client to connect to my server, which happens entirely within my LAN, but how do I go about SENDING mail if outgoing connections on ports 25, 587, and 465 are blocked ? Basically, I want to send a mail to you, your server is listening on those ports because you're a normal person, and didn't rediret port 80 to be your SNMP incoming. So, I try to make a connection to your domain:25, my packets won't even leave my ISP, my outgoing connection is simply dropped. Try it, are you lucky enough that you can ? If you speak a bit of SMTP you can send email from telnet like that.
        mattl 6y ago
        You can configure your own SMTP server on the internet to listen on whatever ports you like and configure your client to use that.
    - netflixandkill 6y ago
      All of your communications, sure probably not, but for all the ones that are already for government purposes, with government entities, and other basic purposes it's a good place to start. At least some uniquely identified email address is better than hoping things like court documents with legal implications get paper mailed to some previously known physical address you may or may not still have any access or relationship with.
      - dusted 6y ago
        we actually have something like this, but it's a too-specialized system, so it's not possible to send "mail" to people unless you're a big enough company to register for that privilege, and users can't reply via the system, so it's a receive-only solution that's also incompatible with standard technologies.
    - MrDresden 6y ago
      Due to those concerns I've settled for a privacy focused private company set up in a country with strong information- and privacy regulation. Protonmail.
      - dusted 6y ago
        I think protonmail is a great thing, but you don't have a right to your account there, if they turn bad and decide to shut you down, what law back you up in your demand to have your account reinstated ?
        MrDresden 6y ago
        You are correct. I own my domain, so will be able to move my email to another provider (or self host) if I ever require it. I also keep a local backup of my email so if the day ever comes I am ready.
    - eddieoz 6y ago
      For sure they are a kind of black box and have more information than needed. But I met a lot of people who trust blindly on them and it is crazy for someone who came from Brazil - the place where no one trust on government about anything. But, for me, in the end, email must die.
  - aminozuur 6y ago
    I trust Google with my data over most governments. Estonia might be an exception.
    - collyw 6y ago
      Why? I don't think I trust any of them especially.
CaptArmchair 6y ago
Ah, but that's the same territory as "electricity should be a basic human right". There's actual legal debate about this. This articles summarizes that debate. [1] > This article considers three answers to the question whether electricity access should be a universal human right. A first position is that there is no human right to electricity but perhaps contractual rights related to various societies. A second position is that electricity is a derived human right, a right based on other rights, grounded on rights such as the right to adequate housing. A third position is that there is a universal human right to electricity. It is argued that the second position is the strongest since it supports the idea that humans often need access to electricity but avoids the stronger claim that all humans must have this access. The latter claim faces the challenge that rights language should focus on the needs of humans and not be extended too far to include everything that could be beneficial for humans. Such an extension might diminish the attention on the actual aim of human rights: That all humans should have a good enough life. I agree with those assertions and it's why I think that neither electricity nor the internet are universal human rights. Contrary to such universal human rights as the right to a family, liberty, recognition as a person before the law,... which should be read as first principles that ought to be applied in human interactions, rather then claims to specific commodities. [2] That doesn't mean those things aren't important. Access to the Internet has gained in importance. Instead, human rights are a moral framework that ought to underpin the governance of that access. And that's what makes all the difference. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2019.1671355 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2019.1... [2] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- dusted 6y ago
  I can see how it it a difficult problem, I don't think right needs to equal "free in any circumstance", I mean the right to be able to access it for a reasonable price. Like, here in DK, I have a RIGHT to electricity, not for free, but no matter where I live geographically in this country, I have a right to be able to buy a home, and a right to a electricity subscription, the electrics company cannot just say "nah, we don't wish you as a customer" unless I really do something wrong. For E-Mail addresses, it's not so, if nobody wants to provide me with one, then that's just too bad. Electricity is somewhat easier then email, because "the power I got yesterday" has no connection to the power I get today.. We also have a right to phone numbers, meaning that if I switch to a new provider, my phone number follows to my new subscription with no additional fee. But if I switch e-mail provider from gmail to proton, I've no right to have my email address, no less the actual inbox transferred to my new provider.
5560675260 6y ago
There are several problems with this idea. As you say this infrastructure is important, but it's too important to centralise it and put into government's hands. If there is a government monopoly you will not be able to shop around, choose best service and will have to deal with * poor service, since there will be no competition and little to no incentives to improve it * lack of privacy, since law enforcements and random officials will absolutely want to have full access (and sure, Google has access to my emails, but I can use Protonmail instead and trust them way more not to abuse this access than I would trust "DMV for email") * even further centralisation of power - it would be much easier to apply pressure to people doing anything "anti-government" (I believe there are already examples of this with people being cut from all-encompassing WeChat in China, but I don't have references at hand) There is also an argument against frivolous expansion of human rights with anything not absolutely necessary or too specific.
- lvs 6y ago
  Making something a utility doesn't require it be centralized. You simply put it in municipal/local/state hands, as we do with all other utilities, and just set federal minimum standards. The federal government doesn't fill your potholes. As it stands, internet access and services are incredibly centralized in the marketplace within just a handful of enormous companies.
- dao- 6y ago
  > If there is a government monopoly you will not be able to shop around, choose best service and will have to deal with In a functioning democracy, you'd be able to elect the right people to make sure service is maintained properly and not abused.
  - jeofken 6y ago
    Political parties attract to their tops sophists who can manipulate and form personal alliances - it does not select for who can provide the greatest value at the lowest price.
- Shish2k 6y ago
  I agree centralisation is bad - the model of “government ensures everybody has a certain minimum level of service (eg set themselves up as a free 4G ISP offering just enough speed to fill in HTML forms etc); anybody who wants good service can pay a private company for it” seems like it would be the best of both?

by dusted 6y ago

eddieoz 6y ago

In Estonia it is also considered, since 2001. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/audio/2016/aug/04/internet-access-human-right-2-tech-podcast https://www.theguardian.com/technology/audio/2016/aug/04/int...

dusted 6y ago
Yeah, I heard Estonians even get a state-sponsored E-Mail address, which I'd take any day over "hoping that google won't randomly delete me for reasons beyond my control".
- luckyshot 6y ago
  I'm not sure I want my e-mail stored in government servers... Yet I don't like private companies storing it... And it's too complicated to manage on my own. Damn.
  - dusted 6y ago
    Yeah, I run my own, but thing is, I don't have a RIGHT to do so, I am just lucky that my ISP most mercifully lets me bounce my outgoing mail through their SMTP server, and they blocked outgoing port 25, so that's the only way for me out. I have some right to the domain on which I host my mail, but I don't have a right to a fixed static IP, and I don't have a right to be able to make outgoing connections on port 25 (or any port, I guess?), and I also don't have a right to a bouncer, so in practice, I don't have a right to host my own mail, there's no law giving me the right to demand any of those things, it's up to me to be a combination of lucky and wealthy enough to make it happen.
    - mattl 6y ago
      Did they block port 993? Port 443? Port 80?
      - dusted 6y ago
        Those ports are not important, they are for my client to connect to my server, which happens entirely within my LAN, but how do I go about SENDING mail if outgoing connections on ports 25, 587, and 465 are blocked ? Basically, I want to send a mail to you, your server is listening on those ports because you're a normal person, and didn't rediret port 80 to be your SNMP incoming. So, I try to make a connection to your domain:25, my packets won't even leave my ISP, my outgoing connection is simply dropped. Try it, are you lucky enough that you can ? If you speak a bit of SMTP you can send email from telnet like that.
        mattl 6y ago
        You can configure your own SMTP server on the internet to listen on whatever ports you like and configure your client to use that.
  - netflixandkill 6y ago
    All of your communications, sure probably not, but for all the ones that are already for government purposes, with government entities, and other basic purposes it's a good place to start. At least some uniquely identified email address is better than hoping things like court documents with legal implications get paper mailed to some previously known physical address you may or may not still have any access or relationship with.
    - dusted 6y ago
      we actually have something like this, but it's a too-specialized system, so it's not possible to send "mail" to people unless you're a big enough company to register for that privilege, and users can't reply via the system, so it's a receive-only solution that's also incompatible with standard technologies.
  - MrDresden 6y ago
    Due to those concerns I've settled for a privacy focused private company set up in a country with strong information- and privacy regulation. Protonmail.
    - dusted 6y ago
      I think protonmail is a great thing, but you don't have a right to your account there, if they turn bad and decide to shut you down, what law back you up in your demand to have your account reinstated ?
      - MrDresden 6y ago
        You are correct. I own my domain, so will be able to move my email to another provider (or self host) if I ever require it. I also keep a local backup of my email so if the day ever comes I am ready.
  - eddieoz 6y ago
    For sure they are a kind of black box and have more information than needed. But I met a lot of people who trust blindly on them and it is crazy for someone who came from Brazil - the place where no one trust on government about anything. But, for me, in the end, email must die.
- aminozuur 6y ago
  I trust Google with my data over most governments. Estonia might be an exception.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Why? I don't think I trust any of them especially.

CaptArmchair 6y ago

Ah, but that's the same territory as "electricity should be a basic human right". There's actual legal debate about this. This articles summarizes that debate. [1] > This article considers three answers to the question whether electricity access should be a universal human right. A first position is that there is no human right to electricity but perhaps contractual rights related to various societies. A second position is that electricity is a derived human right, a right based on other rights, grounded on rights such as the right to adequate housing. A third position is that there is a universal human right to electricity. It is argued that the second position is the strongest since it supports the idea that humans often need access to electricity but avoids the stronger claim that all humans must have this access. The latter claim faces the challenge that rights language should focus on the needs of humans and not be extended too far to include everything that could be beneficial for humans. Such an extension might diminish the attention on the actual aim of human rights: That all humans should have a good enough life. I agree with those assertions and it's why I think that neither electricity nor the internet are universal human rights. Contrary to such universal human rights as the right to a family, liberty, recognition as a person before the law,... which should be read as first principles that ought to be applied in human interactions, rather then claims to specific commodities. [2] That doesn't mean those things aren't important. Access to the Internet has gained in importance. Instead, human rights are a moral framework that ought to underpin the governance of that access. And that's what makes all the difference. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2019.1671355 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2019.1... [2] https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

dusted 6y ago
I can see how it it a difficult problem, I don't think right needs to equal "free in any circumstance", I mean the right to be able to access it for a reasonable price. Like, here in DK, I have a RIGHT to electricity, not for free, but no matter where I live geographically in this country, I have a right to be able to buy a home, and a right to a electricity subscription, the electrics company cannot just say "nah, we don't wish you as a customer" unless I really do something wrong. For E-Mail addresses, it's not so, if nobody wants to provide me with one, then that's just too bad. Electricity is somewhat easier then email, because "the power I got yesterday" has no connection to the power I get today.. We also have a right to phone numbers, meaning that if I switch to a new provider, my phone number follows to my new subscription with no additional fee. But if I switch e-mail provider from gmail to proton, I've no right to have my email address, no less the actual inbox transferred to my new provider.

5560675260 6y ago

There are several problems with this idea. As you say this infrastructure is important, but it's too important to centralise it and put into government's hands. If there is a government monopoly you will not be able to shop around, choose best service and will have to deal with * poor service, since there will be no competition and little to no incentives to improve it * lack of privacy, since law enforcements and random officials will absolutely want to have full access (and sure, Google has access to my emails, but I can use Protonmail instead and trust them way more not to abuse this access than I would trust "DMV for email") * even further centralisation of power - it would be much easier to apply pressure to people doing anything "anti-government" (I believe there are already examples of this with people being cut from all-encompassing WeChat in China, but I don't have references at hand) There is also an argument against frivolous expansion of human rights with anything not absolutely necessary or too specific.

lvs 6y ago
Making something a utility doesn't require it be centralized. You simply put it in municipal/local/state hands, as we do with all other utilities, and just set federal minimum standards. The federal government doesn't fill your potholes. As it stands, internet access and services are incredibly centralized in the marketplace within just a handful of enormous companies.
dao- 6y ago
> If there is a government monopoly you will not be able to shop around, choose best service and will have to deal with In a functioning democracy, you'd be able to elect the right people to make sure service is maintained properly and not abused.
- jeofken 6y ago
  Political parties attract to their tops sophists who can manipulate and form personal alliances - it does not select for who can provide the greatest value at the lowest price.
Shish2k 6y ago
I agree centralisation is bad - the model of “government ensures everybody has a certain minimum level of service (eg set themselves up as a free 4G ISP offering just enough speed to fill in HTML forms etc); anybody who wants good service can pay a private company for it” seems like it would be the best of both?