(OT) UN declares Internet access a "human right"
trelane at trelane.net
Tue Jun 7 03:32:27 UTC 2011
On 6/6/2011 11:29 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:11 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
> Well, the operational concern is... various governments have lately
> shown a trend of disconnecting their countries' networks.
> UN action is unlikely to help; they are too delayed, and there is
> a lack of enforcement power - symbolic actions don't stop
> networks from being disconnected.
> A technical solution rather than a UN solution, would be more
> beneficial; some sort of decentralized, high-speed,
> unjammable wireless mesh with better performance than
> government severable links would be ideal.
> However, the internet's existence is attributable to society, not a
> characteristic of humans. It's odd to suggest there's a natural right
> for the internet to exist - the UN seems mistaken -- maybe there's a
> natural right whose exercise permits participation in the community
> without government interference.
> Forced internet disconnections, as in, government imposed suppression
> are the same concept as shutting down television networks, seizing printing
> presses, restricting/closing broadcast stations, taking or breaking citizens'
> TVs and telephones, banning possession of books/magazines.
> UN doesn't need to say those are bad, it's obvious; it's just politics,
> and the UN trying to appear to stay relevant. Hopefully "human right
> to internet" is not a precursor to taking up IPv4 Exhaustion and declaring
> itself arbiter of addressing policy.
>> Concise enough for you? You may also want to investigate the relative
>> importance of communications and armaments in Ghandi's struggle for a free
>> India, the US civil rights movement, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
>> That's 3 examples of change mediated by communications without rifles. Then
>> there's Darfur - an example of rifles without communications infrastructure.
> Which has pretty much nil to do with the basic human right to secure arms.
> Making social change by force is not an individual human right.
> Social change is the right of societies.[*]
> The natural need for a rational person to keep and bear arms, is to defend
> their person: their life, and things they need in order to continue
> to be alive.
> The threat could be anything from a dangerous animal, to an outlaw coming
> to raid the last of your food and water, during a drought.
> The natural right is to keep items to defend yourself against threats, and to
> bear arms in your defense against lawless assailants; where arms refers
> to the prevalent weapons required.*
> Individual natural right does not extend to bearing arms to coerce change in
> government or others, whether politically viewed as despotic or not,
> anymore than the right to free speech guarantees every person a bullhorn
> to wake up their neighbors at 3am with their protest message against the
> alleged despot.
> Any 'natural right' taken to extreme, without regard to others,
> becomes insane/tyrannical, when taken to that extreme.
> *Not that anyone's rifle will do anything against the local state
> sponsored military.
I might also point out that at some point we may be required to protect
this "basic human right" if someone tries to shut off our internets.
More information about the NANOG