Yeah the UN Humans rights council is a big fat joke. Its current members include such well known upholders of human rights such as China, Bahrain, Pakistan and they have just suspend(not expelled) Libya. Its reports aren't worth the paper they are written on.
United Nations Claims Internet Blackouts Violate Human Rights
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
...So can I demand a free Internet connection from my government? Sweet!
I can see it now in the elections:
"My opponent here, refuses to give the fair people of Canada their most basic right, the right of teh interwebz!"
"News at six, what's more important, free healthcare or free internet?"
"Shall 4chan begin receiving federal funding?"
I can see it now in the elections:
"My opponent here, refuses to give the fair people of Canada their most basic right, the right of teh interwebz!"
"News at six, what's more important, free healthcare or free internet?"
"Shall 4chan begin receiving federal funding?"
Practicing Degree in United Kingdom and European Law actually... BAA 2.1.NLS said: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 :|
I agree.albino boo said:
The UN is headed down the road the League of Nations did.
OT: So no governement may mess with the internet now, eh? I like that. Now, let's see the UN enforce that.
What I find more interesting in the article is not the "rights" to have an internet connection.
But the fact that when someone goes online to rally thousands of people to have mass demonstrations is ok in a dictatorship.
If someone tried to pull that in a western country the organiser would probably be charged with some offence.
But the fact that when someone goes online to rally thousands of people to have mass demonstrations is ok in a dictatorship.
If someone tried to pull that in a western country the organiser would probably be charged with some offence.
A humans basic right is pushing it, but to say that a global information system that is free in most everything you can think of, is a vital tool of discussion, debate and dissent.
Why china censors its internet and monitors everything, because back in the day students used the internet to rally together and cause problems for the party.
Any government that is in danger of anything would surely take over their internet, any number of things could cause any major nation to shut down its internet due to cyber attack, revolt, control, etc.
But with message boards chat rooms, im clients, irc channels, blogs, tweets, etc, is a near instant with people you know and people you do not know, but more than likely if you are some group or other you have a message board or something along those lines and can talk with others of like mind fairly anon if you know a few tricks.
Just like cell phones and smart phones in the like of the USA or China, or germany or whoever were to happen the governments would surely cut those services plus the internet, we are so dependant on that high tech im wave, so much so many people under the age of 30ish do not even own old school hardline phones but have cell phones etc. But you did do all those things people would be crippled, no way to communicate via any common new tech way.
I would like to see the internet hands off by all governments and allowed to thrive, but lets be honest in worst case type things there are not many governments out there that would not shut down all or most of that stuff no matter what anyone said.
Why china censors its internet and monitors everything, because back in the day students used the internet to rally together and cause problems for the party.
Any government that is in danger of anything would surely take over their internet, any number of things could cause any major nation to shut down its internet due to cyber attack, revolt, control, etc.
But with message boards chat rooms, im clients, irc channels, blogs, tweets, etc, is a near instant with people you know and people you do not know, but more than likely if you are some group or other you have a message board or something along those lines and can talk with others of like mind fairly anon if you know a few tricks.
Just like cell phones and smart phones in the like of the USA or China, or germany or whoever were to happen the governments would surely cut those services plus the internet, we are so dependant on that high tech im wave, so much so many people under the age of 30ish do not even own old school hardline phones but have cell phones etc. But you did do all those things people would be crippled, no way to communicate via any common new tech way.
I would like to see the internet hands off by all governments and allowed to thrive, but lets be honest in worst case type things there are not many governments out there that would not shut down all or most of that stuff no matter what anyone said.
I don't actually believe in any deity, but I think the point was covered in my last line.Whoracle said:
OK, let's take somewhere like Louisiana when the huge floods hit. The UN can grant them the right to use the Internet, but they can't provide the means of which they access the internet.
Equally, the Government (who are the ones likely to blackout the area) can't deny them the right without breaking the Protocol, but can easily deny them the means.
That means that either the Act is paramount to stating that Corporations are forced to give access to citizens at a price they can afford (rather than the price they'd like to charge) or that the Act states that if they have a completely working system, then they can use it - which is pointless.
Following on from that, can a group of people (like the Amish, Scientologists or whoever) restrict their followers from using the Internet without being in direct violation of the UN act.
That alone would be very interesting to watch, as I believe both groups mentioned above strictly control it. Without looking into Korea, China or the Arabian Peninsula who also do.
Or even better than that: The Great Australian Firewall.
Is that in violation of Australian's rights as a nation? I'm sure Yahtzee would agree.
And where exactly has the government or anyone else actively restricted access to the internet? Also, the UN does not grant rights. They're a conglomerate of nations who decide (hopefully collectively) to put that factum into their countries respective laws.The_root_of_all_evil said:
And the government will blackout the area exactly why? When kathrina hit, catastrophe protocol takes precedence, that much should be clear. During catastrophe protocol, rights like freedom of speech get pruned in neccessary, too, in the affected regions. Of course, this leads to a loophole as to what is defined as a "catastrophe", but still, the point stands.
Almost. The Corporations have to give baseline service for baseline money. Every measly kbit/sec more they can charge what they want. In full-on capitalism this obviously won't work, but then, who claims that full-on capitalism is honoring human rights?
Fallacy. As someone who allegedly studies law you should know the difference between "being forced to something" and "choosing something". You want to partake in the lifestyle of the amish, fine, no internet for you. But you can always quit the amish way of life. Even if it may be hard due to social bonds and the like, they can't legally hinder you. And if they can, the country in question does already not adhere to basic human rights, namely the right to choose your lifestyle for yourself as long as you don't impede the lifestyle of others.
As I said, you're free to quit the amish etc., and if you choose not to, they can regulate it.
As for China and North Korea and their ilk, well, there's a reason the get (all too tamely) called out on their violations of basic human rights all the time, isn't there?
And really, if your defense for your point (for which you have yet to bring hard evidence, especially in respect to european law, btw...) is that the dictatorships of the world that don't care about the human rights don't aknowledge them, then why stop at the internet? Let's question other rights such as free speech (pruned in china, and afaik in north korea) and reintroduce labor and rape camps. After all, hey, the Chinese/North Koreans/Some Other Dictator did, too, so where's the harm? Hyperbole, yes, and I don't put access to the internet on the same level as rape camps, but it shows the flaw in the way of thinking mentioned above.
I must confess, I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to enlighten me what the great aussie firewall is?
Note: It's 3 a.m. around where I live, so I'm off to bed now. I'll be answering somewhen tomorrow.
This is annoying. Internet is not a basic human right... it can't be.
The UN is an almost worthless organization. This just proves that. All they do give recommendations, and as a whole promise troops to areas that usually a.)don't require intervention and b.)intervention does not benefit the native population (Libya is the most recent and definitive proof of my two statements). Also, as soon as you start calling a right, the state is gonna step right in to "protect" your right to it. Which will mean also ensuring that all the data is "safe" to be viewed and utilized by it's citizens.
Soon, the good old US Government will step in for me and say something ridiculous like: "we are protecting your right to it, so you have to be without it for a little while".
The reason that useless dictator did that was because that was the primary way the people communicated. I would like to point out that the US and the UN sponsored that dick wads totalitarian presidency for the entire time he was in power. Since it was such a public affair, you see a bunch of scared old men jump ship to the peoples side, despite having been against the people for almost an entire generation.
Not to mention that in the situation where any UN member nation would do the exact same thing if they had to declare martial law. They are all hypocrites. They should just disband already. I mean, it's about 70% US anyway. That could be the first meaningful step to getting rid of our over inflated military industrial complex.
The UN is an almost worthless organization. This just proves that. All they do give recommendations, and as a whole promise troops to areas that usually a.)don't require intervention and b.)intervention does not benefit the native population (Libya is the most recent and definitive proof of my two statements). Also, as soon as you start calling a right, the state is gonna step right in to "protect" your right to it. Which will mean also ensuring that all the data is "safe" to be viewed and utilized by it's citizens.
Soon, the good old US Government will step in for me and say something ridiculous like: "we are protecting your right to it, so you have to be without it for a little while".
The reason that useless dictator did that was because that was the primary way the people communicated. I would like to point out that the US and the UN sponsored that dick wads totalitarian presidency for the entire time he was in power. Since it was such a public affair, you see a bunch of scared old men jump ship to the peoples side, despite having been against the people for almost an entire generation.
Not to mention that in the situation where any UN member nation would do the exact same thing if they had to declare martial law. They are all hypocrites. They should just disband already. I mean, it's about 70% US anyway. That could be the first meaningful step to getting rid of our over inflated military industrial complex.
Summary: The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.Earnest Cavalli said:
Nice idea, won't happen. Governments, even so-called democratic ones, hate that they can't bring people to heel online, that we can hide behind nyms and say things they dislike. Undemocratic ones simply pull the plug. Democratic ones pass laws to stop child pornographers and copyright infringers, yet the laws never say they're only to be used against child pornographers and copyright infringers. So they're used on everyone.Earnest Cavalli said:
Incidentally, Tennessee just made password and account sharing a felony [http://www.mobiledia.com/news/92476.html] because Sony et al. wanted them to. But the wording on the law is so murky that people aren't sure what's a crime and what's not.
Basically because you can get a newspaper out from your backyard, but an ISP? Needs a LOT more construction.Arcanist said:
Away til Monday. Will talk again then.Whoracle said:
God, taht sounds like an answering machine. Need to get one of those for my forum posts
You can start a dissident networking site online for quite a bit less. Just sayin'.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Whether or not it is easy to run an ISP is beside the point. The Egyptian government started restricting internet use not because bandwidth was becoming scarce but to silence their opposition. That's a flagrant attempt to impede free speech, and it should be stopped at best and condemned at the very least.
CAPTCHA: pmesse effect. How odd...