3 ms·

I can help: Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and t

I can help: Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. CDN outages interfered with freedom of opinion and expression, as well as receive information. Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. My rollerskating association depends on CDNs being up for it to work. One could easily argue that a CDN outage also interferes with Article 26 "Right to Education" and Article 27 "Right to participate in cultural life".

Joker_vD 5y ago
Yes, and you losing an election interferes with Article 21. And being homeless interferes with Article 17, Article 22, and Article 25. Obviously.
icegreentea2 5y ago
Right, so if we can interpret failure of service as interfering with Article 19 and 20, what else applies as interfering with human rights? Is Article 19 and 20 mostly about non-interference, or is about obligations of service?
- anticristi 5y ago
  > Right, so if we can interpret failure of service as interfering with Article 19 and 20, what else applies as interfering with human rights? Oh, don't get me started. :) Given the shift to pandemic-forced remote education, there is a hot debate about "right to education" meaning "the state needs to ensure students have laptops and good Internet connection". Heck, there is even debate that "right to medical care" means "the state needs to regulate the root DNS servers", since a failure of the root DNS servers makes it difficult to get medical care in highly digitized societies. I'm not making an argument for or against regulating root DNS, just highlighting the implications that human rights have in a "forced" digitized society. > Is Article 19 and 20 mostly about non-interference, or is about obligations of service? Why the dichotomy? If exercising a right can only be done via a service (thank 32 kilo base pairs for that), then the human rights can be interpreted as obligation of service. If your main portal to healthcare is a website, then your right to healthcare means that electricity, your ISP, root DNSs, the website itself all need to work for you to exercise your right.
agent327 5y ago
So a guy with a backhoe who digs through a cable by accident could be tried for human rights violations? Get real... Try reading article 1 of the declaration of human rights, in particular the second sentence. Try to uphold that lofty standard in the future.
- anticristi 5y ago
  PSD2 -- an EU FinTech regulation -- requires you to maintain sufficient redundancy. So yes, theoretically a company could be fined for a cable cut making payment impossible. Don't blame the guy with the backhoe for bad management decisions. IANAL, but I'm unsure if there is legal precedent.
  - agent327 5y ago
    The first article specifically says: "They are endowed with REASON and CONSCIENCE and should act towards one another in a spirit of BROTHERHOOD." (emphasis mine) That pretty much rules out using human rights as a stick to hit other people with over mere technical issues.

Joker_vD 5y ago

Yes, and you losing an election interferes with Article 21. And being homeless interferes with Article 17, Article 22, and Article 25. Obviously.

icegreentea2 5y ago

Right, so if we can interpret failure of service as interfering with Article 19 and 20, what else applies as interfering with human rights? Is Article 19 and 20 mostly about non-interference, or is about obligations of service?

anticristi 5y ago
> Right, so if we can interpret failure of service as interfering with Article 19 and 20, what else applies as interfering with human rights? Oh, don't get me started. :) Given the shift to pandemic-forced remote education, there is a hot debate about "right to education" meaning "the state needs to ensure students have laptops and good Internet connection". Heck, there is even debate that "right to medical care" means "the state needs to regulate the root DNS servers", since a failure of the root DNS servers makes it difficult to get medical care in highly digitized societies. I'm not making an argument for or against regulating root DNS, just highlighting the implications that human rights have in a "forced" digitized society. > Is Article 19 and 20 mostly about non-interference, or is about obligations of service? Why the dichotomy? If exercising a right can only be done via a service (thank 32 kilo base pairs for that), then the human rights can be interpreted as obligation of service. If your main portal to healthcare is a website, then your right to healthcare means that electricity, your ISP, root DNSs, the website itself all need to work for you to exercise your right.

agent327 5y ago

So a guy with a backhoe who digs through a cable by accident could be tried for human rights violations? Get real... Try reading article 1 of the declaration of human rights, in particular the second sentence. Try to uphold that lofty standard in the future.

anticristi 5y ago
PSD2 -- an EU FinTech regulation -- requires you to maintain sufficient redundancy. So yes, theoretically a company could be fined for a cable cut making payment impossible. Don't blame the guy with the backhoe for bad management decisions. IANAL, but I'm unsure if there is legal precedent.
- agent327 5y ago
  The first article specifically says: "They are endowed with REASON and CONSCIENCE and should act towards one another in a spirit of BROTHERHOOD." (emphasis mine) That pretty much rules out using human rights as a stick to hit other people with over mere technical issues.