6 ms·

Vint Cerf: Internet Access Is Not a Human Right

176 points by rdp 15y ago

itmag 15y ago
What is a human right anyway? Ask an Ayn Rand fan, a libertarian, a Hobbesian, the United Nations, or a Swedish legal positivist, and you willl get different answers. We need to define these things, otherwise the discussion becomes a clash of presuppositions and worldviews.
duncan_bayne 15y ago
More generally: nothing can be a right if it must be paid for by other people; rights can only be proscriptive, never prescriptive.
- wmf 15y ago
  When people talk about a right to Internet access, they generally mean a negative right: you can't be barred from using the Internet (as in the oppressive countries Cerf mentions), but you still have to pay for it. This is similar to the right of free press, which belongs only to those who own one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
  - mc32 15y ago
    >This is similar to the right of free press, which belongs only to those who own one. Didn't it also speak to being able to hire a press (i.e. get someone to run a print for you) to avoid something like "thou shalt not print any materials concerning x, y or z on behalf of a, b or c."
  - aantthony 15y ago
    The right to keep and bear arms is also similar. That right doesn't entitle you to free guns.
  - mc32 15y ago
    I'm curious about one thing. If it's a human right in France, it would appear to be an alienable right, given some conditions, such as the "three strikes" (HADOPI) law[1], which seeks to address copyright infringement, allows for suspension of internet access for violations. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      I don't think it's a human right in France. The UN decided it is a human right, and many countries signed it, but Sarkozy refused to do it as far as I know. So HADOPI can carry on for now, at least until Sarkozy loses the election.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      That's not how rights work. For instance, there's an inalienable right not to be locked in a cage, but if you violate other people's rights not to have their car radios stolen, you can still be locked in a cage.
      - catwell 15y ago
        Exactly. The first version of the HADOPI law was censored by the French Constitutional Council in 2009 on the ground that only a judge could restrict a fundamental right. This is the case with the current version of the law.
- mhartl 15y ago
  All rights have to be paid for by other people—if you believe that the notion of "right" is well-posed, that is—which I don't.
  - tikhonj 15y ago
    My understanding of a "right" is not something that must be provided--rather, it's something that cannot be proscribed. A right is passive; all that's needed to provide one is inaction. You don't have to pay anything to not stop me from speaking. Something that has to be provided is probably better called an "entitlement".
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      Isn't persecution a form of disregarding your rights? Isn't removing Internet access a form of persecution?
- Jun8 15y ago
  So, the poor don't have a right to education because they cannot pay? What about food aid to Africa? I think the concept of human right is independent of the cost or who pays for it, at least in principle.
  - tsotha 15y ago
    Depends on where you're from. There are some countries where that's true and some where it is not.
    - JabavuAdams 15y ago
      Well, aren't human rights meant to be intrinsic to humans, not dependent on the legal jurisdiction like civil rights? One can argue whether this is realistic, or not, but in principle human rights are distinct from civil rights.
      - tsotha 15y ago
        Ah, well, if you're arguing from that perspective then no, these things are not human rights.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        aren't human rights meant to be intrinsic to humans Those are Natural rights, also called "nonsense upon stilts" by Jeremy Bentham and "imaginary, like the Bogeyman" by George Carlin ;)
- Joakal 15y ago
  IIRC for USA: Is access to a lawyer in court not a right because it is paid for by the court?
  - dewitt 15y ago
    The sixth amendment guarantees the right to "a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury" and the "assistance of counsel." The state must provide for the defendant in order to ensure those rights are met. Same as the state must incur the cost of sitting an impartial jury, presenting witnesses against him, etc.
- JabavuAdams 15y ago
  This is not a given, although it is a defensible position. Are you confusing human rights with civil rights?
- icebraining 15y ago
  Well, that's like, your opinion, man. Rights are an abstract concept, and people have different definitions of them. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights include such as: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. And Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. These are definitively rights that have to be paid for by other people, and yet many consider them perfectly valid.
jcampbell1 15y ago
I have read the piece three times, and I get the point, but I don't see the purpose. I suppose he is trying to say that "freedom of access to information" is the real right, and that declaring internet access as a right is foolish. I agree. The problem is that I know of no country that offers "freedom of access to information" as an ordained right. In America, we accept Voltaire's line: "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." but that is not quite the same as "freedom of access". I wish Vint Cerf had actually said something rather than just waxing poetic.
- dkarl 15y ago
  I wish he had added that if internet access is not a human right, then it surely follows from one that we haven't articulated yet. I hope he would agree with that, but this article creates the opposite impression. I know it's onerous for people who think logically, but authors should think beyond the literal correctness of what they're saying and consider how their words will be read in the forum where they are published. I think his resistance to declaring internet access a "right" stems from his understanding that a particular technology is not the right level at which to articulate such a right, but in an op-ed column in a newspaper for general readers, this piece says that it's completely possible for citizens to be denied access to the internet with no infringement on their rights. I realize he said no such thing if you read his words precisely and logically, but dammit, that's not how op-eds are read.
- nknight 15y ago
  Vint Cerf has been some combination of politician/lobbyist/bureaucrat for 30 years. Expecting him to have something meaningful to say is a sucker's bet.
  - jcampbell1 15y ago
    Vint Cerf is the perfect advocate. He is one of the "inventors of the internet", dresses respectably, can write and speak articulately, and doesn't have neck beard. I have an enormous amount of respect for him, and I wish he had written something better. Your expectations of him are foolishly low; my expectations are probably unreasonably high.
Jun8 15y ago
This is a weird piece, I didn't quite understand what he is riling against. One place where I would like to clear the distinction is: "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" Let's not confuse access to Internet (which is described here) and free access to it. You can have free service to all houses in the US but if the likes of SOPA are implemented, I think most people agree that some rights are being trampled on. Otherwise, why oppose SOPA at all, or why find the Chinese Firewall objectionable? To put Cerf's analogy on better ground, it's as if you have phone service but can only call some numbers.
- rsanchez1 15y ago
  I think he doesn't want the emotional impact of the word "right" to be diminished by applying it to arbitrary technology. What he says makes sense. Freedom is a right. The Internet is a tool that allows people to exercise that right.
  - juiceandjuice 15y ago
    Right. Your rights on the internet should follow from your human and civil rights. If you have access to the internet, your right to free speech, your right to assemble, your right to etc... should not be impeded, because it's a medium. Blocking access to something shouldn't be viewed as a violation of your right to the internet, it should be a violation of freedom of speech.
siglesias 15y ago
Cerf appears to be arguing semantics. What is one practical consequence of Internet access being seen as a "human right" as opposed to "civil right," or "really good thing to have"?
gills 15y ago
The piece does not address the fundamental point that you cannot with intellectual honesty claim as a right that which, to be satisfied, requires another human being to perform work.
- nknight 15y ago
  So, I don't have a right to a trial, which requires the work of a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a judge, and a jury? What about the right to vote, which requires someone to count the votes?
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Hey, we only said you could cast a vote. We never said we'd count it.
  - doyoulikeworms 15y ago
    Well, those rights are a bit different from, say, free speech, methinks. In my opinion, we have the right to free speech by virtue of being human. At bare minimum, one has a brain, and that brain controls one's mouth. No other human can control someone else's voice in any fashion similar to how he controls his own. To restrict someone from exercising this right requires an outside force to aggress against the speaker. Societies today more or less agree, there's little (or nothing) one can say that should justify violence against the speaker. Similar reasoning can be applied to the use of justly acquired property as a means of disseminating information. It's a promise from government: "I won't take this away from you". The right to a trial is different. No human is born with this right, as no human pops out of the womb with a staffed courthouse in his possession. In fact, the notion of a right to trial doesn't make sense if there are no laws. It also doesn't make sense if there are no conflicts (alone on a desert island). It's also a promise from government: "I'll give you the right to contest my decisions before I use force against you". It's more like a return policy than a natural right, in my opinion.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Those are civil and not human rights, and they only exist because someone is already going through the trouble of governing you. Civil rights are a way of saying, as long as we're going to have a government, let's make sure it operates fairly and tries not to violate your human rights. The relevant human rights are, respectively, the right not to be locked in a cage without a very good reason and the right to have some say over your own life. Theoretically, you wouldn't need the right to a trial or the right to vote if it wasn't for the government going around and potentially violating your human rights. On the other hand, by this reasoning at least, there's no such thing as a right to free beer, because then someone, somewhere would be obligated to brew you some beer, and that would violate his rights.
noonespecial 15y ago
There seem to be some technologies, like telephones and indoor pluming that aren't really "rights" but when treated in a rights-ish manner, make everyone's lives much better. If a rich 1% decided that they'd rather have the money it took to build the sewer system for their town than the sewer, their lives would become worse, not better despite having the extra money(1). If only the super rich had phones, they'd be nearly useless(2). Internet access is certainly looking like its shaping up to be one of those things. 1) And everyone else would be much much worse off. 2) The phones, not the rich, but both come to think of it.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
sliverstorm 15y ago
I always clash with people on this topic, mostly because to me "Human Rights" is mostly limited to "Natural Rights".
stretchwithme 15y ago
There are no rights that give you a right to someone else's property. Freedom of the press means you can own one. It does not mean your printing press can be taken from you and redistributed to some one else that can't afford to buy a press.
- danssig 15y ago
  Likewise, a right to the internet doesn't mean someone has to pay for it for you but rather that you always have the right to participate if you can afford to.
dvdhsu 15y ago
> Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you have to "cash in" on it. According to the Constitution, I have a right to "liberty" [1]. If I didn't want liberty, the right should still exist for those who want it. Just because I don't want it doesn't mean nobody else wants it. Over-protecting is a better policy than under-protecting. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_o...
kevinalexbrown 15y ago
I get extremely frustrated when writers try to decide whether something is a human right or not. The whole concept vexes me: 1. Statements like this: the author comes up with a criterion for what a human right should be, and gives examples of things she thinks are human rights, but doesn't notice that they violate the criterion. "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..." These are fundamentally NOT rights that can be identified by their outcomes. This point is almost trivial. The freedom of speech is not "an end in itself" any more than the Internet is. Free speech is "an enabler of rights, not a right itself" which is his criterion for not-a-human-right. We want free speech so we can influence civil rights, protect our freedom or <insert whatever right we think we have> not just so for the sake of spouting things into the public or private sphere. 2. Rights conflict, so asking whether something is, or is not, a right becomes irrelevant. Let's say we've decided I have a right to not be murdered. Great. That might conflict with your right to, say, freedom. Obviously that's restricted so that you don't do things. Or maybe everyone has a right to their property, but also an equal chance at getting to water, and I own the only watering hole. The question is what we do when they conflict (i.e. we say that my right to not be killed trumps your right to do whatever you want, or access to water trumps the right to property). 3. They never seem to make a broader point about how to make the world a better place, other than "now that you know the Internet isn't a human right, you can, er, um, work to make it better?" Blah.
- cgs1019 15y ago
  I think I agree with you, but what do you mean by "I own the only watering hole" in this hypothetical context outside the zone of commonly prescribed rights of freedom, ownership, etc.? You own what? The land? How much of it? And why? Because I can't take it from you? Watch me (and my army). You own the well? To what depth? Watch me (and my army) dig deeper and take the water from underneath "your" watering hole. It seems you're conflating somewhat the concepts of personal freedom and interpersonal contracts. For example, your right not to be murdered and my right to "freedom" are not in contradiction if my right to freedom is constrained to apply only to those actions of mine which have nil or negligible impact on others. I think Cerf's point is that we should not take something which is complex and takes extraordinary human effort to produce, maintain, protect and secure as a granted right. It intermingles motivations undesirably.
sgentle 15y ago
I began this piece raring to disagree, but I find it hard to fault his logic. A human right to unimpeded use of carriages would seem hilarious today, and a right to the use of landline phones will likely become so in the next decade. We don't want to regulate specific rights as reactions to the particular issues of the day, we want to distill those issues to their essence so that we can meaningfully protect freedoms that are fundamental to meaningful human existence. However, as others have noted here, this article leaves a couple of important points unaddressed. Firstly, how can we be sure that the internet isn't fundamental? I can imagine arguing (in an earlier time) that legal counsel shouldn't be a human right, because we'll have something better than the legal system at some point. Yet thousands of years of human development have led only to a more complex legal system with the same fundamental ideas. Maybe the internet isn't horse-riding, maybe it's the invention of law. How do we know? Secondly, if internet access isn't fundamental, then what is its more essential formulation? Being banned from the internet today makes you deaf, dumb and blind; much like being banned from electricity would cripple you. The difference is, nobody's trying to make three strikes laws for the power grid. We need to protect something. So what is it? The idea of free access to information? Ability to form and join networks? It's clearly not anything that's currently protected. Unfortunately, there is more than just an academic interest at stake here. It's well and good to say "ha ha, you see, I have a new and interesting perspective", but this is a situation where there are actual losses being made in terms of real people's access to the internet. Unless Vint Cerf is trying to say that's not important, perhaps it's a little counterproductive to make an article that shoots down a core idea for internet freedom without providing anything else of substance to fill its place.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Would you agree that electricity would probably always be necessary? If so, then what about the Internet? It's still early days for the Internet, but I think it's already becoming as important as electricity for many people. I'm not convinced that the Internet is just like the landlines, but we might need a more abstract description of the Internet, just in case say a new "Internet" of mesh networks builds momentum and starts replacing this Internet. But even then, it would be pretty close to what we have today. I don't see the Internet as just one thing that gets used for a couple of decades and then discarded, but more like something that will continually evolve. I see the Internet closer to the abstractness of "communication" than to the physicality of the "landline", which also implies only certain technologies.
azernik 15y ago
Forgetting the bit about human rights for a second, in his conclusion Cerf goes for this odd statement that: "In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online." Ummmm, yesssss "Technologists should work toward this end." And, as far as I know, they are. This entire column just seems like wasted space and time, arguing frantically against... what, precisely? Engineers who don't think about "harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers"? There's a lot of alarmist language, and very little substance.
- oracuk 15y ago
  I think it is statement that is worth repeating regularly. Too often I work with technologists who refuse to consider a moral or ethical dimension to the work they do. The technology may not inherently have an ethical or moral dimension but the uses to which it is put often do.
kasmura 15y ago
Internet Access is a NEGATIVE right
salman89 15y ago
Internet access is not a human right, but right of free will when you are not harming anyone and right of free speech (a derivative of free will) is. That makes me think that when internet is taken away, there is a violation of human rights.
webrakadabra 15y ago
Internet is nothing but Expression. Free expression should be human right and so should be Internet. No less.
BerislavLopac 15y ago
This is overly complicating a correct and basically simple issue. In my view, a human right is something that, all things being equal, a human being would be able to provide by him or herself, and which can be restrained by another human. So there is a right to live, to eat, to speak freely etc. Therefore, Internet access is not a basic human right, as it has to be provided by someone and isn't available to a naked human in the middle of nowhere, as we all once were.
davekinkead 15y ago
Any discussion of rights without discussing duties is vacuous because rights can't exist without duties ie: My right to X imposes a duty on you to provide or not prevent me from X. So if internet access was a right, what is the corresponding duty it imposes and who is that duty imposed upon? Must the state (and therefore you) provide me with a super computer & T1 connection or is free netbook and dial-up for all sufficient? Or perhaps your rich neighbour. Why not TV or radio as human rights? Claiming these things as human rights imposes unjustifiable burdens upon others when you have no right to do so. If you disagree, please explain why I should be forced to ensure you have access to facebook and where your power of imposition comes from. But just because something is not a right, doesn't mean that universal access is not a good thing. Plenty of goods such as education, healthcare and sanitation fail the duty test but their universal access is still a very good thing. We may even agree that these things 'should' be a right but in that case the right is a political one based on mutual agreement, not some inalienable human right.
- danssig 15y ago
  Internet should absolutely be a right, but that's not a burden on you. It's like the right to bear arms: a normal citizen can't be prevented from doing so, but he still has to buy them himself.
  - davekinkead 15y ago
    You are missing Cerf's point. It may be a desirable but its not a human right. What you are describing is negative freedom: no one should stop me from doing X. But this is very different from a human right: something that is inalienable and fundamental to human existence. The right to bear arms is a political right (in the US at least) as well as a negative freedom. It is not however, a human right. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Access to the internet wasn't fundamental to human existence 100 years ago when it didn't exist or even 10 year ago when it did. Its still not fundamental to our existence today - its just very useful.
tmsh 15y ago
I disagree with this. Human Rights should be as specific as possible (but no less specific). There is real risk in making them too general. The Bill of Rights is a good example of what works (freedom of the press, right to bear arms, etc.). Abstract ideas that can be misinterpreted or interpreted under the aegis of whatever the mass public can be sold with (often as mere lip-service) are what can be most dangerous.
- pjscott 15y ago
  I would prefer a combination approach: general, but with a list of specific examples. It's the best of both worlds, albeit more verbose than either.
acex 15y ago
internet is not technology but a place and a medium to it.
ck2 15y ago
What if most everything you buy is full price unless you can buy it online? So you'd have two classes of people, those with internet access and those without. Those without pay much more for food and clothing and possibly eventually shelter.
tjoff 15y ago
I see internet as the fourth dimension to daily life. It certainly isn't an necessity but making sure that it is available, if requested, is sane. Related: Finland makes broadband a 'legal right' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048
A1kmm 15y ago
Vint doesn't say what he means by 'Internet', and I think that his argument fails on a sufficiently broad definition of Internet. The Internet is 'just a technology' if you define it as a network of nodes which communicate using Internet Protocol. That may have been the original meaning of the term as Vint planned the early work, but that meaning is not what it means to most people. In modern usage, the open Internet is a global network that allows data to be passed between any two hosts without requiring that third parties authorise the content of that data. Under that definition, the Internet is a concept synonymous with uncensored automated communication, rather than a specific technology; these concepts are capable of surviving into the future even if the hardware and software protocols layered on it change drastically.
- rickmb 15y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Cerf uses a strictly technical, near autistic definition of the Internet. The social meaning of the Internet as a human right can be defined as the right to globally interconnect any means of communication that doesn't involve the physical transport of people or objects. I.e., uncensored communication without borders. That's what the word Internet means to ordinary people today. Protocols, networking layers or physical networks are irrelevant, it's about the right to do what we do via the Internet today.
klixxrr 15y ago
I disagree that the internet connectivity is not a right. It is the modern day equivalent of a library. I also see a flaw in his logic with the horse. Horses weren't owned by large monopolies and they didn't control how often you could use your horse. Imagine if Verizon owned all the horses at the time of the formation of constitution. With clauses like, "you can only use your horse from 8am-2pm" and if you fail to pay your monthly bill we will take your horse away from you. I would bet there would have been an amendment to the constitution to govern the horse. Now im not saying the internet should be free but it should be available to all people, unrestricted by usage, uncensored by governments and affordable.
hackermom 15y ago
My personal view of this is that the internet is no different than access to a telephone landline or a mobile network, a bicycle, a car or public transport. No one denies you access to transport or communication - you have a human right to them - but someone has to pay for the actual services in the end. The reasoning that internet should be a human right is semantically the same as people suddenly being given the right to claim someone else's vehicle or someone's phone at their convenience - read: their human right to it - or to claim a free ride on a public transport system. Cerf differentiates these parts in a pretty clear way that I like, in a way that seemingly very few others manage to do. For some reason people partaking in this debate often feel that it's sane and logical that use of the internet should be a human right in a free-of-charge sense without a second's thought about the costs, while they realize the ridiculous err in their reasoning when you put it in the context of transport or communication. Somehow, in that context, they understand that these things cost money, and that it's neither violation of human rights nor denial of access to ask for payment prior to use.
sontorumnisse 15y ago
I don't care about the semantics of "right". Free and easy access to all knowledge so far would really improve our societies and that is the main point.
signalsignal 15y ago
Yes it damn well is. If telephone access to emergency health and hospital services is a human right, then access to the VoIP telephone systems on which mobile phones access emergency responders is a right which cannot be refused by any lawful government.

176 points by rdp 15y ago

itmag 15y ago

What is a human right anyway? Ask an Ayn Rand fan, a libertarian, a Hobbesian, the United Nations, or a Swedish legal positivist, and you willl get different answers. We need to define these things, otherwise the discussion becomes a clash of presuppositions and worldviews.

duncan_bayne 15y ago

More generally: nothing can be a right if it must be paid for by other people; rights can only be proscriptive, never prescriptive.

wmf 15y ago
When people talk about a right to Internet access, they generally mean a negative right: you can't be barred from using the Internet (as in the oppressive countries Cerf mentions), but you still have to pay for it. This is similar to the right of free press, which belongs only to those who own one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
- mc32 15y ago
  >This is similar to the right of free press, which belongs only to those who own one. Didn't it also speak to being able to hire a press (i.e. get someone to run a print for you) to avoid something like "thou shalt not print any materials concerning x, y or z on behalf of a, b or c."
- aantthony 15y ago
  The right to keep and bear arms is also similar. That right doesn't entitle you to free guns.
- mc32 15y ago
  I'm curious about one thing. If it's a human right in France, it would appear to be an alienable right, given some conditions, such as the "three strikes" (HADOPI) law[1], which seeks to address copyright infringement, allows for suspension of internet access for violations. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I don't think it's a human right in France. The UN decided it is a human right, and many countries signed it, but Sarkozy refused to do it as far as I know. So HADOPI can carry on for now, at least until Sarkozy loses the election.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    That's not how rights work. For instance, there's an inalienable right not to be locked in a cage, but if you violate other people's rights not to have their car radios stolen, you can still be locked in a cage.
    - catwell 15y ago
      Exactly. The first version of the HADOPI law was censored by the French Constitutional Council in 2009 on the ground that only a judge could restrict a fundamental right. This is the case with the current version of the law.
mhartl 15y ago
All rights have to be paid for by other people—if you believe that the notion of "right" is well-posed, that is—which I don't.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  My understanding of a "right" is not something that must be provided--rather, it's something that cannot be proscribed. A right is passive; all that's needed to provide one is inaction. You don't have to pay anything to not stop me from speaking. Something that has to be provided is probably better called an "entitlement".
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    Isn't persecution a form of disregarding your rights? Isn't removing Internet access a form of persecution?
Jun8 15y ago
So, the poor don't have a right to education because they cannot pay? What about food aid to Africa? I think the concept of human right is independent of the cost or who pays for it, at least in principle.
- tsotha 15y ago
  Depends on where you're from. There are some countries where that's true and some where it is not.
  - JabavuAdams 15y ago
    Well, aren't human rights meant to be intrinsic to humans, not dependent on the legal jurisdiction like civil rights? One can argue whether this is realistic, or not, but in principle human rights are distinct from civil rights.
    - tsotha 15y ago
      Ah, well, if you're arguing from that perspective then no, these things are not human rights.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      aren't human rights meant to be intrinsic to humans Those are Natural rights, also called "nonsense upon stilts" by Jeremy Bentham and "imaginary, like the Bogeyman" by George Carlin ;)
Joakal 15y ago
IIRC for USA: Is access to a lawyer in court not a right because it is paid for by the court?
- dewitt 15y ago
  The sixth amendment guarantees the right to "a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury" and the "assistance of counsel." The state must provide for the defendant in order to ensure those rights are met. Same as the state must incur the cost of sitting an impartial jury, presenting witnesses against him, etc.
JabavuAdams 15y ago
This is not a given, although it is a defensible position. Are you confusing human rights with civil rights?
icebraining 15y ago
Well, that's like, your opinion, man. Rights are an abstract concept, and people have different definitions of them. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights include such as: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. And Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. These are definitively rights that have to be paid for by other people, and yet many consider them perfectly valid.

jcampbell1 15y ago

I have read the piece three times, and I get the point, but I don't see the purpose. I suppose he is trying to say that "freedom of access to information" is the real right, and that declaring internet access as a right is foolish. I agree. The problem is that I know of no country that offers "freedom of access to information" as an ordained right. In America, we accept Voltaire's line: "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." but that is not quite the same as "freedom of access". I wish Vint Cerf had actually said something rather than just waxing poetic.

dkarl 15y ago
I wish he had added that if internet access is not a human right, then it surely follows from one that we haven't articulated yet. I hope he would agree with that, but this article creates the opposite impression. I know it's onerous for people who think logically, but authors should think beyond the literal correctness of what they're saying and consider how their words will be read in the forum where they are published. I think his resistance to declaring internet access a "right" stems from his understanding that a particular technology is not the right level at which to articulate such a right, but in an op-ed column in a newspaper for general readers, this piece says that it's completely possible for citizens to be denied access to the internet with no infringement on their rights. I realize he said no such thing if you read his words precisely and logically, but dammit, that's not how op-eds are read.
nknight 15y ago
Vint Cerf has been some combination of politician/lobbyist/bureaucrat for 30 years. Expecting him to have something meaningful to say is a sucker's bet.
- jcampbell1 15y ago
  Vint Cerf is the perfect advocate. He is one of the "inventors of the internet", dresses respectably, can write and speak articulately, and doesn't have neck beard. I have an enormous amount of respect for him, and I wish he had written something better. Your expectations of him are foolishly low; my expectations are probably unreasonably high.

Jun8 15y ago

This is a weird piece, I didn't quite understand what he is riling against. One place where I would like to clear the distinction is: "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" Let's not confuse access to Internet (which is described here) and free access to it. You can have free service to all houses in the US but if the likes of SOPA are implemented, I think most people agree that some rights are being trampled on. Otherwise, why oppose SOPA at all, or why find the Chinese Firewall objectionable? To put Cerf's analogy on better ground, it's as if you have phone service but can only call some numbers.

rsanchez1 15y ago
I think he doesn't want the emotional impact of the word "right" to be diminished by applying it to arbitrary technology. What he says makes sense. Freedom is a right. The Internet is a tool that allows people to exercise that right.
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  Right. Your rights on the internet should follow from your human and civil rights. If you have access to the internet, your right to free speech, your right to assemble, your right to etc... should not be impeded, because it's a medium. Blocking access to something shouldn't be viewed as a violation of your right to the internet, it should be a violation of freedom of speech.

siglesias 15y ago

Cerf appears to be arguing semantics. What is one practical consequence of Internet access being seen as a "human right" as opposed to "civil right," or "really good thing to have"?

gills 15y ago

The piece does not address the fundamental point that you cannot with intellectual honesty claim as a right that which, to be satisfied, requires another human being to perform work.

nknight 15y ago
So, I don't have a right to a trial, which requires the work of a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a judge, and a jury? What about the right to vote, which requires someone to count the votes?
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Hey, we only said you could cast a vote. We never said we'd count it.
- doyoulikeworms 15y ago
  Well, those rights are a bit different from, say, free speech, methinks. In my opinion, we have the right to free speech by virtue of being human. At bare minimum, one has a brain, and that brain controls one's mouth. No other human can control someone else's voice in any fashion similar to how he controls his own. To restrict someone from exercising this right requires an outside force to aggress against the speaker. Societies today more or less agree, there's little (or nothing) one can say that should justify violence against the speaker. Similar reasoning can be applied to the use of justly acquired property as a means of disseminating information. It's a promise from government: "I won't take this away from you". The right to a trial is different. No human is born with this right, as no human pops out of the womb with a staffed courthouse in his possession. In fact, the notion of a right to trial doesn't make sense if there are no laws. It also doesn't make sense if there are no conflicts (alone on a desert island). It's also a promise from government: "I'll give you the right to contest my decisions before I use force against you". It's more like a return policy than a natural right, in my opinion.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Those are civil and not human rights, and they only exist because someone is already going through the trouble of governing you. Civil rights are a way of saying, as long as we're going to have a government, let's make sure it operates fairly and tries not to violate your human rights. The relevant human rights are, respectively, the right not to be locked in a cage without a very good reason and the right to have some say over your own life. Theoretically, you wouldn't need the right to a trial or the right to vote if it wasn't for the government going around and potentially violating your human rights. On the other hand, by this reasoning at least, there's no such thing as a right to free beer, because then someone, somewhere would be obligated to brew you some beer, and that would violate his rights.

noonespecial 15y ago

There seem to be some technologies, like telephones and indoor pluming that aren't really "rights" but when treated in a rights-ish manner, make everyone's lives much better. If a rich 1% decided that they'd rather have the money it took to build the sewer system for their town than the sewer, their lives would become worse, not better despite having the extra money(1). If only the super rich had phones, they'd be nearly useless(2). Internet access is certainly looking like its shaping up to be one of those things. 1) And everyone else would be much much worse off. 2) The phones, not the rich, but both come to think of it.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

sliverstorm 15y ago

I always clash with people on this topic, mostly because to me "Human Rights" is mostly limited to "Natural Rights".

stretchwithme 15y ago

There are no rights that give you a right to someone else's property. Freedom of the press means you can own one. It does not mean your printing press can be taken from you and redistributed to some one else that can't afford to buy a press.

danssig 15y ago
Likewise, a right to the internet doesn't mean someone has to pay for it for you but rather that you always have the right to participate if you can afford to.

dvdhsu 15y ago

> Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. Just because you have a right doesn't mean you have to "cash in" on it. According to the Constitution, I have a right to "liberty" [1]. If I didn't want liberty, the right should still exist for those who want it. Just because I don't want it doesn't mean nobody else wants it. Over-protecting is a better policy than under-protecting. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_o...

kevinalexbrown 15y ago

I get extremely frustrated when writers try to decide whether something is a human right or not. The whole concept vexes me: 1. Statements like this: the author comes up with a criterion for what a human right should be, and gives examples of things she thinks are human rights, but doesn't notice that they violate the criterion. "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..." These are fundamentally NOT rights that can be identified by their outcomes. This point is almost trivial. The freedom of speech is not "an end in itself" any more than the Internet is. Free speech is "an enabler of rights, not a right itself" which is his criterion for not-a-human-right. We want free speech so we can influence civil rights, protect our freedom or <insert whatever right we think we have> not just so for the sake of spouting things into the public or private sphere. 2. Rights conflict, so asking whether something is, or is not, a right becomes irrelevant. Let's say we've decided I have a right to not be murdered. Great. That might conflict with your right to, say, freedom. Obviously that's restricted so that you don't do things. Or maybe everyone has a right to their property, but also an equal chance at getting to water, and I own the only watering hole. The question is what we do when they conflict (i.e. we say that my right to not be killed trumps your right to do whatever you want, or access to water trumps the right to property). 3. They never seem to make a broader point about how to make the world a better place, other than "now that you know the Internet isn't a human right, you can, er, um, work to make it better?" Blah.

cgs1019 15y ago
I think I agree with you, but what do you mean by "I own the only watering hole" in this hypothetical context outside the zone of commonly prescribed rights of freedom, ownership, etc.? You own what? The land? How much of it? And why? Because I can't take it from you? Watch me (and my army). You own the well? To what depth? Watch me (and my army) dig deeper and take the water from underneath "your" watering hole. It seems you're conflating somewhat the concepts of personal freedom and interpersonal contracts. For example, your right not to be murdered and my right to "freedom" are not in contradiction if my right to freedom is constrained to apply only to those actions of mine which have nil or negligible impact on others. I think Cerf's point is that we should not take something which is complex and takes extraordinary human effort to produce, maintain, protect and secure as a granted right. It intermingles motivations undesirably.

sgentle 15y ago

I began this piece raring to disagree, but I find it hard to fault his logic. A human right to unimpeded use of carriages would seem hilarious today, and a right to the use of landline phones will likely become so in the next decade. We don't want to regulate specific rights as reactions to the particular issues of the day, we want to distill those issues to their essence so that we can meaningfully protect freedoms that are fundamental to meaningful human existence. However, as others have noted here, this article leaves a couple of important points unaddressed. Firstly, how can we be sure that the internet isn't fundamental? I can imagine arguing (in an earlier time) that legal counsel shouldn't be a human right, because we'll have something better than the legal system at some point. Yet thousands of years of human development have led only to a more complex legal system with the same fundamental ideas. Maybe the internet isn't horse-riding, maybe it's the invention of law. How do we know? Secondly, if internet access isn't fundamental, then what is its more essential formulation? Being banned from the internet today makes you deaf, dumb and blind; much like being banned from electricity would cripple you. The difference is, nobody's trying to make three strikes laws for the power grid. We need to protect something. So what is it? The idea of free access to information? Ability to form and join networks? It's clearly not anything that's currently protected. Unfortunately, there is more than just an academic interest at stake here. It's well and good to say "ha ha, you see, I have a new and interesting perspective", but this is a situation where there are actual losses being made in terms of real people's access to the internet. Unless Vint Cerf is trying to say that's not important, perhaps it's a little counterproductive to make an article that shoots down a core idea for internet freedom without providing anything else of substance to fill its place.

nextparadigms 15y ago
Would you agree that electricity would probably always be necessary? If so, then what about the Internet? It's still early days for the Internet, but I think it's already becoming as important as electricity for many people. I'm not convinced that the Internet is just like the landlines, but we might need a more abstract description of the Internet, just in case say a new "Internet" of mesh networks builds momentum and starts replacing this Internet. But even then, it would be pretty close to what we have today. I don't see the Internet as just one thing that gets used for a couple of decades and then discarded, but more like something that will continually evolve. I see the Internet closer to the abstractness of "communication" than to the physicality of the "landline", which also implies only certain technologies.

azernik 15y ago

Forgetting the bit about human rights for a second, in his conclusion Cerf goes for this odd statement that: "In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online." Ummmm, yesssss "Technologists should work toward this end." And, as far as I know, they are. This entire column just seems like wasted space and time, arguing frantically against... what, precisely? Engineers who don't think about "harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers"? There's a lot of alarmist language, and very little substance.

oracuk 15y ago
I think it is statement that is worth repeating regularly. Too often I work with technologists who refuse to consider a moral or ethical dimension to the work they do. The technology may not inherently have an ethical or moral dimension but the uses to which it is put often do.

kasmura 15y ago

Internet Access is a NEGATIVE right

salman89 15y ago

Internet access is not a human right, but right of free will when you are not harming anyone and right of free speech (a derivative of free will) is. That makes me think that when internet is taken away, there is a violation of human rights.

webrakadabra 15y ago

Internet is nothing but Expression. Free expression should be human right and so should be Internet. No less.

BerislavLopac 15y ago

This is overly complicating a correct and basically simple issue. In my view, a human right is something that, all things being equal, a human being would be able to provide by him or herself, and which can be restrained by another human. So there is a right to live, to eat, to speak freely etc. Therefore, Internet access is not a basic human right, as it has to be provided by someone and isn't available to a naked human in the middle of nowhere, as we all once were.

davekinkead 15y ago

Any discussion of rights without discussing duties is vacuous because rights can't exist without duties ie: My right to X imposes a duty on you to provide or not prevent me from X. So if internet access was a right, what is the corresponding duty it imposes and who is that duty imposed upon? Must the state (and therefore you) provide me with a super computer & T1 connection or is free netbook and dial-up for all sufficient? Or perhaps your rich neighbour. Why not TV or radio as human rights? Claiming these things as human rights imposes unjustifiable burdens upon others when you have no right to do so. If you disagree, please explain why I should be forced to ensure you have access to facebook and where your power of imposition comes from. But just because something is not a right, doesn't mean that universal access is not a good thing. Plenty of goods such as education, healthcare and sanitation fail the duty test but their universal access is still a very good thing. We may even agree that these things 'should' be a right but in that case the right is a political one based on mutual agreement, not some inalienable human right.

danssig 15y ago
Internet should absolutely be a right, but that's not a burden on you. It's like the right to bear arms: a normal citizen can't be prevented from doing so, but he still has to buy them himself.
- davekinkead 15y ago
  You are missing Cerf's point. It may be a desirable but its not a human right. What you are describing is negative freedom: no one should stop me from doing X. But this is very different from a human right: something that is inalienable and fundamental to human existence. The right to bear arms is a political right (in the US at least) as well as a negative freedom. It is not however, a human right. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Access to the internet wasn't fundamental to human existence 100 years ago when it didn't exist or even 10 year ago when it did. Its still not fundamental to our existence today - its just very useful.

tmsh 15y ago

I disagree with this. Human Rights should be as specific as possible (but no less specific). There is real risk in making them too general. The Bill of Rights is a good example of what works (freedom of the press, right to bear arms, etc.). Abstract ideas that can be misinterpreted or interpreted under the aegis of whatever the mass public can be sold with (often as mere lip-service) are what can be most dangerous.

pjscott 15y ago
I would prefer a combination approach: general, but with a list of specific examples. It's the best of both worlds, albeit more verbose than either.

acex 15y ago

internet is not technology but a place and a medium to it.

ck2 15y ago

What if most everything you buy is full price unless you can buy it online? So you'd have two classes of people, those with internet access and those without. Those without pay much more for food and clothing and possibly eventually shelter.

tjoff 15y ago

I see internet as the fourth dimension to daily life. It certainly isn't an necessity but making sure that it is available, if requested, is sane. Related: Finland makes broadband a 'legal right' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048

A1kmm 15y ago

Vint doesn't say what he means by 'Internet', and I think that his argument fails on a sufficiently broad definition of Internet. The Internet is 'just a technology' if you define it as a network of nodes which communicate using Internet Protocol. That may have been the original meaning of the term as Vint planned the early work, but that meaning is not what it means to most people. In modern usage, the open Internet is a global network that allows data to be passed between any two hosts without requiring that third parties authorise the content of that data. Under that definition, the Internet is a concept synonymous with uncensored automated communication, rather than a specific technology; these concepts are capable of surviving into the future even if the hardware and software protocols layered on it change drastically.

rickmb 15y ago
My thoughts exactly. Cerf uses a strictly technical, near autistic definition of the Internet. The social meaning of the Internet as a human right can be defined as the right to globally interconnect any means of communication that doesn't involve the physical transport of people or objects. I.e., uncensored communication without borders. That's what the word Internet means to ordinary people today. Protocols, networking layers or physical networks are irrelevant, it's about the right to do what we do via the Internet today.

klixxrr 15y ago

I disagree that the internet connectivity is not a right. It is the modern day equivalent of a library. I also see a flaw in his logic with the horse. Horses weren't owned by large monopolies and they didn't control how often you could use your horse. Imagine if Verizon owned all the horses at the time of the formation of constitution. With clauses like, "you can only use your horse from 8am-2pm" and if you fail to pay your monthly bill we will take your horse away from you. I would bet there would have been an amendment to the constitution to govern the horse. Now im not saying the internet should be free but it should be available to all people, unrestricted by usage, uncensored by governments and affordable.

hackermom 15y ago

My personal view of this is that the internet is no different than access to a telephone landline or a mobile network, a bicycle, a car or public transport. No one denies you access to transport or communication - you have a human right to them - but someone has to pay for the actual services in the end. The reasoning that internet should be a human right is semantically the same as people suddenly being given the right to claim someone else's vehicle or someone's phone at their convenience - read: their human right to it - or to claim a free ride on a public transport system. Cerf differentiates these parts in a pretty clear way that I like, in a way that seemingly very few others manage to do. For some reason people partaking in this debate often feel that it's sane and logical that use of the internet should be a human right in a free-of-charge sense without a second's thought about the costs, while they realize the ridiculous err in their reasoning when you put it in the context of transport or communication. Somehow, in that context, they understand that these things cost money, and that it's neither violation of human rights nor denial of access to ask for payment prior to use.

sontorumnisse 15y ago

I don't care about the semantics of "right". Free and easy access to all knowledge so far would really improve our societies and that is the main point.

signalsignal 15y ago

Yes it damn well is. If telephone access to emergency health and hospital services is a human right, then access to the VoIP telephone systems on which mobile phones access emergency responders is a right which cannot be refused by any lawful government.