You can view the page at http://filesharingtalk.com/content/1...s-Human-Rights
You can view the page at http://filesharingtalk.com/content/1...s-Human-Rights
This is kinda good news :)
Best news I have heard in ages :w00t:
In my opinion, I would think the UN would have more important things to worry about than this...And when did internet access become a
"Human Right"??
Being deprived of food, clothing, shelter, or freedom is a breach of human rights. Losing internet access is a fucking inconvenience.
Wouldn't that be "freedom" to learn and grow or is it the inconvenience of not being able to watch that youtube video of the dog licking the screen? :unsure:
Anyway ya look at it still good news...
People were learning & growing long before the internet was even a dream...If they hadn't been, there would be no internet.
What I'm saying is, there are a lot more important things that they should be concerned with. Much more important things. The internet is not a necessity, although many people seem to think it is.
There is a HUGE disparity created when individuals are "left out" of the internet's wealth of information, and social services. Just think of all of the government services one would lose access to when "cut off".
I agree that there are MANY horrible things taking place in the world. There are those who live in countries where food, water, and even the most basic of human rights are denied. We still have genocide occurring in parts of the world.
Yes, there are unspeakable things going on around us, and internet access may be trivial in comparison, but I do applaud the UN for taking a stand for this basic right. They are ABSOLUTELY right on stating its importance. I wish to see internet access reach people in these "third-world" areas nearly as much as I wish them to have food, water, and peaceful, fair lives.
It is a right, and needs to be fought for as any right that has needed to gain recognition as such.
Actually the internet has become quite ubiquitous. From email communications to work/school related activities, consumer activities, news gathering, media entertainment, managing finances (banking, bills, and payments), etc. Not being able to speak your opinion on a matter isn't necessary to live, but it's still regarded as a human right. There's also a matter of how far we allow copyright enforcement to go, it's rather absurd that they'd be able to go so far as permanently ban your ability to subscribe to internet service for downloading a few songs/movies. They used to hack the hands off of thieves, do you think we should still be practicing that as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by teflon05
In addition to that, the internet is also what's been allowing the Arab Spring revolutions to set foot and gain/keep momentum. Don't underestimate the importance/power of information.
On another note, are you even old enough to remember how some of those things were done before the internet? Well to put it this way, they weren't done as often. I think you've taken it for granted because it's always been present for you.
Uh, I'm probably one of the older people here. I'll put it this way...I was alive before men walked on the moon, and long before most people ever thought there would be personal computers in peoples homes. That's part of my argument...People were doing most of the things you mention before the internet existed (at least for public use) and there are still some that do so.
And here is where I disagree with you. Except for email, ALL of this can be done without internet access. It's what I believe is one of the big problems with the US & a large part of the rest of the world now, & it gets bigger every day. People depend on the internet too much, and if something ever happened (not likely I admit, but in the realm of possibility) there would be people totally lost without it.Quote:
Actually the internet has become quite ubiquitous. From email communications to work/school related activities, consumer activities, news gathering, media entertainment, managing finances (banking, bills, and payments), etc. Not being able to speak your opinion on a matter isn't necessary to live, but it's still regarded as a human right.
Don't get me wrong, though...I don't agree that any government or other entity should be able to remove anyone's access to the internet. Just the opposite, I believe that they shouldn't get involved in it at all.
All these "services" you speak of can be accessed without internet access. It might take longer, but they are still available.Quote:
There is a HUGE disparity created when individuals are "left out" of the internet's wealth of information, and social services. Just think of all of the government services one would lose access to when "cut off".
And where is it written that Internet access is a basic right ? You won't die if you lose internet access, at least not that I know of.Quote:
Yes, there are unspeakable things going on around us, and internet access may be trivial in comparison, but I do applaud the UN for taking a stand for this basic right.
And no offense, but that is just a ludicrous statement. I think that the food, water, shelter & peace things need to be taken care of before anyone worries about the internet. It would be pretty hard to concentrate on that latest YouTube vid when you are starving or dead :PQuote:
I wish to see internet access reach people in these "third-world" areas nearly as much as I wish them to have food, water, and peaceful, fair lives.
Most of these services stil have a paper alternative at the local goverment offices.Quote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
This proves my point. Thanks.Quote:
People depend on the internet too much, and if something ever happened (not likely I admit, but in the realm of possibility) there would be people totally lost without it.
No, not really. Many people in third world countries never had internet access in the first place. How can you miss something you never had?
A lot of them have problems with basic needs, such as clean water, food, housing & electricity. These things need to be addressed before trivial things like the internet are considered. I'm not saying that these people don't deserve to have internet access. I'm saying that before the UN or any other organizations address the issue, they need to take care of the important things first. You do not need the internet to survive, & nobody should run their lives around it. Least of all, those that are in need of the basic necessities.
The internet is not a human right. It's more or less just a means of communication. Making out that the internet is anything more than what it is, is belittling the things that actually are important, in my opinion.
I'm not sure if internet access is a human right but I can see there argument. We're in a world that almost forces you to be online.
It is sometimes needed to be able to get a job, it may be something that keeps you in a job. Many-many companies almost force you to go online by adding costs for non internet access such as utility bills. An e-mail is certainly cheaper than a parcel full of photo's to loved ones is it not? So in a world/society that is almost internet dependant this could be considered a human right.
My 2 cents :D
Actually, most companies I deal with on line (as far as utilities go) charge an extra dollar or two to make on line payments. If you don't want to pay it, then you have to mail in a check, or go to a local payment center. At least that's how it is with the local electric/water/gas suppliers here where I live, which is in western Pennsylvania, US. And as far as employment goes, the local employment office has pc's there for any internet related materials needed.
I'm not saying that the internet is not a great thing...Or that anyone, anywhere, should be deprived of it. I just don't think any state, local, or international governments/organizations should be able to give or deny access to it...Including anti-file sharing organizations.
I mean, it's great that the UN is sounding off about this, but what happens if/when they change their stance & decide it's time to go after anyone who shares copyrighted materials? International internet police?
The long & short of it is, if it becomes a "basic human right", then every government around the world is going to feel they have a right to police all of it. It's already happening in many countries, including the US. Hell, the US is one of the main players...
The fact that you seem completely disconnected from its significance is what made you seem too young to appreciate it. So I'll admit I misread that. It seems rather you are far enough removed from it to not feel like it would impact your life in some major way. What I do right now, CANNOT be done without internet access, in some form or another. Universities do provide this service, if for some reason I couldn't have it at home, but I spend most of my time at the university anyway. Not everyone has as few attachments or internet-based responsibilities as you, whether or not that makes you lucky I cannot comment. I will comment that your failure to grasp this in spite of your situation makes you quite short-sighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by teflon05
If you don't mind me asking, just what is it that you cannot do without internet access? And no, it would not impact me that much at all...& I made sure it is that way. That does not make me short sited. I will never depend 100% on ANY 1 medium.
I like to believe it's more about being resourceful, not short sited. But believe what you will...
The internet is the tool for all people (with access) to express themselves. It is by far the most powerful, and equalizing tool the "common man" has ever had to express himself to massive numbers of people without need for vast resources.
If you are looking for a pre-existing right to tie internet use to, it would have to be free speech.
Of course, its uses go FAR beyond that, but the act of cutting someone off the internet is, at the least, limiting that individual's ability to free expression.
Free societies have free press. Look at those countries who are disconnecting the masses from access, and tell me they are ones that are "free". The same applies to individuals who are cut off. They are, in fact, having their rights removed.
Those who are having their rights removed are not criminals. They are not enemies of the state, nor public. Individuals who are being denied their right to free speech/expression are being done so due to CORPORATE interests.
Internet access needs to be recognized as an important right, or it will be trampled upon by these corporate bullies.
I would not be able to assign grades, I would not be able to contact students between class about changes in assignments, I would not be able to access most articles that I need for research, I would not be able to apply for some funding, I would not be able to submit publications, etc. I am giving you examples that are not a matter of convenience, but a matter of how our systems have been converted. They work more effectively this way. Old technology fades out as newer and more efficient technology enters. I don't want to underplay the convenience factor either, it would be more costly and quite inconvenient to manage everything I do in my personal life using the internet by their alternate/older methods. I haven't mailed or even written a check for at least 3 years. As for online convenience charges, it's a scummy practice by some businesses and/or government institutions but there are quick and easy workarounds for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by teflon05
Well it was obvious that you aren't dependent on the internet, so thanks for confirming it. I guess that means you're also short "sited" in addition to being short-sighted. Being resourceful is finding a way to accomplish your goal in the absence of the standard methods, being ignorant is saying the ability to obtain internet access shouldn't be a protected right from the threat of corporate interests.
I read yours after making my reply, sorry for the rudeness and apparent parroting. He seems to be one of those that thinks about things as they revolve around his personal life. He's one of those types that sees if it doesn't do him any harm, it doesn't do anyone else any harm, it's just too far outside his scope. I would make a remark like not all wisdom comes with age, but I'm not so quick to believe his claims. Not that his ignorance is making me doubt his exclaimed maturity, it's just that the egocentric vibe doesn't seem to match. His name on the other hand might indicate he's an older idiot...Quote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
I see...So if someone doesn't see things your way, they're an idiot & it's ok to insult them eh? Typical. Sounds to me like your an educator of some sort...Kind of intolarant for a teacher or professor, aren't you?
Exactly. And the new standard method of doing a lot of things is the internet. While I choose to use it most of the time, I also have alternate ways of doing things. I don't depend solely on the internet to do things. If that makes me an idiot, so be it.Quote:
Being resourceful is finding a way to accomplish your goal in the absence of the standard methods
At no point did I ever say anyone should be denied internet access. I only said that In my opinion, it should not be considered a human right. I rely heavily on a cell phone for my job...But I could do it without one if I had to. It would just be a lot harder & time consuming. That does not mean I think a cell phone should be a human right.
I'm sure you could also do your job minus the internet, if need be. I'm NOT saying that you should have to, only that the option should be open. After all, colleges & universities were also around before the internet, where they not?
You still neglect the fact that universities and other institutions evolve over time, they aren't stagnant. Increasingly, older methods (e.g. paper-based) become phased out, and at this point some of these are currently obsolete. Also, you're beginning to contradict the original spirit of your argument. I read into the sentiment of your earlier comments, in which you clearly express that you consider internet disablement as merely an inconvenience, and thus no major organization should be 'wasting' their time with addressing the potential injustice. It is at these remarks that I direct my judgmental labeling.
I certainly do have an intolerance for egocentric sentiments. I am quick to speak against it, and have no reservations about possibly being interpreted as hostile. The biggest weakness of your argument is that you limit your notion of human rights to food/water/shelter. There are many more rights outside of the scope to which you have limited yourself: to express your opinion without reprimand; to vote without threat; to earn compensation for your labor without being exploited; to be treated humanely while detained, etc. Not all of these things are required to keep our bodies ticking, but these are things that we agree on as a society/species that shouldn't be systematically removed. Internet access has earned it's right to be protected as well. To write it off as a convenience is folly. The report stated it in a well enough manner that I'd rather just quote them:
"Given that the Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights, combating inequality, and accelerating development and human progress, ensuring universal access to the Internet should be a priority for all States"
Let's not forget the innocent bystanders who get shut off either due to error, or due to someone in the household filesharing.
Should my children have to go to a public library to do their homework? Should my wife change jobs because hers has requirements that need to be fulfilled from home? The "inconveniences" are endless.
Not only is this a free speech issue, but concerning education, it is also an equal access issue. No longer are geographic barriers an issue when it comes to higher education. Many top-rated universities have outstanding online programs. These programs serve very well those who may be physically handicapped- not to mention there is almost no racial discrimination in an online class, or in admissions.
Just another element that crossed my mind. I imagine there will be more.