4 ms·

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 t

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.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Sounding good to Congress and looking good for the shallow masses is not the same as having something substantive to say. He generally just parrots the party line, and once in a while you get an article like this, where it looks like he tries to articulate something new, and it either ends up totally inscrutable, or completely banal. Meanwhile, his non-lobbying activities of the last 30 years include some rather disturbing things, such as a long stint on ICANN's board of directors. Have all the respect you want for his early contributions, but you've got three decades of evidence that he really has nothing substantive to add.
cyanbane 15y ago
I think he is trying to mitigate the medium in which the access to information happens (the internet in this case) and make sure that when we think of human rights we think of it in a broader sense of what we should have access to, not how we have access to it.
- _delirium 15y ago
  Yeah, I see him as attempting (perhaps unsuccessfully) to articulate some timeless principle that "access to the internet" is the current, 2012-era implementation of.
  - cyanbane 15y ago
    In the most non-tinfoil-hat way I can say it, when people like Cerf try to agnositcize the medium like I think he is doing here, it makes you wonder what type of future he is already envisioning. In his view, does the net get over-regulated to the point of creating fragmented darknets and pocket-nets in which this information is dispersed in the coming future, which is the reason that he is trying to downplay the medium in which we consume this info? In regard to him just "waxing poetic" I think that stuff (cryptically?) written like this shows a lot more about what the future-thought by the author is, rather than stuff that is just some fluff/patterned response to regulation he doesn't agree with. I could also totally be off here ;)
mapleoin 15y ago
I believe it's a response to the UN Report which he cites. Here's a Wired article about it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-ri...

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.
- nknight 15y ago
  Sounding good to Congress and looking good for the shallow masses is not the same as having something substantive to say. He generally just parrots the party line, and once in a while you get an article like this, where it looks like he tries to articulate something new, and it either ends up totally inscrutable, or completely banal. Meanwhile, his non-lobbying activities of the last 30 years include some rather disturbing things, such as a long stint on ICANN's board of directors. Have all the respect you want for his early contributions, but you've got three decades of evidence that he really has nothing substantive to add.

cyanbane 15y ago

I think he is trying to mitigate the medium in which the access to information happens (the internet in this case) and make sure that when we think of human rights we think of it in a broader sense of what we should have access to, not how we have access to it.

_delirium 15y ago
Yeah, I see him as attempting (perhaps unsuccessfully) to articulate some timeless principle that "access to the internet" is the current, 2012-era implementation of.
- cyanbane 15y ago
  In the most non-tinfoil-hat way I can say it, when people like Cerf try to agnositcize the medium like I think he is doing here, it makes you wonder what type of future he is already envisioning. In his view, does the net get over-regulated to the point of creating fragmented darknets and pocket-nets in which this information is dispersed in the coming future, which is the reason that he is trying to downplay the medium in which we consume this info? In regard to him just "waxing poetic" I think that stuff (cryptically?) written like this shows a lot more about what the future-thought by the author is, rather than stuff that is just some fluff/patterned response to regulation he doesn't agree with. I could also totally be off here ;)

mapleoin 15y ago

I believe it's a response to the UN Report which he cites. Here's a Wired article about it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-ri...