Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Review
Home › News › Industry News
Vint Cerf: Internet access is not a human right
One of the fathers of the internet, Vinton Cerf, widely known for creating the TCP/IP protocol took the opportunity in a recent NYT article to dismiss the idea that the internet is a civil or human right, saying that some people are missing the point entirely.
He argues that use of the internet is not a human right, but is merely a method of communication, and entities such as the United Nations should be concentrating on more fundamental worldwide problems and not on making broadband communications a human right.
"Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself," he writes. "There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things."
Cerf continued, "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 — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time."
There is no doubt that the internet has been instrumental to the protests seen in the Middle East and parts of Northern Africa in the last year. With some governments taking to suppressing the internet in signs of trouble it is understandable that its citizens would want some form of civil or human right attached to its usage.
Cerf believes that the internet is a tool used to enable people to exercise their civil and human rights, as well as provide access to government information. It "is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important." His views contrast with comments made by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee last year.
Ultimately, the internet itself is no more worthy of human rights than the telephone, mobile or even a road. Vint Cerf believes improving the internet is one of many means in which we can improve "human condition." But it is important that it is achieved whilst safeguarding civil and human rights that deserve to be protected, without the illusion that access alone is such a right.
User Comments: 56
Got something to say? Post a comment-
tw0rld said:Human Rights would not exist without people protecting them. That's the difference between RIGHTS and ABILITIES.
If they didn't exist what would be there to protect. It is like saying if we couldn't breathe then there would be no air to breathe.
You are still talking about abilities not rights, some countries don't protect the same rights as the US, so to the people there it doesn't exist. What is existence? Nothing exists 'till it is found or created.
-
This is a very interesting topic and I find reading about it far more interesting and educational than when the next *ucken phone is coming out. Please post more topics like this!
-
I have been saying this ever since the stupid idea was announced but unfortunately, I am not someone important like Mr Forefather of the Internet?
-
tw0rld said:Human Rights would not exist without people protecting them. That's the difference between RIGHTS and ABILITIES.
If they didn't exist what would be there to protect. It is like saying if we couldn't breathe then there would be no air to breathe.
If rights always existed, why do we have the right to bear arms? That can only exist with the existence of firearms. Just because a right is disputed doesn't mean it shouldn't be a right.
-
he is stupid or paid to say this.
-
tw0rld said:
If rights always existed, why do we have the right to bear arms? That can only exist with the existence of firearms. Just because a right is disputed doesn't mean it shouldn't be a right.The right to bear arms falls under personal right. To defend ones self, To protect ones own right to life.
-
tw0rld said:You are still talking about abilities not rights, some countries don't protect the same rights as the US, so to the people there it doesn't exist. What is existence? Nothing exists 'till it is found or created.
Nothing exists until it is found or created? If a tree falls is forest and no one in a round does it make a sound? This is basically you statement as a question. What you are trying to say is, there is no knowledge of the existence of something until it is discovered. Ignorance of something does not equate to non-existence.
-
Anyone else think he looks like The Architect from Matrix Revolutions?
Coincidence?? hmmm.......
-
tw0rld said:
I will make a final statement and cal it a day. Human rights are not man-made they are not granted or gifted. You are born with them. They are innate and inalienable. They are yours and yours only. Laws are there only to ensure that your ability to act upon these rights are not hindered.
Good night and God bless.
-
just as anything that gains popularity when it reaches a certain limit such as how the internet it getting to be more accessible to the the masses the more people will ponder the effects of it. back in the 90's people were promoting the damn thing as the best thing in the world. It's like how linux used to be virus free back in the early 20s but now when it's getting more and more popular people have started make more and more viruses trying to attack it. I think it will come to a point just like anything in the world where a few will be able to by pass the restrictions put on it by lawmakers etc and the masses will just have to cope with what they have been given. it's the way the world has worked from ancient times. how ever civilized we think we are in the end the basic evolutionary thinking kicks in at times of difficulty. sad but true..
-
tw0rld said:You are still talking about abilities not rights, some countries don't protect the same rights as the US, so to the people there it doesn't exist. What is existence? Nothing exists 'till it is found or created.
Nothing exists until it is found or created? If a tree falls is forest and no one in a round does it make a sound? This is basically you statement as a question. What you are trying to say is, there is no knowledge of the existence of something until it is discovered. Ignorance of something does not equate to non-existence.
My point is, things are created, like rights to protect against violations of them, not before the violations.
-
This guy should stick to what he does best - technology. He should leave his US centric lectures on ideology to those better qualified.
-
tw0rld said:
I will make a final statement and cal it a day. Human rights are not man-made they are not granted or gifted. You are born with them. They are innate and inalienable. They are yours and yours only. Laws are there only to ensure that your ability to act upon these rights are not hindered.
Good night and God bless.
Access of information should be a right, period. Maybe not in your world, but in a world where the internet is the most abundant source of that. This country protects many rights innate and not innate, the right to protect oneself does not imply you need a gun to do so.
-
tw0rld said:My point is, things are created, like rights to protect against violations of them, not before the violations.
I'm sorry. I could not say nothing. why would you create something just to protect it fro being violated. Simple solution do not create it in the first place. Human rights are not created they just are.
-
tw0rld said:Access of information should be a right, period. Maybe not in your world, but in a world where the internet is the most abundant source of that. This country protects many rights innate and not innate, the right to protect oneself does not imply you need a gun to do so.
We are not merely talking about rights, but Human rights. Do not confused the two. Access to information is not a human right nor a right. It is a privilege. We can extend this privilege to others who do not enjoy it in many ways, that do not involve it being declared a human right.
-
tw0rld said:This guy should stick to what he does best - technology. He should leave his US centric lectures on ideology to those better qualified.
Not sure if you are referring to me, but I am not a U.S citizen. That is right I hail from another land, currently residing in the U.S. Ideology/beliefs are not limited to national boundaries.
-
tw0rld said:My point is, things are created, like rights to protect against violations of them, not before the violations.
I'm sorry. I could not say nothing. why would you create something just to protect it fro being violated. Simple solution do not create it in the first place. Human rights are not created they just are.
Create it because this is a society, people violate the rights of others all the time. Like any law it is there as a visible guideline. Some people argue that God wasn't created, he just is, but we have no proof of that. Unwritten rights don't exist just because we will recognize them when we need them.
-
tw0rld said:Access of information should be a right, period. Maybe not in your world, but in a world where the internet is the most abundant source of that. This country protects many rights innate and not innate, the right to protect oneself does not imply you need a gun to do so.
We are not merely talking about rights, but Human rights. Do not confused the two. Access to information is not a human right nor a right. It is a privilege. We can extend this privilege to others who do not enjoy it in many ways, that do not involve it being declared a human right.
Yes the written human rights that the UN recognizes, and many others we don't know of. If owning firearms is a human right I don't see how access to information wouldn't be. I'm not talking private information, but something that is available for the public to see.
-
He is right millions still starve without food so for internet is kinda out of the question but still for those on the internet it still seems preety worng to deny internet
-
Hmm... I've read almost every comment on this matter, as I find it quite interesting.
If you count Internet as a privilege, because one can live without it, you may aswell count electricity as a privilege, because people before us also did live without it. Like we did before the internet was invented.
You pay for the electricity they give you and for internet aswell.
But there's a huge difference ofcourse.
Today, electricity is used in pretty much every country in the world, and almost ~~+95% of human beings or more are ''used'' to it. So if you take their electricity away, they may be able to continue to live, but like people in the rockages did, obviously.
While for the internet I would assume there are about only ~~50% of human beings which are ''used'' to it, and if you take their internet away, they may be able to continue living, but I'm sure it's a bit hard in the first place. They wouldn't be forced to live like in the rockages but definetly one could call it a ''living a life like decades ago'' where there was no internet.
If I would live 20 years ago, and had no internet, I wouldn't mind.
But today, If I had no internet access, I would buttrape my president, sorry... but thats a fact.
Internet is a technlogy for better, like electricity and unlike nuclear warfare or such you might argue.
I would say in countries like US, or most European countries, you simply can't cut off the internet for the people, MAYBE, and I say maybe, you could do that in third world countries, but If I were the president there, I would not try that.
So In countries like US, and Europe I think it can be called a 'right';.
-
The internet is not a right, but its increasingly useful and something that everyone should have some kind of access to.
-
The Internet's significance and importance should make it a right (not a human right, but a right).
-
The internet may not be a "human right" but any one who is denied access to it is transformed into a second class citizen. No internet? Get to the back of the bus!
-
Sure his logic is true, but the purpose of classifying the internet as a human right is to give people without that luxury the ability to keep up to the rest of the world. The internet is not "merely a method of communication," but access to information. Think about what will happen to the less fortunate when technology takes over and books are no longer printed.
Yeah well, "when books are outlawed, only outlaws will have books"....
Books will eventually no longer be printed, because of imbeciles that think the "Kindle" is actually a book.
This just in; entitlement to information isn't a human right either. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as college tuition, and we'd all get a free PHD.
I just priced internet only with Comcast, for internet only, (cable), and it would be $69.95 @ month. Now, if "I dun had me these kids", there exists the possibility I could get internet for $10.00 a month.
Now, try to picture how sick of people like you railing about social entitlements I really am.
And finally, I absolutely, positively, don't care what happens to the "less fortunate".
The only outcome I'm certain of for the "less fortunate", is that they'll screw as much as they can, as often as they can, as hard as they can, in order to provide us a never ending supply of more, "less fortunates". Either before or after which, many of them will sell their food stamps to buy either crack or heroine.
You are completely wrong. Freedom is a right and it can be taken away, ever heard of slavery... These rights are created to make things better for the people who don't have them, not you ignorant people who take them for granted.Every time you take to the internet, you type something more profoundly bizarre.
Although, the foregoing statement my be a personal "best" for you.
To put it another way, "WTF on earth does internet access have to do with slavery"?
-
Twixtea said:
Internet is a technlogy for better, like electricity and unlike nuclear warfare or such you might argue.
I would say in countries like US, or most European countries, you simply can't cut off the internet for the people, MAYBE, and I say maybe, you could do that in third world countries, but If I were the president there, I would not try that.
So In countries like US, and Europe I think it can be called a 'right';.
Well, I don't know but if you were to introduce something like the internet to people in a Backwards type of a country who didn't know what in God's name your talking about and they took a liking too it and got kind of used to having it around and said I enjoy the freedom of using it and I want more of it but the Government said NOPE, You can't have any more then what we give you,Wouldn't you scream bloody murder if you couldn't get what you wanted to?
I think someone should have SLAPPED you up-side your head for introducing such Technology to that Backwards country and NOT informing them that having such FREEDOM as the internet, it comes with Responsibilities, YOU ABUSE IT, YOU LOSE IT !
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Featured on Cases
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.