In a poll last week, we asked our readers to answer this question: Do you think access to the Internet is a fundamental human right?
Heavy stuff, yeah? Well. We can't take credit as being completely original here. The BBC World Service recently polled 27,000 adults in 26 countries about Internet freedom, addressing the idea of Internet access-as-right.
But since Internet Evolution obviously has the last say on all matters important and Internet-related, we figured we'd put the question to our readers as well. More than 220 readers responded, and -- while that's a few shy of 27,000 -- our results were in line with the findings of BBC World Service.
Posed with the question of whether Internet access is a fundamental human right, here's how our readers answered:
Taking the majority, 67 percent of our poll-takers voted "Yes." An additional 27 percent said "No," while 6 percent were not sure.
Similarly, the BBC World Service found that four in five (or 87 percent) of its respondents believe Internet access is a fundamental human right, and half believe that it should never be regulated by the government.
Despite the majority in both our poll and the BBC's, there was a lot of chatter on the Internet Evolution message boards last week about what exactly a fundamental right is, and how it applies to the Internet.
For instance, as Brian Newby mentions on the boards, if Internet access is a right, to what degree, and at what speed? In October, Alan Reiter argued that broadband Internet is a national policy and not a right. He was responding to a regulation in Finland stating that, by July 1, 2010, every permanent residence and business office in the country would have the right to at least a 1-Mbit/s connection to the Internet:
I certainly agree that the Internet is a necessity for many people... But there is a difference between needing a service and the government declaring it a right... Sure, it could enrich and improve many of these lives, but being "normal" doesn't necessarily require the "right" to broadband connection.
In a video blog today, Paul Korzeniowski takes a similar stance, pointing out that there's a difference between a right and a privilege, and while the Internet is important, that doesn't make it a fundamental right:
I'll admit to having a hard time with this question myself, but in the end I'm leaning toward the minority. Considering the best argument I've heard in favor of the Internet being a fundamental human right is that it makes for a better educated public, I don't believe that makes it a right, as it isn't essential to education. Nor is it essential in the ways that food, water, and shelter are -- and plenty of people are still without even those basic and critical necessities.
The Internet, rather, seems like a means to an end: It is one outlet for expressing free speech, but it isn't the only one; it is one way of becoming better educated, but it isn't the only way to become better educated.
Internet access for everyone? Sounds great to me. But that doesn't necessarily make it a human right.
I don't agree with your argument. I could also say that for ages people have lived without many things that today the majority of the population in the world couldn't live without, and many others still live without, though. Is that a good reason to state that if people have lived for ages without the Internet there is no need to benefit from it today and try to make it as available as possible?
If we don't see and accept the benefits that technology and the natural evolution of mankind are providing us with, maybe not for their immediate acceptance as something fundamental for the evolution of society in general, but what about as one more step in the improvement for the quality of life?
Instead of just looking at how each of us perceive the access to the Internet an a sole individual, from our tiny little place in the whole world, why not look at the possibility of access to the Internet as a whole, from a different point of view, as a means of a massive improvement in the conditions of many countries (check Rwanda's plan for 2020) for better integration and communication with the rest of the world?
In Rwanda, for example, with the plan they have from now to the year 2020, access to the Internet will have an amazing impact not only in business but also in education and agriculture. The objective of their government is to give a laptop per child. They think literacy has to be supported by the connectivity to the Internet. With such an example, shouldn't we try to think a little bit more out of the box instead of just close our eyes to all the possibilities that access to the Internet could bring to the whole world?
and it supports what some of us were saying here. It appears that many Americans feel there is a desire to access the Internet, and that need is served by computers in public libraries.
I don't think Internet access is a fundamental right.
In my opinion, a fundamental right is defined as a crucial need such as the five basic needs of Human being: to eat, to dress, to find somewhere to stay (a house), to be taken care of (see the doctor when you are sick), and to be instructed.
For ages people have lived without the Internet and with their instruction, they made valuable the great inventions. Nowadays, Internet access is just a means to be in "phase" with current life trends, that many can still do without.
This Poll and the ensuing thread has been quite the treat to read through...
Here's a little reality check for you "rights"-lovers and Euro-Socialists:
We have just a single basic "right" and that is the pursuit of "life" without infringing or impeding others ability to pursue that "right"...
All the other Constitutional, Indocrinated dogma is nothing more than a whole lot of socio-politico b.s. perpetuated by the "privleged" class to make the under-privleged feel better about themselves!!
Harsh?? Tough cookies, get on with your life and quit whining about your "rights" to this, that, and all the other b.s. that is in actuality no more than some opportunity and/or privlege to be gained during the pursuit of living...
I continue to struggle with these results. It seems (to me) that people are almost intentionally choosing to ignore the the difference between a fundamental human necessity that is required to live (which not everyone in the world has access to) and the tools that facilitate improvements to the human condition.
AIR - WATER - FOOD - SHELTER - BASIC MEDICINE - These are fundamental rights and necessities. Internet? Phone? TV? Come on...seriously? Sure, some of us might feel they are necessary and these TOOLS do make access to some very imporant things easier / faster / cheaper (education, communication, government engagement), but they are not basic human rights.
Anything that has been invented over the past 100-200 years (or in some case, in the past 20) cannot be a basic human right. It might be possible to come up with some esoteric example where we invent something that becomes a human right over night but for the most part, a piece of technology is nothing more than tool to accomplish a task (generally, better, faster, easier than before).
Oh, and a PhD! You do have a lot of faith in me. :)
Nicole, seriously you don't need a PhD, but it is your Right if you want to trouble yourself for the next 4 or 6 years.
When owing a laptop could be considered a privilege and not a fundamental right, I would say that internet access in some country is still a privilege rather than a fundamental right. In developed countries, you need internet access for almost every basic things in your daily life, but this is not the same is developing countries where almost everybody have nothing to do with the internet for their daily needs; only few privileged people do. This might become a fundamental right in the future.
My conclusion here is that what is privilege can evolve into a fundamental right and then we can (rightfully) fight to have access to it.
See, I think what you're describing in your example here, jwallace, is a privilege and not a right.
Also, your last line there sort of damages your argument: Internet access is one thing, but now you're talking about being the only one without a laptop. Owning a laptop is certainly not a fundamental right. So even if I have a right to Internet access, in your classroom situation, but everyone can afford a laptop except for me, how does this help me?
Oh, and a PhD! You do have a lot of faith in me. :)
I would like to introduce something called the Prison Rule. If you are allowed access to an item in a prison, then it's a right. Prisoners have access to: food, water, shelter, clothing, fresh air, medical treatment, TV, phone, and the internet (although limited). If they get, then I should as a law abiding citizen.
Lastly, as governments move towards the internet as an important tool to interact with their citizens it becomes a right. For example, almost all of the U.S. Government job postings are online. Another example is the IRS. They have a new online system for non-profits to file their paperwork. If you use the traditional paper method it can cost up to $800. Once the online system is in place, the cost will only be $200.
Ira: I DID use "your complete words in context". but your post was very poorly written. You wording made it appear as though you were asserting a natural law rather than explaining judicial activism -- which may have been more or less your real intent.
These boards are interesting places. In discussions like these there is never any anticipation that I will be able to affect your thinking in any way.
but that isn't my intent
the reason for writing a post on a board like this, indeed the reason for using the internet -- is so that people have access to different interpretations of various topics
As Jefferson reminded us: "when the press is free all is safe"
Fortunately for our nation ( I hope ) the Internet has broken the "mainstream" media monopoly on public communication
and we can begin to correct a lot of bad thinking
but this isn't the proper venue for discussion of the bad thinking: here our topic is the Role of the Internet in society
and above all and beyond anything else that role is to facilitate the free flow of information and ideas
let's all drink a toast to the First Amendment at lunch today!
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
If you've been exhibiting signs of IE Radio withdrawal, today is your lucky day: IE Radio picks up yet again, this time with Dale Fuller, CEO of MokaFive. Fuller joins us at 2:00 p.m. ET.
Getting to Work on Smart Work: How IT Is Transforming the Implementation of the 'Internet of Things' Organizations in all industry sectors are becoming more instrumented, interconnected, and intelligent -- and that's changing the way they approach virtually every facet of their operations. It's up to IT to help organizations adopt a "Three I's" approach that leverages the emerging Internet of Things and enables them to work smarter. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
How do you recognize an Internet bubble when you see one? Saunders explains how all bubbles have four symptoms in common – and takes a swipe at Google and Twitter into the bargain.
Microsoft's browser market share is falling sharply. Apple is being looked at by the FTC. Are we exchanging one market shark for another, or are we worried about nothing? The Internet itself may be policing anti-competitive policies for us.
Comcast and other broadband providers just might exempt content they own from counting against consumer Internet usage caps. Would that make their broadband services more desirable?
Comparing Internet services is tough because service providers price and market their services based on a best-case scenario connection that most consumers will never enjoy.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
RIM is giving in to demands by India to snoop on encrypted BlackBerry data. It's time to develop cheap or free encryption software for BlackBerrys and other cellular phones.
Nielsen’s recent numbers on the increasing use of texting bode well for enterprise networks. Shunning the phone in favor of text messaging could mean reducing bandwidth.
Two studios have filed suit against an ad broker for placing ads to help monetize P2P sites suspected of copyright infringement. That's taking a dangerous step toward what might be a worthy goal.
By 2014, mobile devices will overtake laptops as the appliance of choice for consumers. But device makers still have some wishes to fulfill, including mobile app simplification and the ability to better perform word processing/spreadsheet functions.
Google's foray into pay-for-view movies may be an indicator that the days of free ad-sponsored content are numbered, or at least that ad sponsorship won't fund nearly enough content.
Online education, improving to better replicate the interactions that occur between teachers and students face-to-face, grew in double digits during the recession. Still, there’s more work to be done.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
