Computers have revolutionized the world
and changed the way we live; there is no doubt about that. We use
computers to do everything, everywhere, all the time. However, the
computer itself is only half of the story- it is the internet
that has really impacted society. The internet is the modern medium
for learning, communication, and sharing. It could argued that the
internet has merely made old services more accessible, since we've
always had libraries, mail, and filing cabinets. Even if this were
so, the impact of this new-found accessibility itself has far greater
repercussions. For example, the invention of the printing press
simply decreased the cost of book production, however, that effect is
often credited for the revolutionary spread of literacy to all social classes. The internet is arguably the next printing press, such that its incredible ability to propagate information allows for huge social impacts.
Never before has the individual had so much power to influence and reach the world. The world is pulled together as people from across the globe can easily reach anyone else. It has come to the point where many modern societies function on the internet; that is, access to the internet is almost essential for school, business, and even social intercourse. It has now come to the point where internet access can be viewed as human right.
But is the internet a human right? Apparently it is, if you ask the UN.
In June 2011, the United Nations declared the blocking people from the internet was violation against human rights. As discussed by Sulan Wong in the Computer Networks journal, people are entitled to freedom, including freedom of speech, expression, and communication. As the article explains, the European Union reasons that internet access is vital for proper freedom of expression:
"The European Parliament believes that the Internet is a universal space that now allows the pursuit of all these manifestations of freedom as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on the Rights Civil and Political Rights, becoming the most versatile tool for the exercise of freedom of expression globally. To that extent, the Internet should not be subjected to “interference by public authority”or limitation of access or control of content." (Wong)
Some countries have already implemented laws exercising this right, such as France, Estonia, and Finland. On the flip-side however, Google Vice President Vint Cerf has spoken out against internet access as a human right. In his opinion, the internet is a valuable tool to allow the expression of human rights, but the technology itself is not a right, since technologies change over time and may have different worth in different settings. He is concerned that setting internet access itself as a human right is putting emphasis on the wrong values. He does consider that internet access is more plausible as a civil right, however.
Personally, I can see that both sides of the argument have valid points. Although the internet is crucial to expressing certain human freedoms, it is but merely one means for this end. However, since the internet does play such a central role in our community, certain actions should be taken to protect its availability.
Never before has the individual had so much power to influence and reach the world. The world is pulled together as people from across the globe can easily reach anyone else. It has come to the point where many modern societies function on the internet; that is, access to the internet is almost essential for school, business, and even social intercourse. It has now come to the point where internet access can be viewed as human right.
But is the internet a human right? Apparently it is, if you ask the UN.In June 2011, the United Nations declared the blocking people from the internet was violation against human rights. As discussed by Sulan Wong in the Computer Networks journal, people are entitled to freedom, including freedom of speech, expression, and communication. As the article explains, the European Union reasons that internet access is vital for proper freedom of expression:
"The European Parliament believes that the Internet is a universal space that now allows the pursuit of all these manifestations of freedom as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on the Rights Civil and Political Rights, becoming the most versatile tool for the exercise of freedom of expression globally. To that extent, the Internet should not be subjected to “interference by public authority”or limitation of access or control of content." (Wong)
Some countries have already implemented laws exercising this right, such as France, Estonia, and Finland. On the flip-side however, Google Vice President Vint Cerf has spoken out against internet access as a human right. In his opinion, the internet is a valuable tool to allow the expression of human rights, but the technology itself is not a right, since technologies change over time and may have different worth in different settings. He is concerned that setting internet access itself as a human right is putting emphasis on the wrong values. He does consider that internet access is more plausible as a civil right, however.
Personally, I can see that both sides of the argument have valid points. Although the internet is crucial to expressing certain human freedoms, it is but merely one means for this end. However, since the internet does play such a central role in our community, certain actions should be taken to protect its availability.
I can see both sides of the argument too. However, I think internet is ONLY a medium just like those old telephones (landlines) (for communication) and books (for research). The only thing that is different is that internet is more efficient. Now, we hardly see telephones anymore since there are cellphones, smartphones, facebook, skype, etc and we use ebooks, ejournals and other websites for research instead of books. I think sometime in the future, there would be something more efficient than the internet - so it would not really "disappear" therefore "actions should be taken to protect its availability", it would just evolve.
ReplyDeleteThis is true, however, how greatly the internet is more efficient than the mediums before it may be enough to distinguish it to a new level of importance. It may be outdated at some point in the future, but for now, I'd say it is a crucial part of how our society functions; that is, since we rely on it for so many services, and arguably, expression of free speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adam, I think that in the Western world it is definitely necessary to have Internet access. Not having Internet, especially when looking for a job, can be a huge disadvantage. It's good how lower-income people who may not be able to afford a computer and Internet access can do so at a library, but it would be nice if there were public access spots unaffiliated with any other service. I suppose it's nice though, to have them in a library, as it indirectly promotes literacy.
ReplyDelete