Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#71

Post by sirclueless »

scott_meade wrote: post #33

The motion does not say that Internet access is a human right. The gist of the motion is captured in the affirmation that "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice" [ http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/19/64/51/6999c512.pdf ] The UN is simply affirming that the media…

Not just the form of media, but also communication across sovereign borders. That is, Egypt can't make a media bubble and say, "Sure, our citizens are free to use the internet to express whatever opinions they like to other Egyptians. It just has to be on the Egyptian twitter on Egyptian servers."

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#72

Post by sirclueless »

accountswu wrote: post #67
gogobyte wrote: post #30

The problem is I despise UN because it is an organization of dictatorships mainly, and extremely corrupted one.

You mean it's a dictatorship run by the minority rich western white countries that force their imperialism on the majority of the world through the various arms of UN? That the US is able to impose sanctions on Iraq and now Iran even though the majority of the world is opposed to the sanctions? That the US is able to shield Israel from any sanctions despite its grave violations of human rights, its refusal to end the…

The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined. Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing: there are some cogent arguments that the lengthy peace enjoyed in Europe since WWII has been largely due to the constantly present American military force and economic hegemony. Countries in Europe and Asia are willing to stomach U.S. presence because the U.S. has not been an imperial power since Palau in 1947 (and, excluding Liberia circa 1840-something, it has never had a mainland colony).

It's obvious that the U.S. will never try to wrest sovereignty from a stable Western-style representative government, so countries are willing to let the U.S. solve the so-called "Security Dilemma" for them. If this means giving them effective veto power over U.N. resolutions for such time as they retain a military hegemony, so be it. There are a lot of benefits to having a hegemon in power, and as Empires go, the American Empire is relatively benign unless you think that American cultural influence will destroy the world or something.

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#73

Post by sgift »

smsm42 wrote: post #52
Riesling wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I studied law in germany for a couple of semesters and I learned that human rights are never absolute. They are more like bubbles. Basically your right ends where it collides with someones else right or to paraphrase it "one man's freedom is another man's limitation". The purpose of the law is to make sure, that those bubbles are about equally sized for everyone.

0 would be equal size for everyone, so I would hope the purpose of the law is more than that. I wouldn't also take Germany as particularly good example because, for example, free speech is not a right in Germany (they may claim they have very good reason for that, but don't they always do so?). Rights are "not absolute" only is the sense that exercising your right does not absolve you from responsibility for violatin…

Where did you get the idea that "free speech is not a right in Germany"? Free speech _is_ a right[1]. But, following the principle outlined by Riesling it is not an absolute right.

[1]https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf - see Article 5

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#74

Post by brc »

maratd wrote: post #63
twelvechairs wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really 'catching up' in the way you say. The UN declaration of human rights already says "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.". This move by the UN seems a deliberate point to ensure 'the internet' cannot be excluded…

> the US bill of rights was not the first to enshrine freedom of speech No, of course not. We all get our ideas from somewhere. Much of American law and concepts come from English common law. The English picked it up from the Romans and Germans. So on and so forth. However, the US bill of rights is certainly the longest lasting. It is my understanding that the US constitution is the oldest constitution that is still…

I don't know why you got voted down because you are correct.

The English common law right of free speech exists to this day and has (largely) not been supplanted. It exists in many countries that use English common law as a base.

Enshrining it in a constitution was new, perhaps, but then the idea of a constitution was new. The UK still doesn't have a constitution.

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#75

Post by brc »

gogobyte wrote: post #30

The problem is I despise UN because it is an organization of dictatorships mainly, and extremely corrupted one.

Exactly. I wouldn't mind the right to tell the UN they don't have a claim over me and I don't accept their laws. But somehow I can't find the ballot paper that gives me this.

Even if you think of the UN as a benign force of good, you still have no way of removing yourself from it.

Each citizen in a country has the possibility and the right to switch to another country, if, for whatever reason, they cannot abide by that countrys laws. This stretches from religious freedom to tax freedom. Yet it's impossible to escape the UN, and, as many people find out the hard way, when the UN passes a rule that ruins your life, you can't vote for the other guy.

My take is that every country should have to hold a periodic (say 10 year) referendum of whether to stay in the UN and continue to fund its programs. Happily, this would easily pass. But it would be nice to think that a citizen can enforce some accountability on the largest government of them all.

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#76

Post by saraid216 »

sirclueless wrote: post #72
accountswu wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean it's a dictatorship run by the minority rich western white countries that force their imperialism on the majority of the world through the various arms of UN? That the US is able to impose sanctions on Iraq and now Iran even though the majority of the world is opposed to the sanctions? That the US is able to shield Israel from any sanctions despite its grave violations of human rights, its refusal to end the…

The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined. Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing: there are some cogent arguments that the lengthy peace enjoyed in Europe since WWII has been largely due to the constantly present American military force and economic hegemony. Countries in Europe and Asia are willing to stomach U.S. presence because the U.S. has not…

> The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined.

Um. This isn't true according to an Economist article I'm having trouble finding. Switching over to Wikipedia, China has the largest active military by a good 8.3 million troops; you'd have to find some explanation that can convincingly say that America has more power by another measure.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#77

Post by majorlazer »

saraid216 wrote: post #76
sirclueless wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined. Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing: there are some cogent arguments that the lengthy peace enjoyed in Europe since WWII has been largely due to the constantly present American military force and economic hegemony. Countries in Europe and Asia are willing to stomach U.S. presence because the U.S. has not…

> The depressing but true fact is that the U.S. wields more military power than the rest of the world combined. Um. This isn't true according to an Economist article I'm having trouble finding. Switching over to Wikipedia, China has the largest active military by a good 8.3 million troops; you'd have to find some explanation that can convincingly say that America has more power by another measure. Source: http://en.w…

I think you meant 830k (not 8.3M) troops.

Military size is only a small factor when comparing world super powers. Going by that Wikipedia list, North Korea's military isn't too far from the US military. But we all know how that war would go.

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#79

Post by alan_cx »

zacharycohn wrote: post #55

So how do this and "3 strikes" rules (when your ISP kills your internet connection because you got caught pirating 3 times) get along?

US or EU? As an EU resident, I see the 3 strikes being, er, well, struck out after years of court battles and misery for users.

Interestingly, as far as I can tell, the 3 strikes thing wouldn't last in an EU court anyway as it contradicts a lot of existing human rights law.

One problem the UK government has is that it is on a program of moving essential government services to the internet, so cutting whole house holds off the internet would deny public services to people. Worse still, innocent by standers and / or kids. The schools my kids go to extensively use the internet for homework, etc.

In the end, 3 strikes will fail, if it ever gets enacted. Like I say, all we have to do is suffer for a few years while it happens. Why do we have to go through this pain? Because certain industries that pour money in to party funds refuse to change. So, rather than prop them up with public money, government uses law. Quite vile, but there we go, we voted these people in, so its "our" fault.

(Edited typo)

Re: Internet Access Is a Human Right, Says United Nations

#80

Post by smsm42 »

sgift wrote: post #73
smsm42 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0 would be equal size for everyone, so I would hope the purpose of the law is more than that. I wouldn't also take Germany as particularly good example because, for example, free speech is not a right in Germany (they may claim they have very good reason for that, but don't they always do so?). Rights are "not absolute" only is the sense that exercising your right does not absolve you from responsibility for violatin…

Where did you get the idea that "free speech is not a right in Germany"? Free speech _is_ a right[1]. But, following the principle outlined by Riesling it is not an absolute right. [1] https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf - see Article 5

In Germany, speech that is deemed to "incite hatred" is illegal, for example. Also, denying or approving certain things publicly is illegal, even if this deed leads to no harm to anybody. That means no freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes freedom of saying false, hateful, disturbing and insulting things too. "Not absolute right" means not freedom but government-approved limits. That's exactly what my point was - when you move from protecting rights to banning stuff that does not violate anybody's rights but is unpleasant for people to witness and so banning it is popular - you have a problem with freedom. Don't feel too bad for Germany though - most countries have problems with freedom of speech. It's a hard concept to maintain, since it is unpopular and disturbing speech that needs protecting - nobody objects to popular or neutral speech.
Post reply on HN