The world is at a crossroad. Increasingly, (most especially in the last six months alone) we’ve seen an explosion of how the Internet has become a vector to spread information that governments prefer to be suppressed or mainstream media deem unworthy to be aired. Social Networks— particularly Facebook and Twitter have become a communications platform to get the word across. YouTube has been utilized as a platform to air rioting in the streets of Tehran for example that otherwise couldn’t be aired by “respected journalists”. The threat of the Internet being shutdown simply because Governments deem it dangerous is a clear and present danger.
I think more and more, we must think of the Internet as a human right and should be spelled out as such in the Human Declaration of Rights:
- that access to Internet and anything that might teach a person something about the way the world works should be unlimited and total;
- that all information should be free;
- that there should be a decentralization where free exchange of ideas and information is paramount;
- that degrees, age, race, position are less important over a system of meritocracy;
- that art is generated on the Network;
- that online can be a vector for making life better.
If there will be a change in the Philippines’ charter then, I strongly urge that Internet be a right protected by the Constitution.
If the world fails to turn the Internet as a Human Right, we may see a cyberpunk culture.
So say we all?
UPDATE-1/Related: The Center for Democracy and Technology “The Internet and Human Rights”
Popularity: 1% [?]
What does ‘right’ mean?
Everything covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also our own bill of rights.
Right to technology. Internet as idea separate from 1) information, 2) communication, 3) knowledge, 4) access to education and skills training is still impossible. Once it’s fairly established in the global culture. Right to Access the Net is OK, I guess. Tyrants, though, could always ban sections of it even when maintaining access to the citizenry.
OT. Article 29.3.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Hmmmmmmm… “You have all these rights unless we say you dont.”
thats a strange response. you basically said ” rights are things defined by the UN”
OK. how should the UN define rights? should everything (thats a good thing) be a right?
well the universal declaration is the biggest of the bunch… since most countries in the world agree to it. i guess i’m saying that “right” is something we all agree upon.
Just to answer your question and just to add to what i gave primer, The basic Right should be centered on Net Neutrality. The father of the world wide web spoke of it this way:
the link you posted (thanks!) is about how the internet PROMOTES human rights.
it doesnt say that the internet is a human right.
re: promotes
i know. :D At least someone is reading. greatly appreciated. :D
good intention and an enlivening blog. thanks cocoy
i totally agree but FV is still enjoying the “INSULTS” phase :)
soon we will evolve as one.
It is possible that your proposal cocoy is part of the larger edifice under construction where you speak of it being a human right.
I would intuit that where every form of human right is concerned, the UN or other reputable international agencies could even fail to see this part of the larger picture.
In any event, it would appear that our very own government has already looked askance at the role of the internet as a vector for robust exchange of information, what with the RORB having been legislated to in fact play obstructionist role.
Primer, i updated the post with a link to the Center for Democracy and Technology that talked about the Internet as Human Right.
“So say we all?”
Frak, yeah. ;)
Seriously, I’m all for meritocracy. However, declaring ALL information free may not be feasible at this time (a certain basic and important portion may be). Researches need to be financed, after all. One thing that could be done is to lower the number of years required by Intellectual Property laws before a work can be placed in the public domain.
For one thing, the global patent system needs to be fixed. that much is certain. corporations around the world spend exuberant amounts of money to patent and to defend those patents. it is just insane.
also intelligence also needs to be classified. there are somethings that ought to be secret.
everything else, i think needs to be freely accessed.
I thought at first that the whole notion of a world wide web is precisely to ‘democratize’ information not to ‘commercialize’ as though no one really owns any information at all.
I further thought that the internet will have to break all barriers to such access by removing all these questions of patent, intellectual property rights, and even those once classified ‘secret’ information.
I just thought this is what the internet is all about if one talks of it as a human right.
You have to realize though, Primer, that there are many factors that contribute to whether or not The Internet is made accessible.
1) Affordability of internet access as well as hardware needed
2) Freedom of access of many countries is lacking
Other points to consider is that commercialization cannot be stripped away, indeed this is the main focus of so many debates in The Newspaper industry as they try to find a business model that will allow them to do what they do best, while still being able to turn a profit.
Democracy in the world wide web is basically and should be focused on Freedom from restrictions in many terms such as content, and equal platforms of streaming, etc. such focus is the main topic of what is termed as Net Neutrality.
Exactly, Nick!
Primer, just to add to what Nick has said, the best analogy i could think of is the US interstate system. The internet is like a highway. It brings people from point a to point b. It is paid for by the people of the united states of america. BUT the Internet while it is highway-like isn’t publicly owned.
Access to it is owned by corporations because it is their money that paid for the cables and the bandwidth and the satellites. They’re also the guys paying to update the basic infrastructure to keep things going and to improve the basic “pipes”. So there is an element of capitalism there. I think it is only fair that individuals and corporations pay a reasonable amount for that.
That said, a basic requirement i think is that for as long as a person is paying for access to the internet— no one, no corporation, no government, with an exception of an act of God, has the right to deny any person service.
Also I think the idea of net neutrality should be at the core of any idea that makes the Internet a Human Right. Net Neutrality means, *my* use, the guarantee that *my* data is equally received on the network should be the same guarantee given to *you*. it is the same and equal guarantee that *google* gets, or that FilipinoVoices the website gets.
It is a new Media where Dictators, or would be Dictators cannot
yet control. Its good for Feedom of Speech and Opinion.
How about we make it simple?
“All Governments should keep from trying to control or regulate the Internet, especially the U.N.”.
Trying to make it as a “right” and having Governments enforce it will soon lead to its corruption.
while i agree that no government on Earth should have control or regulation of the Internet, all i’m saying is that there must be an absolute guarantee that as long as you and me /pay/ to access the network— no one shall prevent either of us from accessing the Internet. also our data is just as important as google’s data. that packets of data is equally treated whether the entity is say google or you and me.
Thank you Nick. Thank you Cocoy.
Again, I thought that some young, weird, probably nerd, teenage ‘geeks’ killing time in their house garages who never stop pushing the keys in their laptops are, in fact, the ‘precursors’ of these IT technologies.
And by no means are they some corporate employees with internet or IT as line of business. Do they really demand royalties? I just think that in so far as internet is concerned, there is totally no notion of any kind of ‘world capitalist order’ in terms as who should be raking more profits than another.
In the internet, the capitalist’s “culture of rapacity” seems to be lost.
That would be a very progressive and modern Constitution, to ensure a free and open internet.
Joe
Fact Joe, if I must pushed your argument a little further, Cocoy would not even resist that there be a ‘World Constitution’ with our own domestic charter (Constitution) a “juicy” extract.
How does that come to you?
Primer,
I think the global community of nations is working piecemeal toward a “World Constitution” when it puts together nuclear non-proliferation treaties, human rights agreements, WTO charter, global warming agreements, etc. It is hard getting consensus on these positions because of varying national interests, so I think doing a “World Constitution” would be impossible.
From the outside looking in, I think the Philippines would benefit by taking a broader and deeper look at its constitution, because I think it is missing the opportunity to be profound and meaningful. Rather, it seems intent upon crafting another rushed document for the reigning political disposition. It is likely to last maybe another 10 to 25 years, then be shredded for some other political expediency.
It seems to me that a thoughtful approach would seek to get a document in place that would be perpetual and apply to any given political party’s views, because it captures the essence of what the PHILIPPINE value code is. The document should not try to codify detailed law, as the current version does. Details should rest outside the main document along with the body of court decisions that clarifies the finer points of “intent” of the framers of the constitution.
I tend to believe a new constitution would be best crafted by respected scholars and “elders” of the nation, not by the legislature. But I doubt that current legislators see the need for a profound document. They want expediency.
Joe
Joe:
It’s all good.
Devil is in the details of implementation – “respected” and “elder” in the PI is a question of Ninoy Aquinos in your wallet – not what’s in between your ears.
The middle forces are a motley group that are overwhelmingly outnumbered by people who respect Ninoy Aquinos. That’s “it” – If you have the dough, they will come up with a reason why they voted for you :lol:
As long as you can put up with “it: – or at least be desensitized from “it,” do as the Romans do, you’ll be fine in your adopted Rome.
Bong, thanks for the encouragement. As to desensitizing, I regret that my medications preclude me from drinking. But oh, how I shall strive. As to Rome, I shall learn to fiddle, too, eh?
Joe
Information itself is free (as in beer), delivery/dissemination of information,however, is not. The internet is a medium by which information is distributed, and therefore it is not free. The argument is similar to the ‘right to water’. We would all agree that every human should have the right to drinking water, but it does not mean that we should be exempted from paying our water bills. The internet is a valuable resource, therefore controlled by corporations directly and through government. Creating policy to make information or ‘internet’ a human right is useless. We would still need to wait for technology to advance far enough and render information distribution hardware (optic fibers, sattelites etc..) obsolete before we can declare information as a human right. Net Neutrality and ‘Internet as Human Right’ are apples and oranges. The issue of Net Neutrality is a debate between a socialist and capitalist way of sharing a resource. And before we jump on the ‘Net Neutral’ bandwagon, we should consider the fact that the ‘capitalist way’ has advanced the internet to where it is today. Ask yourself if a socialist method would have advanced technology at the same pace. Remember, technology is an ugly beast. It grows through capitalism and war. Information is a human right, but information needs technology to thrive. Technology is expensive and it is not ‘share’ friendly.
Internet Surveillance by US Gov’t.:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?th&emc=th
Tranquil,
Interesting note. I was thinking about that in a recent blog when I was writing “terrorist” this and “terrorist” that. It struck me that the note will be read by some guy in a hole in Virginia, USA.
Should I mind?
Joe
They have that capability to access private internet correspondence. Would you mind that Big Brother is peering into your web content on, say, thoughts of love for your girlfriend or your wife? Or details of a business transaction to your corporate headquarters? Where does privacy ends and intrusion justified by security threat begins?
I dunno, maybe when I’m on the 50th floor of the World Trade Center building and there is a plane flying into the 43rd.
Joe
LOL..I’m sure if Cheney and Rumsfield and George Junior are still directing, they would still be donning their pro-active forward leaning hat even if it’s only a pigeon or a maya is fying.
to Joe : Not Virginia… Maryland. That e-mail gets processed in Marland (with the very high odds against your e-mail eventually being reviewed by a human pair of eyes).
Now, to tranquil : don’t Filipinos culturally believe in this sentence?
There is no reason for my neighbor to say “NO” to police investigations, question-and-answer sessions and searches. Only those who are guilty of something illegal will say “NO”.
UP n grad, damn. I guess I need to read different spy novels. I’m getting my facts wrong.
Joe
Police questioning a neighbor is quite entirely different from unauthorized snooping of your internet/web correspondence, right?
Tranquil,
I have no trouble with police questioning my neighbor – or me. I have trouble with the knowledge that there are people who exist, in our day of reason and civility, who would smile and praise their God as they nuked a city.
Joe
Yep. as long as anything you do on the internet isn’t encrypted, chances are it can be read. the tools aren’t actually that difficult to find. one simply needs to know how to use them.
The software/hardware technology is called, “Packet Sniffer” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_sniffer
I understand you are probably refering here to the Islamic jihaddists but why use the completed task form of the verb “nuke”?
The only people who have “nuked” a city so far are the Americans although not perhaps with a smile and praise to their God. Test bombing the Japs may have been agonizing indeed.
This brings to the fore the proposition that if “reasonable and civilzed” people of the world found the use of nuclear weapons as dastardly inhuman and horrible, why not advocate for a unilateral across the board banning of this weapon?
The reason the US and the western countries are having a hard time convincing despotic regimes and people to abandon nuclear weapons program is because you are not bargaining or pleading from a position of moral/ethical high ground or fairness. Why is it ok for you to have loads and tons of nuclear ammunition and not ok for everybody else?
Are you saying that only the US and Russia and Britain and France and Israel and Australia etc. are the only ones who are capable of containing this techonological genie? Or use it with extreme caution and/or discretion?
But why use it at all if we already have found in Nagasaki and Hiroshima that it is horrible and inhuman?
tranquil,
I think the tense is future pluperfect, or somesuch, so I am confident nuked is correct in that context. Somesuch is not a word, however.
Right, we dastardly Americans, seeking world conquest . . . go around nuking people because we are . . . well, we are inhuman people . . . Talk to your war veterans before you determine who was inhuman in WW II . . .
I wholeheartedly agree that the world should stepwise move to civility and sanity and get rid of ALL nukes. President Obama is taking baby steps in that direction . . . The US should indeed lead in the scrapping of nukes, without unsuitably endangering the balance of powers that was the reason for the outrageous stockpiles in the first place.
Joe
while i am for a world without nuclear weapons, it is interesting to note that our exploration of space maybe put in jeopardy because of the phaseout of nuclear weapons: http://www.gearlog.com/2009/05/nasa_running_out_of_nuclear_fu.php