World Bank Makes All Research Freely Available
As mentioned on Slashdot, the World Bank has announced an Open Access Folicy for Research, and launched their Open Knowledge Repository.
The new Open Access policy, which will be rolled out in phases in the coming year, formalizes the Bank’s practice of making research and knowledge freely available online. Now anybody is free to use, re-use and redistribute most of the Bank's knowledge products and research outputs for commercial or non-commercial purposes...
While much of the Bank’s research outputs and knowledge products have been available for free on the institution’s web site, and on other channels, the new Open Access policy marks a significant shift in how Bank content is disseminated and shared. For the first time, the Bank will have an aggregated portal to research and knowledge products, where the metadata is curated, the content is discoverable and easily downloaded, and third parties are free to use, reuse, and build on it.
Now, the World Bank has had its share of issues, including many unsuccessful programs, lending to those it shouldn't, and not being keen on its staff questioning 'the bank' and its policies.
The World Bank is also a leading producer of research on international development and related topics, and that research can be really useful and informative. As they say, a lot of their research was already available, but I applaud them for taking it further. They have some of their research already on the new portal.
It will also be using a Creative Commons license. There is a posting at Creative Commons about it. I'm curious what people think about an organization like the World Bank embracing a Creative Commons license. If the World Bank uses it, will that lead other international organizations to use it?
The Rights of Humans vs. Machines
P.W. Singer’s TED Talk is based on his latest book Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. Previously, he’s written books on the privatized military industry and child soldiers. I haven’t read his latest book, but the other two were interesting, partially because my knowledge of both was limited.
It could be argued that technology already allows a disconnect between the soldier and those being fought, i.e., dropping bombs on targets from a plane. As technology becomes more robotic, it raises questions like:
“Can rules of engagement for unmanned autonomous machines be created and enforced? Can an artificial intelligence commit a war crime?”
The TED Talk shows a lot of images of real machinery and he tells some stories that I had never heard before. If anything, it conveys to me that robotics are utilized in war more than I realized, and that opens the door for some complex human rights discussions.
I don’t believe we’ll be having discussions of the robotic rights of AI anytime soon.
Will ICANN Contract be Renewed?
Well, as reported on Slashdot, the US Government Withdraws IANA Contract From ICANN.
The 'no cost' contract between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN over hosting the Internet Assigned Names and Number Authority (IANA) was supposed to be re-let this March. Now, it has been withdrawn, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) says that 'we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community.' This is a pretty stunning vote of no confidence in ICANN by the U.S. government, on the eve of the 43rd ICANN meeting in Costa Rica. Speculation is that this is related to the attempts of the ITU-T to take over Internet governance, but it also could be over the new global top level domains. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more about this in the weeks to come.
Someone else added:
The headline is a bit misleading. What NTIA did was withdraw the RFP. The IANA contract still stays with ICANN (contract extended until the end of September), and there will likely be another RFP.
However, it is indeed a big rebuke, because in the NTIA Notice [doc.gov] they stated that "we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community" which is another way of saying that ICANN has not been acting in the global public interest.
Lots of people have opinions on this and some even wonder whether it will even be an issue. I’m curious what the requirements are that have been requested by the global community.
More on ICANN, ITU, DNS and the Internet Root
I’m currently reading a few academic papers relating to control of the Internet root, DNS and ICANN. I referred to both of them in a previous post, but didn’t elaborate on them, so I will do so here. The first one is Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route around the APA and the Constitution (PDF) by A. Michael Froomkin. The abstract from that paper reads:
The Internet relies on an underlying centralized hierarchy built into the domain name system (DNS) to control the routing for the vast majority of Internet traffic. At its heart is a single data file, known as the “root.” Control of the root provides singular power in cyberspace.
This Article first describes how the United States government found itself in control of the root. It then describes how, in an attempt to meet concerns that the United States could so dominate an Internet chokepoint, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC) summoned into being the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a formally private nonprofit California corporation. DoC then signed contracts with ICANN in order to clothe it with most of the U.S. government’s power over the DNS, and convinced other parties to recognize ICANN’s authority. ICANN then took regulatory actions that the U.S. Department of Commerce was unable or unwilling to make itself, including the imposition on all registrants of Internet addresses of an idiosyncratic set of arbitration rules and procedures that benefit third-party trademark holders.
Professor Froomkin then argues that the use of ICANN to regulate in the stead of an executive agency violates fundamental values and policies designed to ensure democratic control over the use of government power, and sets a precedent that risks being expanded into other regulatory activities. He argues that DoC’s use of ICANN to make rules either violates the APA’s requirement for notice and comment in rulemaking and judicial review, or it violates the Constitution’s nondelegation doctrine. Professor Froomkin reviews possible alternatives to ICANN, and ultimately proposes a decentralized structure in which the namespace of the DNS is spread out over a transnational group of “policy partners” with DoC.
Another paper is Master of Your Domain: Should the U.S. Government Maintain Control over the Internet’s Root? (PDF) by Scott P. Sonbuchner. The Introduction to that article begins with:
The domain name system (DNS) is an essential component of contemporary Internet use. The DNS is a hierarchical database that maps easy-to-remember domain names to more basic addresses, which then identify where a computer resides on the Internet. At the top of this hierarchy is a single database called the root. Since the DNS root is both essential to Internet use and centralized, many in the Internet governance community believe control over this database bestows implicit control over the entire Internet.
As research funded by the United States created both the Internet and the DNS, the U.S. had initial control over the DNS root. As the Internet developed from a U.S. research project to a worldwide computer network, other nations increasingly criticized the United States’ control over the DNS root. Partially in response to its critics, the United States transferred control of the root to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a semi-private, nonprofit organization based out of California. Although the United States planned to completely privatize ICANN, and thereby release control of the root, it continues to retain ultimate control over ICANN’s decisions. While the international community largely agrees that the United States should not control the root, there is disagreement about what the ultimate solution should be.
That last sentence is very significant. What should the solution be? Would UN oversight of ICANN via the ITU be better or worse? According to the first paper, the US Government has ties and leverage over ICANN. If that’s the case, what would it mean for the ITU, or another entity, to have authority over ICANN?
Based on this article by Geoff Huston on CISCO’s website, and the 2nd paper above, the ITU has been in the conversation about governance of the Internet since the early days of the Internet. So, handing over governance of the Internet to the ITU is not a new idea.
Huston gives the following history of the ITU:
The ITU is certainly one of the more venerable institutions in the communications sector. It can trace its origins to May 1865, when the first International Telegraph Convention was signed by 20 founding national members, and the International Telegraph Union was established to facilitate subsequent amendments to this initial agreement. Two decades later, in 1885, the ITU drafted international legislation governing telephony. With the invention in 1896 of wireless telegraphy, similar coordinating measures were adopted by the International Radiotelegraph Convention. In 1932 the Union combined the International Telegraph Convention of 1865 and the International Radiotelegraph Convention of 1906 to form the International Telecommunication Convention. The name of the body was changed to International Telecommunication Union to properly reflect the full scope of the Union's responsibilities, which by this time covered all forms of wireline and wireless communication.
In 1947 the ITU, under an agreement with the newly created United Nations, became an agency of the United Nations, with responsibilities in international telephony, telegraphy, and radio communications. Over the next four decades the ITU oversaw a system of international interconnection of telephony and data systems that became an industry in and of itself…
The Internet has posed a severe challenge to the ITU. Not only was the ITU often perceived as being out of touch with the data communications sector, more critically it had been perceived as being incapable of making the necessary reforms to its mode of operation and policy setting to bring it back into relevance for the rapidly changing communications industry. The inference was being drawn that the ITU was apparently in a state of denial over progressive deregulation of national communications sectors… The ITU, as an intergovernmental organization, was being seen in some quarters as an anachronistic recalcitrant relic of an earlier era of communications service provision.
Relating to the initial discussion of the ITU and Internet governance, Sonbucher explains:
President Clinton’s Internet Czar Ira Magaziner believed that the United States alone had claim to the root. He articulated his position, stating, “The United States paid for the Internet, the Net was created under its auspices, and most importantly everything Jon [Postel] and Network Solutions did was pursuant to government contracts.” Further, Magaziner rejected the IAHC’s plan because he believed it was contrary to his goal of commercialization of the Internet. He believed the IAHC’s relationship with the International Telecommunications Union put the Internet at risk of getting taxed and becoming over-regulated and introduced uncertainty into the security of the architecture. [Emphasis mine, SD]
The United States’ refusal to relinquish the root leaves the international community with few practical alternatives. There is no international court with jurisdiction to adjudicate who should control the DNS root. Thus, nations critical of the U.S.’s control over the root have two primary remedies: (1) exert diplomatic pressure to give up or limit control, or (2) create their own root server. Unfortunately, both remedies possess significant limitations. Exerting diplomatic pressure has had limited effect on the United States’ decision to control the root. Creating a second root risks fragmenting the root and ultimately balkanizing the Internet.
Even with a treaty giving power to an international entity, will the US simply relinquish control? That doesn’t appear to be a given.
I’m presenting what I find on this issue. I’m not claiming to know everything about it, so I invite dialogue and links to other sources. Thanks.
Facebook: Banned and Growing in China & Vietnam
As you know, Facebook is banned in some countries, like China. According to what I’ve read, that may be through a government firewall or at the ISP level. A recent article in ReadWriteWeb noted that Facebook use is growing in China, despite being banned:
People in China may be barred from accessing Facebook, but that hasn't stopped them from making software for the 845-million member social network.
The partnerships with Chinese software developers allow Facebook to find ways to show investors in its upcoming initial public offering growth and expansion in China, even though the Chinese government has banned access to the site since 2009. The Chinese game developers could also be a strong source of revenue growth for the recent addition of advertisements to Facebook's mobile site.
Facebook reported that China is its largest Asian software partner, with about one in five of the apps being developed by its Asian partner network being developed in China. David Lim, in Facebook's mobile developer relations division, told Bloomberg News Chinese developers are using the social network to reach overseas markets.
Another country where Facebook is banned is Vietnam. Internet use is growing fast in Vietnam. It appears that ISPs use DNS blocking there based on unofficial government policy. There is a supposed official, but non-public, order to block access Facebook that circulated on the net, which is explained in this very information article about Facebook in Vietnam. I spent a month in Vietnam in August 2011, and Facebook use was quite common, which people using alternate DNS servers or proxies to circumvent the ban. There were numerous signs and posters advertising business Facebook pages, and I saw quite a few youth using Facebook.
According to GreyReview, which maintains estimates for Facebook use by countries in Asia, Facebook in Vietnam was on the decline the 1st 6 months of 2011, dropping from 1,799,920 users to 1,590,700. Next quarter, it rose to 2,520,900. Then, in their report for all of Asia for the 4th quarter of 2011, Vietnam users on Facebook surged to 3,609,180. They have 23 countries on their list. China isn’t one of them.
This isn’t the end of the story, as both technology and government policy are not static. As much as social media like Facebook can open doors for people to organize and collaborate, it can also be utilized by governments. Still, I like seeing Facebook grow where it is banned. Does anyone have any other points of view? Also, if you any stats above are disputable, please leave a comment to another source.
Does US have Jurisdiction over Domain Names (.com, .net, .org)?
Does the United States have jurisdiction over a domain name registered in another country? Based on the case of Bodog.com, that answer appears to be ‘yes.’ So while we debate whether the UN should have oversight over domain names, perhaps we also should question how much oversight the U.S. Department of Homeland Security should have.
As Michael Geist explains in the article linked above, Bodog.com and it’s parent company was one of the world’s largest sports gambling operations. They stopped accepting U.S. bettors last late last year. Also, they registered their ‘.com’ domain through a Canadian registrar named DomainClip and hosted their website on servers outside the U.S. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been trying to shut down online gambling sites.
In the Bodog.com case, State of Maryland prosecutors were able to obtain a warrant ordering Verisign, the company that manages the dot-com domain name registry, to redirect the website to a warning page advising that it has been seized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The message from the case is clear: all dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domain names are subject to U.S. jurisdiction regardless of where they operate or where they were registered. This grants the U.S. a form of “super-jurisdiction” over Internet activities since most other countries are limited to jurisdiction with a real and substantial connection. For the U.S., the location of the domain name registry is good enough. [Emphasis mine, SD]
It should be noted that Bodog’s ‘.ca’ domain name is still running, so this applies to what was their primary domain name, which is a ‘.com.’
I was alerted about this on Slashdot, and there are some useful comments there. I’ll quote a few:
Just for sake of accuracy, this was a court ruling - and a state court at that, not legislation that passed.
[.com .org .net .edu .int ] were classified as 'World Wide Generic Domains' while [ .gov .mil .us ] were US-only according to RFC 1591 [^1]
I highly recommend that you read the paper titled "WRONG TURN IN CYBERSPACE: USING ICANN TO ROUTE AROUND THE APA AND THE CONSTITUTION" by A Michael Froomkin. [^2]
In 1998, ICAAN was formed and given management rights of the [ .com .net .org ] TLD's by the USC. In 2000, ICAAN's rights were formally recognized by the DoC and separate (and conflicting) agreements were signed. U.S government retained control of [ .int .edu ] domains and set restrictive polices on both (against the RFC). Please note that ICAAN is required to comply to RFC 1034, 1035 and 1591 [^3] [^4]
Today, we no longer have the 'World Wide Generic Domains'. These have been replaced with a different TLD system which specifies Generic Top Level Domains (gTLD) as domains that operate directly under policies established by ICANN processes for the global Internet community. [^5] [ .com .org .net ] are classified as gTLD's and thus are for the global Internet community. [^6]
This law article explains the situation in detail.
http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/x9/zx/x9zxd7nnmzDMMwHVC-aRHw/Sonbuchner-Final-Online-PDF-04.07.09.pdf
So, what type of oversight should there for the the Internet, and who should do it?
Is Internet Access a Human Right?
Last year, a Wired Magazine blog post carried this title, “U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right.” They began by saying the following:
A United Nations report said Friday that disconnecting people from the internet is a human rights violation and against international law.
They then quote from the summary part of the report where it is specifically talking about States cutting off access:
78. 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.
This type of headline was used to describe the UN report by many, even though there is no declaration that Internet access is a human right to be found. Disconnecting people from the Internet is not the same as a general statement of Internet access being a human right. Further, this is in the context of the entire “Conclusions and Recommendations” section, with a lot of detail preceding it.
ReadWriteWeb has the same type of headline, but then goes on to say:
So it is not, in itself, a human right. Rather, due to its importance in contemporary global society, it enables the realization of those rights - rights such as freedom of expression - and as such, must be maintained.
I read the entire report. It can be implied that the report says this, if one pieces together various sections, but that is not the same thing as a declaration. For instance, read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I’ll give my conclusion now, and then quote extensively from the report. To say that Internet access is a human right confuses the discussion. Freedom of expression is a human right, and when a government inhibits this, they are violating human rights. It’s not that we have a right to have connectivity where there currently is none. The report doesn’t say that or imply that. However, when we are personally restricted or content access is restricted, that may be a human rights violation.
One of the articles I read said that the Internet is just a communications medium. That is relevant in that phones, mail, and media are rather important for communication and freedom of expression. However, the Internet is more than just a communications medium. The report, written by Frank La Rue, a special rapporteur to the U.N., recognizes this:
The Special Rapporteur underscores the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole.
Early on, the report notes that there are two key parts of Internet access, access to content and the infrastructure along with related communication technologies (see Paragraph 3). This is a key part to the discussion and one source of confusion among people when discussing it. This report is focused on the ‘access to content’ side of things. Content isn’t the best way to put it though. It’s access to software services.
The report then underscores the importance of this new medium, the Internet.
19. Very few if any developments in information technologies have had such a revolutionary effect as the creation of the Internet. Unlike any other medium of communication, such as radio, television and printed publications based on one-way transmission of information, the Internet represents a significant leap forward as an interactive medium. Indeed, with the advent of Web 2.0 services, or intermediary platforms that facilitate participatory information sharing and collaboration in the creation of content, individuals are no longer passive recipients, but also active publishers of information. Such platforms are particularly valuable in countries where there is no independent media, as they enable individuals to share critical views and to find objective information. Furthermore, producers of traditional media can also use the Internet to greatly expand their audiences at nominal cost. More generally, by enabling individuals to exchange information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders, the Internet allows access to information and knowledge that was previously unattainable. This, in turn, contributes to the discovery of the truth and progress of society as a whole. [Emphasis mine, SD]
I will continue to quote, since they are building a foundation.
20. Indeed, the Internet has become a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The latter provides that:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference;
(b) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice;
(c) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(d) for respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(e) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.21. By explicitly providing that everyone has the right to express him or herself through any media, the Special Rapporteur underscores that article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant was drafted with foresight to include and to accommodate future technological developments through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression. Hence, the framework of international human rights law remains relevant today and equally applicable to new communication technologies such as the Internet.
22. The right to freedom of opinion and expression is as much a fundamental right on its own accord as it is an “enabler” of other rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to education and the right to take part in cultural life and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, as well as civil and political rights, such as the rights to freedom of association and assembly. Thus, by acting as a catalyst for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Internet also facilitates the realization of a range of other human rights.
23. The vast potential and benefits of the Internet are rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach and relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of the Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in “real time” and to mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on the Internet through the use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor and identify activists and critics, criminalization of legitimate expression, and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur also emphasizes that the existing international human rights standards, in particular article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, remain pertinent in determining the types of restrictions that are in breach of States’ obligations to guarantee the right to freedom of expression.
24. As set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, there are certain exceptional types of expression which may be legitimately restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard the rights of others… any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application… [They go on to cite examples of limitations.]
26. However, in many instances, States restrict, control, manipulate and censor content disseminated via the Internet without any legal basis, or on the basis of broad and ambiguous laws, without justifying the purpose of such actions; and/or in a manner that is clearly unnecessary and/or disproportionate to achieving the intended aim, as explored in the following sections. Such actions are clearly incompatible with States’ obligations under international human rights law, and often create a broader “chilling effect” on the right to freedom of opinion and expression…
Now for the application:
28. As outlined under Chapter III, any restriction to the right to freedom of expression must meet the strict criteria under international human rights law. A restriction on the right of individuals to express themselves through the Internet can take various forms, from technical measures to prevent access to certain content, such as blocking and filtering, to inadequate guarantees of the right to privacy and protection of personal data, which inhibit the dissemination of opinions and information. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that the arbitrary use of criminal law to sanction legitimate expression constitutes one of the gravest forms of restriction to the right, as it not only creates a “chilling effect”, but also leads to other human rights violations, such as arbitrary detention and torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [Emphasis mine, SD. Report goes on to give specific examples.]
In the next section (IV, C), the report recognizes that private corporate intermediaries, like ISPs, facilitate this interaction. It also mentions how the legal protection intermediaries have had from liability for end-user content has been eroding.
44. Given that Internet services are run and maintained by private companies, the private sector has gained unprecedented influence over individuals’ right to freedom of expression and access to information. Generally, companies have played an extremely positive role in facilitating the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. At the same time, given the pressure exerted upon them by States, coupled with the fact that their primary motive is to generate profit rather than to respect human rights, preventing the private sector from assisting or being complicit in human rights violations of States is essential to guarantee the right to freedom of expression.
In the United States, legislation like SOPA is being driven by private corporation and coalitions to give the US government more control of the Internet. The report also expresses concern about cutting people off from the Internet entirely, such as the “3 strikes law” in France.
In section V, the report talks about infrastructure. The Internet as a means of freedom of expression needs to be accessible in order to facilitate this. When this isn’t the case, the report says a digital divide can be created.
66. Given that access to basic commodities such as electricity remains difficult in many
developing States, the Special Rapporteur is acutely aware that universal access to the Internet for all individuals worldwide cannot be achieved instantly. However, the Special Rapporteur reminds all States of their positive obligation to promote or to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and the means necessary to exercise this right, including the Internet. Hence, States should adopt effective and concrete policies and strategies – developed in consultation with individuals from all segments of society, including the private sector as well as relevant Government ministries – to make the Internet widely available, accessible and affordable to all.
The distinction between access to content and access to infrastructure is very important in this report. The UN isn’t demanding states setup infrastructure to give people access. It isn’t a human rights violation to not have Internet access where no infrastructure exists. However, to cut off or limit Internet access to those who already have it, and thus, to limit freedom of expression, is a human rights violation. To say that Internet access is a human right confuses the discussion. Freedom of expression is a human right, and when the government inhibits this, they are violating the rights of people.
In regards to Internet access being a human right, the following section is enlightening:
65. In some economically developed States, Internet access has been recognized as a right. For example, the parliament of Estonia passed legislation in 2000 declaring Internet access a basic human right. The constitutional council of France effectively declared Internet access a fundamental right in 2009, and the constitutional court of Costa Rica reached a similar decision in 2010. Going a step further, Finland passed a decree in 2009 stating that every Internet connection needs to have a speed of at least one Megabit per second (broadband level). The Special Rapporteur also takes note that according to a survey by the British Broadcasting Corporation in March 2010, 79% of those interviewed in 26 countries believe that Internet access is a fundamental human right.
It looks like a number of people already think Internet access should be a human right, regardless of what the UN thinks.
More recently, on January 12th, the New York Times published an article titled Internet Access is Not a Human Right, by Vinton Cerf, a Vice President at Google and a so-called ‘Father’ on the Internet. To quote a few parts:
Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself…
The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. [Emphasis mine, SD]
Journalists at The Guardian and Amnesty International both wrote thoughtful critiques of the NYT article. The Amnesty article includes these insights:
In just over a decade, communication technologies have become indispensable to the world’s most marginalized people. Indeed, loss of access would be a mere annoyance to me. In places from Sub-Saharan Africa to the most impoverished communities here in the US, however, loss of access could mean an immediate threat to lives and livelihoods. No, not for me or Mr. Cerf.
And the increasing necessity of internet access for the world’s most impoverished as it relates to health, education, employment, the arts, gender equality—all things we have the right to enjoy means that Information Technologies (yes, the Internet) are inseparable from the rights themselves.
What is the Internet? It is an endless network of people, information, and knowledge. And resting on the architecture of the Internet is a digital public space found in social and professional networking that rivals the richness of any physical town square. And—using Cerf’s logic—while access to the physical town square may not be a human right in isolation, it has always been for most inseparable from the right to association and expression. And denial of access to the town square through curfews, martial law, or emergency rules are tantamount to restriction on association and expression.
I’m still pondering these words from Amnesty International. In reading the comments on their article, it’s clear that the definition of “Internet access” is not clear. Some are focused on infrastructure. Some are focused on access to software services where they infrastructure already exists.
Conclusion
Internet infrastructure being a human right is debatable and problematic. Internet services, on the other hand, where they already exist, have opened doors for collaboration, communication, coordination, community, networking (with real people), education, and meetings. Internet access is too important to not take it seriously. These discussions need to continue. I do not believe Internet access per se should be a human right, nor do I interpret the UN Report as broadly saying that. However, I support the idea that government restricting access may violate peoples’ right to expression, which is what I interpret the UN Report to be saying. As Amnesty International recognizes, the Internet is more than technology. “It is an endless network of people, information, and knowledge” with “a digital public space found in social and professional networking that rivals the richness of any physical town square.” Agreed.
Human Rights: Inherent or Given?
Mark Steyn, in an article for National Review. The article is definitely partisan, but he makes a few really good points about human rights.
When it comes to human rights, I go back to 1215…Magna Carta Libertatum…Back then, “human rights” were rights of humans, of individuals — and restraints upon the king: They’re the rights that matter: limitations upon kingly power. Eight centuries later, we have entirely inverted the principle: “Rights” are now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects — the right to “free” health care, to affordable housing, the “right of access to a free placement service” (to quote the European Constitution’s “rights” for workers)…
With so many pseudo-“rights” bouncing around, you need a bigger and bigger state: Individual rights are less important than a “rights system” — i.e., a government bureaucracy.
The two points I take from the article, in my own words, are:
1. Rights should be inherent and fundamental to the individual, thus placing limits on rules, rather than being rules given to the people by the state, and thus, enforced by the state.
2. There is a difference between a right to free speech and a right to free health care. For one thing, there is a significant financial cost to the latter. Is there then a limitation on what can be considered a right?
As a Christian, I echo the words of the US Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” What I want to key in on is that I agree with the writers of the declaration that rights DO NOT come from government. Governments tend not to like this concept.
Cambodia’s Draft Law on Associations and NGOs (LANGO)
In the Global Governance Regime article I previously mentioned, they have this to say in their section on capacity building:
NGOs, while indispensable actors in terms of implementing ground-level capacity building, mostly operate at the pleasure of national governments, and have little recourse if asked to cease operations or even leave a state entirely. Suspicious of NGO activity, some governments have attempted to pass laws limiting the activity of NGOs or requiring them to receive prior approval before engaging in capacity-building efforts. Ongoing controversy in Cambodia over proposed government regulation of NGOs epitomizes this problem.
I’m currently living in Cambodia, and have talked with a few people in local human rights organizations, like LICADHO, and this proposed law have caused quite a stir. The government released the 4th draft in December. There is a detailed analysis of it in this PDF, which includes,
Although the law has shrunk by more than 20 articles and contains some notable improvements, it is also now more confusing than ever. Several key provisions raise more questions than they answer, both in terms of the law’s application and the intent of the government...
The most alarming aspect of previous drafts – mandatory registration for all associations and NGOs – has been removed from the fourth draft. But the removal is in name only. Registration remains mandatory for most groups. In some instances, this requirement can be considered reasonable. In others, it is clearly not.
Blue Lady Blog explainss some history relating to the law. LICADHO’s Press Release from December 22nd calls donors to insist on protections for civil society and for the government to revise or abandon the law.
About the Human Rights Global Governance System
The CFR recently published a good overview of the international human rights system in an article titled The Global Human Rights Regime.
Overall assessment: Heightened attention, uneven regional efforts, weak global compliance
The international human rights regime has made several welcome advances—including increased responsiveness in the Muslim world, attention to prevention and accountability for atrocities, and great powers less frequently standing in the way of action, notably at the UN Security Council (UNSC). Yet, despite responses to emerging cases demanding action, such as Sudan and Libya, global governance in ensuring human rights has faltered.
Many experts credit intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) for advances—particularly in civil and political rights. These scholars cite the creation of an assortment of secretariats, administrative support, and expert personnel to institutionalize and implement human rights norms. Overall, the United Nations (UN) remains the central global institution for developing international norms and legitimizing efforts to implement them, but the number of actors involved has grown exponentially.
The primary mechanisms include UNSC action, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), committees of elected experts, various rapporteurs, special representatives, and working groups. War crimes tribunals—the International Criminal Court (ICC), tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and hybrid courts in Sierra Leone and Cambodia—also contribute to the development and enforcement of standards. All seek to raise political will and public consciousness, assess human-rights related conduct of states and warring parties, and offer technical advice to states on improving human rights.
There’s a lot of information here. I may use portions of this piece in future posts.