Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Internet connection, a "human right?" That's merely an empty slogan.

> And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt.

It's from the UN.

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/

> While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, states have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

> The Special Rapporteur calls upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.

It's also written into some constitutions or case law. See eg Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain.

> Are you replying to me?

Sorry, yes HN apparently has a limit to nesting of replies, so I cannot reply directly. I'm sure that replying a level up is bad etiquette, so this is the last time I will do it.

I will leave it at this. My position is that there is no sound philosophical basis for positive rights (the claim that one person is entitled to receive something that must be produced by another person). On other words, my rights are only to be left alone to satisfy my desired ends by my chosen means without force or coercion by another party.

This speaks nothing of what "society" or one's fellow man "ought" to do. Rights to no involve "ought."

Sure, but let's understand we've changed the subject. If the claim is that a state should not, by threat of violence, block a private firm from serving a voluntary customer, I could not agree more. That's entirely different from saying that someone has a positive obligation to provide a certain product.

Except now it's a right I can expect someone to provide minimum viable Internet for no or low cost.

In England you can get internet access via their computers for out-of-work benefits in JobCentres; there's other Internet access in public libraries; some hospitals and gp surgeries provide wifi.

That Internet is not great - slow, with quite a lot of limits, but it is provided.

Because something is in fact provided, be it by the government or the market, does not in the least confer to me a right. If it does, then I have no idea what you mean by "right."

The fact that I can rely on the existence of high-quality open source software to use in my projects does not mean that I may demand that you or anyone else write it and offer it for free. If I go hiking on the trail near my house, I know that I can expect "free" plastic bags in the city dispenser to clean up after my dog. Their existence does not make it my "right" to receive them for free.

Are you replying to me?

I pointed out where the UN says it's a right. You say that it's not about being cut off, it's about provision, so I point to it being provided, and now you say that's not what you mean either.

I dunno what to tell you. Access to the Internet is seen as a right in some regions, and you shouldn't be kicked off the Internet for IP violations, and someone should be providing access to the Internet, and in England that someone is national government (Department of Work and Pensions) and local government (public libraries).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com