Honda XRV Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Sir FallofaLott
Joined
·
5,060 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I wasn't paying attention so I havent got the report to reference, but according to an item I just heard this second on the World Service, most people that took part in some survey or other now feel that access to the interner is a fundamental human right.

Discuss!
 

·
Should know better
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
Bumping this up :thumbup:. Was too busy to reply sooner, but it's an interesting question. Well, here's my take on it.

<Lecture mode on>.

At first it seems like an excessive statement. BUT when you consider that the 'right to freedom of access to information' has long been enshrined in international law e.g.

Everyone has the right ... to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. (UNDHR Art.19),

and that much public and governmental information is now only available on the Internet, then it could be argued to be a fundamental right. In order to participate in a democratic society as a fully informed citizen, then, yes, access to the Internet can now be considered as a human right. But of course, with rights come responsibilities...

<Lecture mode off>.

OK. Apologies for boring you all, but this is a subject quite dear to my heart, and it could be an interesting debate. I'd love to hear what others think. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Bumping this up :thumbup:. Was too busy to reply sooner, but it's an interesting question. Well, here's my take on it.

<Lecture mode on>.

At first it seems like an excessive statement. BUT when you consider that the 'right to freedom of access to information' has long been enshrined in international law e.g.

Everyone has the right ... to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. (UNDHR Art.19),

and that much public and governmental information is now only available on the Internet, then it could be argued to be a fundamental right. In order to participate in a democratic society as a fully informed citizen, then, yes, access to the Internet can now be considered as a human right. But of course, with rights come responsibilities...

<Lecture mode off>.

OK. Apologies for boring you all, but this is a subject quite dear to my heart, and it could be an interesting debate. I'd love to hear what others think. :rolleyes:
Not boring at all.

Here we are, typing away, and taking it all for granted but somewhere, a group of lawyers, politicians, sociologists (presumably) convened to decide what principles and institutions past and present should be protected, and a good thing they did, because in other parts of the world opposite numbers have convened to decide what and how such things can be restricted, controlled and abolished.

In the Western world, the internet must surely be the number 1 means of information access, free expression and virtual socialising. It should be protected and made available as well as all technologies and organisations that promote those values...

(pontification mode off)
 

·
Bling Tastic Transalp
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
Not boring at all.


In the Western world, the internet must surely be the number 1 means of information access, free expression and virtual socialising. It should be protected and made available as well as all technologies and organisations that promote those values...

(pontification mode off)

Hi

Just saw this story.. trekking 1000km for email .. in china
BBC News - Trekking 1,000km in China for e-mail

Just to add fuel to the fire...
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Imo, it is. A decade or so ago there might have been a case against, but in todays advanced technological society I think it has become one as it has become indispensable in many areas such as work, research, not to mention simple communication with friends and family.
This doesn't mean that governments should be forced to provide access to everyone automatically, but it does mean that people should not be shut off or denied access to the web, unless maybe you're serving a sentence in jail.

I'm very much opposed to such things as 3-strikes for copyright infringment and the like, seeing as how ip's can be easily faked/hijacked, or how unfair it is that one persons actions could affect an entire family etc, not to mention what affect it could have on public wifi spots. It's idiotic legislation of the highest kind which hasn't been thought through and is being forced by vested interests, but what's new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,768 Posts
As said Wifi puts a strain on the decency of most users.
It should be possible to have a;; WIFI devices link with a marker that identifies the particular device used so the wrong person does not suffer other peoples indiscretions.
 

·
Should know better
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
Agree with most comments so far. Whilst of course I impute great importance to the duty to execute ones fundamental rights with responsibility (primarily in order to protect those same rights) I am not putting myself in the camp of those who would see the Internet as a den of unbridled iniquity or lawlessness. Far from it, I would campaign vigorously for a free and accessible internet, that is untainted by government control. We can all then exercise our freedom of choice over what we access and do not. Whereas, to live in a censored society or one where only those who are wealthy have access, does not give us that option. After all, what is "acceptable" or indeed "unacceptable" to you or I (or the government) may differ vastly. "The age-old problem with obscenity legislation". And whilst the protection of IP is important, new technologies have always posed a threat to this protection: we need to educate society to deal with such threats so that it is not deemed acceptable to infringe IP, rather than try to close down all access to information on the Internet. :rolleyes:

Far from seeing more control, I'd prefer to see the Web become the free speech zone that its creators envisioned it to be. That's not to say that free Internet access in ones own home on the latest high spec equipment is an absolute right. But (unfiltered) public Internet access (e.g. via public libraries) should be available to all wherever reasonably feasible, irrespective of geographic location or relative wealth, in order to facilitate the exercise of democracy, equal employment opportunity and social mobility.

If that makes sense? Or am I just a tree (computer?) hugging hippy? :confused::confused::confused:
 

·
bigtrailie admin
Joined
·
4,710 Posts
It should be possible to have a;; WIFI devices link with a marker that identifies the particular device
Like a MAC address for instance?, every network device has a MAC address
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Far from it, I would campaign vigorously for a free and accessible internet, that is untainted by government control. We can all then exercise our freedom of choice over what we access and do not.
In principle I agree with that idea.

However, unfortunately, total freedom has its risks also, some of which have a heavy price.

Hitler, despite having very extreme views, rose to power. It is postulated that this was, in part, because he was an exceptional orator. His emotive, well delivered speeches helped him gain influence and power until he finally ran the country. Then followed anti-semitic propaganda in the 1930s. So he exploited the media of the time to his own ends, with catastrophic results. Imagine if the internet had been available....

My point is that total freedom of expression is probably not realistic, real world. Sometimes, some people do need to be reigned in, for the greater good. Who they are, how it is done, and how is that authority not abused, are all questions way to difficult for me to answer but some one should.
 

·
Should know better
Joined
·
2,980 Posts
In principle I agree with that idea.

However, unfortunately, total freedom has its risks also, some of which have a heavy price.

Hitler, despite having very extreme views, rose to power. It is postulated that this was, in part, because he was an exceptional orator. His emotive, well delivered speeches helped him gain influence and power until he finally ran the country. Then followed anti-semitic propaganda in the 1930s. So he exploited the media of the time to his own ends, with catastrophic results. Imagine if the internet had been available....

My point is that total freedom of expression is probably not realistic, real world. Sometimes, some people do need to be reigned in, for the greater good. Who they are, how it is done, and how is that authority not abused, are all questions way to difficult for me to answer but some one should.
Yes, of course you're right, and I suppose I should have added "within the law". IN other words, the Internet is subject to the same laws as any other kind of media (e.g. Obscene Publications Act, Child Protection Act ec.), difficult as that might be to enforce. But I guess I'm saying we shouldn't be looking to impose additional controls on it.

I'd also argue that the best (only?) way to really fight extremist speech is with speech. We have to become even better orators! It is never going to be possible (or even desirable?) to exercise complete control over the speech of others, so our energies are better spent ensuring that we are better educated, informed and more vocal.

As you say, it's all very difficult and there are no easy answers :confused:. But I wouldn't want to go down the route that the Chinese government (and others) have taken, by trying to tighten control.

OK, better get on with some work now...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top