United Nations Claims Internet Blackouts Violate Human Rights

[Therumancer]

Interesting, however to be honest I've been more concerned by nations like Australia and the like that have wanted to install filters and national firewalls, some going so far as to flat out say it's for reasons of cultural preservation and to prevent people from coming together/globalization.

Otherwise, any regime is going to try and stop protesters by cutting off water, power, and communications, the same with others they consider to be criminals. This is a slippery slope here because if enforced it would basically mean that if some dude freaks out and takes hostages in his house or whatever, it would be defined as a crime against humanity to say cut off the internet along with his other avenues of communication to keep him isolated.

That said, it's no big thing, the UN would never put any teeth behind something like this, because it would actually mean having to go probably do things like boot China and go to war with them.... and really the UN is more about identifying problems then finding reasons to not do anything about them than anything constructive.

 

[icame]

Does that not mean it should be pretty much free and available for everyone?

This. If they believe it is so important shouldn't they be trying to give it to area's without access?

 

[Towowo2]

Does that not mean it should be pretty much free and available for everyone?

The way I see it is that even without Internet access at home people should have it availble to them in public places like libraries and what not.

 

[Zing]

Does that not mean it should be pretty much free and available for everyone?

Just like water, food, shelter...right? :x

Personally I agree, maybe not on a human right level, but the internet should be protected in some way. Governments are just abusing censorship as much as they want, especially my country.

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

No, like every other non-essential, the Internet is a luxury service.
It's an incredibly powerful service, and essential for most business, but still a luxury.

Exactly this. The internet is no more a basic right than television. The internet is not essential to survival (though most kids in high school would probably disagree, lashing out at me from their iPhone 4s). If you don't need it to live (food, water, shelter, etc.) then it's a privilege, not a right.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Does that mean that countries that don't have proper infrastructure for internet services are violating the rights of all their citizens? This seem like a bit of a burden on the governments depending on the wording of the articles.

 

[Jamash]

So, if I don't pay my internet bill and run up a huge debt, my ISP can't shut it off because that would be removing my fundamental human right (in the same way water companies aren't allowed to cut off your water supply)?

Also, if I get into more and more debt and bailiffs visit my house in an attempt to recover some money by removing my property, they won't be allowed to remove my computer because that connects me to my fundamental human right?

What about my electricity supplier? If they cut off my power, then my computer and modem won't work which would be depriving me of my fundamental human right... the same goes for the phone company too.

Does this mean that anyone can get into very serious arrears with their ISP, their phone provider and their electricity supplier without the threat of any of those services being shut off?

 

[Thaluikhain]

As mentioned, the UN claims alot of things.

Admittedly, yes, the UN does alot of good work, dealing with boring issues that don't make the news...anything big and impressive like human rights on a grand scale is beyond them.

 

[GeorgW]

That's damn cool, finally!
Of course it on't make a difference, but it's long due. Hopefully one day increasing bandwidth will have the same priority as roadwork.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Freedom of Speech maybe?

Apart from Education, those aren't human rights, they're basic needs. Difference there.

OK, let's look at this fellow.

Gary Mckinnon. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/88918-Military-Hacker-Wins-Right-to-Appeal-Against-US-Extradition]

Under UN rules, it is now against his basic human rights to be blocked from accessing the Internet.

Equally, the arrested members of Anonymous.

Equally, anyone who wishes to use a Twitter, Facebook or email instead of their "free phone call" when being arrested.

But wait, there's more:

Also, the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (part of the Geneva Convention) already gives Convention 2: (Against Torture) Article 3.2

For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Therefore, denying internet rights is right up there with Guatanamo Bay, as it stands.

And IANAL, but internet communications requires a whole heap of industry behind it to make it stand.

Hell, if you're kicked off XBox Live, you - theoretically - could make a claim that your basic human rights are being breeched by Microsoft.

Extreme cases maybe - but you better believe that lawyers will already be looking into this.

But electronic communication? That's pushing it a little far.

Look away from the "electronic" part. That's just the implementation. If the internet would work via chemical transmitters somehow, the point wouldn't change.
It's all about the communication. And, as is accepted by most nations worldwide, the right to communication is a basic human right.

But the right to have communication provided for you isn't. That's the precedent they've now set - and there's a storm coming on this.

Consider California's bill against online gaming. While that's now shot out of the water (and good thing to), it states that it's now against UN policy NOT to provide ANYONE under jurisdiction with the necessary means to communicate online. Wherever they may be.

(Let's take it as read as I think the cutting of the Internet in Egypt etc. was a BAD idea and against their rights.)

 

[Keava]

So, if I don't pay my internet bill and run up a huge debt, my ISP can't shut it off because that would be removing my fundamental human right (in the same way water companies aren't allowed to cut off your water supply)?

Also, if I get into more and more debt and bailiffs visit my house in an attempt to recover some money by removing my property, they won't be allowed to remove my computer because that connects me to my fundamental human right?

What about my electricity supplier? If they cut off my power, then my computer and modem won't work which would be depriving me of my fundamental human right... the same goes for the phone company too.

Does this mean that anyone can get into very serious arrears with their ISP, their phone provider and their electricity supplier without the threat of any of those services being shut off?

No. You misunderstand the legal babble. You have right to access to internet. Not to specific connection you may or may not own. Only Finland gives you legal right to 1Mbit broadband connection that you don't pay for and the government is entitled to provide you.

Right to internet access is pretty much attempt to extend 27th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Meaning that your government should not in any way deny you access to internet through laws or other legal procedures.
Another thing is that UDHR nor International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes right to water. It's still "in the works" and currently is usually regulated by constitutional laws in each country.

 

[ninetails593]

YES!! It is my RIGHT to watch My Little Pony!!

 

[Virtual Connor]

No, like every other non-essential, the Internet is a luxury service.
It's an incredibly powerful service, and essential for most business, but still a luxury.

Exactly this. The internet is no more a basic right than television. The internet is not essential to survival (though most kids in high school would probably disagree, lashing out at me from their iPhone 4s). If you don't need it to live (food, water, shelter, etc.) then it's a privilege, not a right.

Totally agree. I wonder how long 'till someone tries giving free laptops to homeless people, along with their soup and blankets..

 

[Speakercone]

So, if I don't pay my internet bill and run up a huge debt, my ISP can't shut it off because that would be removing my fundamental human right (in the same way water companies aren't allowed to cut off your water supply)?

Also, if I get into more and more debt and bailiffs visit my house in an attempt to recover some money by removing my property, they won't be allowed to remove my computer because that connects me to my fundamental human right?

What about my electricity supplier? If they cut off my power, then my computer and modem won't work which would be depriving me of my fundamental human right... the same goes for the phone company too.

Does this mean that anyone can get into very serious arrears with their ISP, their phone provider and their electricity supplier without the threat of any of those services being shut off?

That's a possible legal implication depending on how courts in respective countries deal with that sort of thing. In the UK it seems likely that some other mechanism would need to exist in order to deal with people who don't pay their bills, but we can't be sure until it happens.

Is it really that bad though? As you've said, your water company isn't allowed to cut off your service, yet they still have legal recourse if you refuse to or cannot pay. Presumably, ISPs and others you've mentioned would still have ways to extract payment in this type of circumstance.

The resolution appears, however, to specifically apply to the issue of countries blacking out internet service for political reasons (e.g. the current situation in Iran and Syria wherein the internet is blacked out in order to prevent organized protest/revolution). It's entirely possible that the courts in many countries would interpret it as applying only to governments and agents thereof; in which case ISPs would still be able to deny service to people who do not pay their bills, but a government agency could not.

It would be clear in either case that blacking out internet for an entire populace is a human rights violation.

I'm absolutely in favour of this.
*writes MP*

 

[The Wykydtron]

Wait which totalitarian ruler hates Nyan Cat? I demand to see evidence of this heinous crime!

Also i'm not surprised, this statement would have been made sooner or later anyway...

 

[NLS]

...

Really?

I don't even know how to react to that. Education, Health, Food, Clean Water, Shelter - sure.

Apart from Education, those aren't human rights, they're basic needs. Difference there.

But electronic communication? That's pushing it a little far.

Look away from the "electronic" part. That's just the implementation. If the internet would work via chemical transmitters somehow, the point wouldn't change.
It's all about the communication. And, as is accepted by most nations worldwide, the right to communication is a basic human right.

As a student of Human Rights, and one who is actually researching the European Convention and Human Rights Act right NOW, I can say that this claim is pretty much bull.

And to support that claim, you present us what evidence?[/quote]I actually have a doctor's degree in basic internets rights from the University of Internet Online. And I know that internet is serious business based on that fact. Also my grandfather worked as a baker, so I know things.

Alright I'll stop
But seriously, the right to access the internet without censorship from the government should be equal to everyone. I consider myself lucky to have access to all the information I want, the fact that some people's access to free information is not taken for granted by their government is sad to me :|

 

[silver wolf009]

YES!! It is my RIGHT to watch My Little Pony!!

Indeed it is, and nopony should be able to take that from you.

OT: Hmmm... not sure how to react to this really. I mean, at first it just seems silly, but some people here have brought up some good points.

 

[Jodah]

I think the problem most people have is they are assuming this means personal internet service, as in every home has access to the internet. All this is saying is that every individual should have access, in some manner, to internet service. That could mean going to an internet cafe where public use computers are available. Its not saying everyone should have a computer and internet in their home.

 

[Whoracle]

[snippage]

Ah, well, but it IS a human right. And, as with all prisoners, some of the human rights get pruned down somewhat. Such as the right to freedom of movement, or whatever it's called in english.

In germany at least it's explicitly stated in what passes as a constitution here that prisoners (and, IIRC, soldiers) lack some of the basic rights granted by said constitution for as long as their status remains.

So, the guy you linked above does not have the right on communication for as long as he's doing his sentence, but afterwards he has it again.

Also, there is the case of people who are likely to have fallbacks after their prison sentence. Those people don't get all their basic rights back in germany. This has recently been declared unconstitutional here. Dunno if the law got already canned or if that's coming up, but my point is: While it may be correct in some (rare) cases to prune some of someones basic human rights, to do so for a whole population (compare: egypt, syria, iran, china) is definitely NOT correct.

And I pray to whatever deity you may or may not believe in that I don't have to explain to anyone why inhibiting basic communication between people is bad. This should be pretty self-explanatory. Compare: All dictatorships in the history of mankind.

Re: The XBOX-Example:
No, getting kicked off of XBL is not the same as pruning your human rights. XBLA is neither a medium nor communication itself. It's a service. For clarification, see my next point.

Re: The "Do I now get free internet?"-people:
No. What you're getting (or what you should get, anyways) is the right and possibility to have internet. Finland recently made that a law in their land: Every citizen has to have the possibility to book a 1MBit DLS contract. The government doesn't just give out the contracts, bit it guarantees that whereever you live, you've got access to at least 1MBit by at least one ISP.