4 ms·

"So how is he going to pay online-only bills?" "Can he read about politics as part of his duty as a voter?" Paying bills online and reading about politics a

"So how is he going to pay online-only bills?" "Can he read about politics as part of his duty as a voter?" Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society. "Since I know he's technically proficient, he's probably using the Internet as we speak." That's a really bad argument, and I think you know it. He very well may be online as we speak, his neighbors probably have an unsecured network, but why is that a good reason to intentionally give the man internet access? He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access. This is not a human rights violation.

Joakal 15y ago
> Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society. I'm sorry, but Internet access is the human right. You're putting human right implications in my mouth. The alternatives available? Jeez, I wonder how he can find out as an Internet user. Hopefully he had heard about yellow pages? Yes, there actually young people who do NOT understand non-Internet alternatives. > He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access. He used electricity too. So, cut off his electricity too? Remember, he needs electricity to run servers and not necessarily the Internet. Seize all electronics instead? He may have files embedded in the house alarm. Personally, I didn't want to respond because your rationale is asinine!
- SquareWheel 15y ago
  You could take that argument as far as you'd like. He used oxygen to help him commit the crimes, thus we should take away his oxygen. No, the internet has directly helped him commit crimes. It is a tool he used. As it is non-essential, and we may disagree on that point but the courts are agreeing with me, then it is logical to remove his privilege. I don't believe my rationale is asinine at all. I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    The prosecution took it that far and the judge does not understand the implications of Internet as a necessity. I even highlighted that it restricts many needs to function as a member of society. The reality is that there are electronics that can easily tap into the World Wide Internet, which gives credence to my argument that his electricity should be shut off along with all electronics (may be battery powered) as part of the effort to prevent access to the Internet. The Internet did not help him commit crimes, it's a neutral platform. They are merely carriers just like roads, servers, etc. > I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it. Nope, I'm talking specifically about the human right to the Internet due to the necessities, abundance of electronics with access to Internet, many potential outlets and most of all; unenforceable to prevent access. I think you're overstepping your position again by implicating me with other positions when I've been quite clear.
    - SquareWheel 15y ago
      I don't think you have been that clear, but I don't want to see this discussion turn personal. I have nothing against you, and your opinion is just as valid as my own. On the question of if the internet is a human right, I think it's quite obvious the answer is no. It has never been viewed as one in the past as far as I know, I've yet to see a judge rule that to be the case. A better question is, should it be? I'd like to see that happen, though I think it will take time to get there.
      - Joakal 15y ago
        I apologise. I was explaining that I did not like being misrepresented by others. I would have been less defensive to a request to clarify my posts. As for it being a human right from precedent, it's already recognised in some European countries (some of it even includes minimal Internet transfer rates) and discussed at UN. Unfortunately for UN, I believe certain influences do not want it to happen, eg USA based on ACTA's proposal that had included demands for three strikes among other Internet access restrictions. There's a lot of information from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access No hard feelings, mate!
felixfurtak 15y ago
Ok, how about this one. Suppose his entire music collection was stored online in something like Google Music. And that all his books were eBooks, stored on Amazon. Lets assume he had his Kindle siezed. Is it right to deny him books and music?
- SquareWheel 15y ago
  It's a shame, but it's still not a human right. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a significant inconvenience, it absolutely would. When it comes to cloud-based media though, realize that you don't own the content. You could have your account banned or content removed at any time, as decided by the courts or the company you're relying on.

Joakal 15y ago

> Paying bills online and reading about politics are not human rights either. There are alternatives available for any task he's expected to do as a member of society. I'm sorry, but Internet access is the human right. You're putting human right implications in my mouth. The alternatives available? Jeez, I wonder how he can find out as an Internet user. Hopefully he had heard about yellow pages? Yes, there actually young people who do NOT understand non-Internet alternatives. > He's shown time and time again that he uses the internet to commit criminal acts, there is no reason for him to have that access. He used electricity too. So, cut off his electricity too? Remember, he needs electricity to run servers and not necessarily the Internet. Seize all electronics instead? He may have files embedded in the house alarm. Personally, I didn't want to respond because your rationale is asinine!

SquareWheel 15y ago
You could take that argument as far as you'd like. He used oxygen to help him commit the crimes, thus we should take away his oxygen. No, the internet has directly helped him commit crimes. It is a tool he used. As it is non-essential, and we may disagree on that point but the courts are agreeing with me, then it is logical to remove his privilege. I don't believe my rationale is asinine at all. I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it.
- Joakal 15y ago
  The prosecution took it that far and the judge does not understand the implications of Internet as a necessity. I even highlighted that it restricts many needs to function as a member of society. The reality is that there are electronics that can easily tap into the World Wide Internet, which gives credence to my argument that his electricity should be shut off along with all electronics (may be battery powered) as part of the effort to prevent access to the Internet. The Internet did not help him commit crimes, it's a neutral platform. They are merely carriers just like roads, servers, etc. > I think you're equating this man's freedom with the protection of the internet itself, and are overstepping your position because of it. Nope, I'm talking specifically about the human right to the Internet due to the necessities, abundance of electronics with access to Internet, many potential outlets and most of all; unenforceable to prevent access. I think you're overstepping your position again by implicating me with other positions when I've been quite clear.
  - SquareWheel 15y ago
    I don't think you have been that clear, but I don't want to see this discussion turn personal. I have nothing against you, and your opinion is just as valid as my own. On the question of if the internet is a human right, I think it's quite obvious the answer is no. It has never been viewed as one in the past as far as I know, I've yet to see a judge rule that to be the case. A better question is, should it be? I'd like to see that happen, though I think it will take time to get there.
    - Joakal 15y ago
      I apologise. I was explaining that I did not like being misrepresented by others. I would have been less defensive to a request to clarify my posts. As for it being a human right from precedent, it's already recognised in some European countries (some of it even includes minimal Internet transfer rates) and discussed at UN. Unfortunately for UN, I believe certain influences do not want it to happen, eg USA based on ACTA's proposal that had included demands for three strikes among other Internet access restrictions. There's a lot of information from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access No hard feelings, mate!

felixfurtak 15y ago

Ok, how about this one. Suppose his entire music collection was stored online in something like Google Music. And that all his books were eBooks, stored on Amazon. Lets assume he had his Kindle siezed. Is it right to deny him books and music?

SquareWheel 15y ago
It's a shame, but it's still not a human right. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a significant inconvenience, it absolutely would. When it comes to cloud-based media though, realize that you don't own the content. You could have your account banned or content removed at any time, as decided by the courts or the company you're relying on.