Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UN Declares Internet Freedom a Basic Right

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the it's-true-i-read-it-on-the-internet dept.

The Internet 161

The United Nations Human Rights Council has passed a landmark resolution (PDF) declaring that internet freedom is a basic human right. They wrote: "...the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." The council also called upon all countries to 'promote and facilitate access to the Internet.' The article points out that this comes alongside a report from the Pew Internet Center, which asked a group of internet stakeholders how they think firms in the private sector will handle the ethical issues that arise with countries wanting to censor or restrict internet access. The responses were varied, but skepticism was a recurring theme: 'Corporations will work around regional differences by spinning off subsidiaries, doing what's needed to optimize on future profits.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ok Then. (5, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568007)

Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...

Re:Ok Then. (4, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568069)

Maybe if they all go onto Second Life and get slaughtered by Assad's flying penis swarms the UN will put a stop to that.

Re:Ok Then. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568323)

So when I say things about niggers and get modded down, does that mean the UN will find those mods and send them a strongly worded letter?

Re:Ok Then. (0)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568385)

So when I say things about niggers and get modded down, does that mean the UN will find those mods and send them a strongly worded letter?

I suppose that depends on what 'group' you belong to, and whether or not you have the 'right' to use such a word.

Re:Ok Then. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568871)

Nice butthurt you have there. Care to elaborate with an anti-PC rant, or should we just modbomb you to offtopic like this bullshit is? At least the GP had the sense to continue the (stupid) joke and post as AC.

Re:Ok Then. (0)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568111)

Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...

First world problem...

Re:Ok Then. (3, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568219)

First they came for the netflix streams, and I didn't speak out because my plea to be saved from the abusive, well-armed government officer at my door wasn't a netflix stream.

Re:Ok Then. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568137)

Maybe if the USA would stop sending arms shipments to insurgent terror groups opposed to Assad he wouldn't feel the need to crackdown so much? Stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign states. Do you want the Chinese sending weapons to the KKK?

Re:Ok Then. (0)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568249)

Of course not! Think of what cheap Chinese AK knockoffs would do to the good, god-fearing American weapons industry!

Re:Ok Then. (0, Flamebait)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568373)

> AK

> American weapons

Just proving how little you actually know about something you hate so much.

Re:Ok Then. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568855)

I'm missing out on my apparent hatred and ignorance, please enlighten me.

I made a light-hearted joke on the premise that common Chinese small arms are relatively inexpensive and generally closely based(to what degree knocked-off and to what degree licensed based on the degree of Sino-Russian chumminess or lack thereof at the time of production) Russian AK designs, and that having China sending them to the KKK would hurt demand for the product of domestic arms manufacturers.

You might need to re-calibrate your sensitivity a bit...

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569213)

He didn't imply that the AK was an American weapon you fucking retard.

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569271)

Moheeheeko, meet WHOOOOSH!!!

Re:Ok Then. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568431)

This is true. We need to send Assad several cruise missiles.. In fact they self deliver. What is his address? we can send 12 of them right now.

Re:Ok Then. (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569337)

Maybe if the USA would stop sending arms shipments to insurgent terror groups opposed to Assad he wouldn't feel the need to crackdown so much?

But those arms manufacturers are the Job Creators! And it would be immoral not to let them flood the world with weapons.

Arms manufacturers are people, my friend.

[next up: "Guns are people, Supreme Court decides in landmark case"]

Re:Ok Then. (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569639)

And so long as they don't yell, "Bang!" in the middle of a crowded movie theater they're entitled to freedom of speech and expression.

They could do A LOT! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568153)

Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...

I would go to the UN, complain and then the UN may send a strongly worded letter to Comcast!

Comcast would rue the day they crossed the UN!

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568207)

As much as many are making fun of this on this thread, this is important. Now, it will not mean much for us here in the US unless our government learns to play nice with the rest of the world, and stop assuming that America is above the law.

Free speech (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568209)

So, since there are dictators who attack their own citizens with military weapons, we can just ignore free speech rights? Internet freedom is a subset of freedom of speech.

Re:Free speech (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568333)

So, since there are dictators who attack their own citizens with military weapons, we can just ignore free speech rights? Internet freedom is a subset of freedom of speech.

I suspect that(aside from the UN's relative fecklessness), the bigger issue will be that the UN's position on "Human Rights" has a loophole in the free speech department that you could drive one of those comically oversized trucks [liebherr.com] used in open pit mining through...

From UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29:

"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

So, can anybody think of any popular restrictions on rights and freedoms that aren't fairly trivial to rationalize under 'morality', 'public order' or 'the general welfare'? Even with the 'in a democratic society' stipulation, that still leaves you a considerable degree of flexibility.

Re:Free speech (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568643)

So, can anybody think of any popular restrictions on rights and freedoms that aren't fairly trivial to rationalize under 'morality', 'public order' or 'the general welfare'? Even with the 'in a democratic society' stipulation, that still leaves you a considerable degree of flexibility.

Well, you left out "solely for the purpose" and "just requirements", so the answer has to be no.

For example, when one bunch of goatherders start massacring another bunch of goatherders (who they never liked) for disagreeing with the first bunch of goatherders it certainly passes the public order test. Perhaps the "rights and freedoms of others" too, if you consider being agreed with a fundamental right.

It's hardly a just requirement though, is it? certainly not by my definition of "just".

Re:Free speech (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569327)

The problem I see with these resolutions is that they all necessarily must be imprecise in order to have any reasonable application. However, the lack of precision is the very thing that creates loopholes.

I have a resolution: Treat others as you want to be treated. Oh wait, that leaves a loophole for masochists.

Fuck it. Free for all!

Re:Free speech (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568413)

I believe OP's point was that the UN issuing a declaration is just about as effective a measure at helping insure free speech rights as trying to stop a bull by yelling at it. The UN is so toothless it can't even stop open genocide: why would you expect it to be able to do anything when mere freedom of speech is at stake?

Re:Free speech (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568515)

The UN is not a government.
It is not a king.
It is not a Dictator.

It is an organization where representatives of some countries agree to certain basic principles.
It's a place where countries can public air their difference. It's a place where different country Representative will be meeting with each other.

You're complaint, just like almost every other complaint against the UN, is based in ignorance of why the UN exists.

Re:Free speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568545)

My local right-wing paper complains about the toothless UN every other week. I ask them why are they so upset, do they want the UN to be actively interventionist or something?

I have never gotten an answer from them.

Re:Free speech (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568651)

They want the US out of the UN because they opposed Bush's wars and now there is butthurt.

Re:Free speech (1)

kaatochacha (651922) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569031)

People dislike the UN because they are ineffective and unable to do anything without debating until EVERYONE agrees on something.
Which is also why the UN is allowed to exist at all.

Re:Free speech (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569249)

Once, while vacationing in the Canadian rockies, I saw an east asian tourist stop a female moose by yelling at it. He went out to take pictures of it from about 25 feet, and it would lower its head to charge. He yelled something at it, and it would look up at him for a moment. She put her head down three or four times - I thought I was going to watch someone die, but eventually the moose wandered off, the tourist having no idea how close he was to bodily harm for a few shots.

Slightly off topic, but just goes to show that sonetimes yelling does work.

Re:Free speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569579)

Once, while vacationing in the Canadian rockies, I saw an east asian tourist stop a female moose by yelling at it. He went out to take pictures of it from about 25 feet, and it would lower its head to charge. He yelled something at it, and it would look up at him for a moment. She put her head down three or four times - I thought I was going to watch someone die, but eventually the moose wandered off, the tourist having no idea how close he was to bodily harm for a few shots.

Slightly off topic, but just goes to show that sonetimes yelling does work.

A moose once bit my sister

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568525)

Sounds good but if they paid as much attention to human responsibilities and online responsibilities maybe we wouldn't have the problems we do now.

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568549)

Ever read the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? [un.org] It's a joke.
Everything's a basic right according to these people, from the right to not be held in slavery, to freedom of expression, to paid time off and the right "to enjoy the arts".

Re:Ok Then. (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569075)

Actually, those all sound quite reasonable. They boil down to the right to personal autonomy - and by extension, to be left alone.

Re:Ok Then. (2)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569493)

Remember that a right doesn't necessarily mean that you are owed that thing by society. Some right are like that. For example the right to vote implies that you are owed the opportunity and reasonable means by which to vote. But most enumerated rights are things that you must not be barred from. For example free speech. The right of free speech means you are free to speak your mind, it does not mean that someone somewhere owes you speech. So for the GP's rights to enjoy the arts or paid time off, it's reasonable for those to be rights in the "don't interfere" sense, just not the "you are owed" sense.

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569771)

It's funny, the first 20 or so kind of seem based on the saner clauses of the US Bill of Rights (except for the slavery article, that one took the US a bit longer to figure out), and the last 10 seem to be based on European Democratic Socialist law regarding social security and fair employment.

The "right to the Internet" specifically a bit silly, though. It seems a bit short-sighted to pretend that "universal human rights" have anything to do with the technology and media fads at the time. Free speech and expression of opinion should be a right, who cares how it's expressed.

Re:Ok Then. (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568625)

Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people

Don't be silly - they do have a way, but certain member states are opposed to those ways and will use their veto rights to get proposals to use them dismissed.

You could suggest that they do away with the veto power - but then you'd have to concede that the U.S. gets to lose its veto vote on any Israel/Palestine issues as well.

( Note that the above two are generally the Security Council, not the Human Rights Council - but I can understand your grouping them all together under the UN flag. )

Re:Ok Then. (2)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568649)

The UN isn't a body of power. That's the part both its fans and the NWO paranoids get wrong all the time. The UN is largely everyone getting together and talking things out. That there is nobody with a big stick to enforce the rules is exactly what makes it so challenging - but it couldn't be any different, because if there were you'd need another level to get the big guy in line.

The UN can not stop Assad from using tanks because everyone involved, especially countries like the USA, do not want the UN to have powers like that - for fear of having those powers used against themselves. Funny how every time the UN wants to do something at all, every American on /. is complaining and whining about the evil overlord, like when they want to give slightly more regulatory oversight over the Internet to some UN body - and yet when they are not themselves affected, they whine how the UN is so powerless that it can't stop Assad. Well, the answer to "why" is staring you in the face: Because you don't want it. If the UN could stop Assad's tanks, then it could also take over for ICANN.

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569857)

Actually, once the Security Council has unanimously agreed on something, the UN can most definitely become a body of power.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/military.shtml [un.org]

Not enough to take on a country like Syria, of course. That's when the unofficial UN enforcer (NATO) steps in... (still usually only with UN SC approval, which means "Russia and China are ok with it").

Re:Ok Then. (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568657)

Oldie but goodie [theonion.com] .

Re:Ok Then. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568753)

Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...

Yeah, I see the intent of this, but once again it flies in the face of American Business Interests so the government (or those parts owned by Corporate Masters) will have a vocal opposition to this.

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568895)

Is it me or UN turned into a joke lately ?

Re:Ok Then. (1)

desdinova 216 (2000908) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569485)

when has the UN not been a joke?

Re:Ok Then. (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569587)

When it enabled talks that allowed you to be born into a world without nuclear fallout and a functional ozone layer for example?

Re:Ok Then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569911)

193 ambassadors walk into the UN... ...and 67 years later, we're still waiting for a punchline.

Re:Ok Then. (1)

Teresita (982888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569785)

United Nations: A place where dictators opposed to free speech (Castro, Putin, Ahmedinejad, Mugabe, Obama, Chavez, Kim Jong Un) demand to be heard.

Sounds great! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568023)

So we can start by restoring everything taken off the Internet by DMCA takedown notices, right? Since that's the leading cause of Internet censorship.

Re:Sounds great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568117)

"Basic human rights were meant to be broken" -The US Constitution & History

Re:Sounds great! (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569665)

You're using that word, "censorship," but you definitely do not know what it means.

In similarly important news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568063)

My crazy neighbor Jimmy just declared he is High Gnome King of the 3rd Parallel Crux of the 14th Arm of the Correlian Empire.

I'm sure people will get right on that, too.

Re:In similarly important news... (1, Flamebait)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568197)

My crazy neighbor Jimmy just declared he is High Gnome King of the 3rd Parallel Crux of the 14th Arm of the Correlian Empire.

I'm sure people will get right on that, too.

Yeah, well, Obama campaigned on 'Hope and Change' and people believed that.

The bar is pretty low these days.

Re:In similarly important news... (0)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568439)

Yeah, well, Obama campaigned on 'Hope and Change' and people believed that.

The bar is pretty low these days.

I hear ya...in fact, I've even heard a few people are STILL thinking of voting for him again....I guess they are still 'Hoping' something about him and his policies will 'Change' for the better....

Re:In similarly important news... (3, Insightful)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568587)

Or maybe they think that no matter how bad he would still be better than Romney?

South Park was right when they satirized our political system as voting between a doucebag and a turd sandwich. The only thing that will truly change our country would be to change the actual political system itself, and that will never happen.

Re:In similarly important news... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569355)

Or maybe they think that no matter how bad he would still be better than Romney?

Well, I'm a little of the thought that Romney couldn't get worse that an Obama 2nd term...unbridled by the need for re-election.

And well, we've seen how 'effective' Obama has been...the 'great' decisions he's made, and the 'upstanding' appointments he's made for important positions (Holder, etc) so far. And how he's kept promises (*ahem* no lobbyists *ahem*)

[rolls eyes]

But give him a 2nd term and this time Obama will do better?

What's the old saying?

"The definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over...and hoping for a different outcome..."

Re:In similarly important news... (1)

kaatochacha (651922) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569559)

I vote Giant Douchbag, as the fact that it's giant adds a level of satire.

Re:In similarly important news... (2)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568943)

He's not flawless in my eyes, nor most other people's eyes -- but he's a damn sight better than any other credible candidate for the presidency.

Maybe if someone else could put up a candidate that wasn't a joke, you wouldn't have to worry about us poor misguided souls voting for someone that you (probably irrationally) despise.

Also, lose the "hope and change" criticism. People voted for him for his substantial policies as well, not just the fluff slogan (which, btw, is something every fucking candidate has). Bring some real complaints to the table or we'll just have to assume that you're ignorant of anything that actually matters.

--Jeremy

Re:In similarly important news... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569221)

He's not flawless in my eyes, nor most other people's eyes -- but he's a damn sight better than any other credible candidate for the presidency.

I haven't noticed any credible candidate for President since Clinton. And he was only a good President because he lacked the support in Congress to screw things up.

Re:In similarly important news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569305)

Clinton... you mean Communications Decency Act Clinton, who pushed for the US government being able to censor the internet? That Clinton?

Re:In similarly important news... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568527)

And there has been changes and things are better. You're point?

Re:In similarly important news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568539)

Agreed, look at the nutjobs calling themselves the Tea Party.

Everyone knows that Obama lied and all of the GOP wanted to pass everything possible to add jobs and balance the budget. the GOP was HELPING, no BEGGING for Obama to let them pass tax cuts for the poor, to extend job creation programs and the like. but that damn Obama, he sat there and said, NO! WE must help the rich and FUCK the poor. Damn you poor.

The GOP would have solved all of this already if it was not for Obama vetoing every single thing they passed to help the people.... Damn that Obama!

Everyone knows that if you give the billionaires more money that they instantly go out in the streets and give it to the poor! God bless the billionaires! They are out Saviors!

Oh wait, reality is the opposite of that..... my bad. I would give you republicans some credit if all of you were not bat shit crazy and did not actually believe in the insane shit I just said. But you do, you believe in that insanity.. hook line and sinker you believe in every thing said out of the retarded talking heads on Fox News.

Interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568085)

Anyone else find it interesting that Russia, China, and Iran - the three named in http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/18/1429257/the-uns-push-for-power-over-the-internet are all missing from the list of countries at the top of the resolution.

Won't work (2)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568089)

spy and control their citizens (and if possible, of other countries too) is an government basic right, or at least, the ones that matters more think so.

Re:Won't work (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568571)

So as a human out smart them. A buddy of mine did. he has a cover over his patio painted to look like his patio. you cant see what is going on from the sky and it looks as if nothing is out of the ordinary.

Turn to military strategy to hide from your own government.

Re:Won't work (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568979)

I'm trapped. I can't decide if that's a stroke of genius, or bat-shit crazy.

Re:Won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569269)

Depends on where he lives and what he's doing. Pot farm on the patio, maybe a little less crazy.

Re:Won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569299)

Hint: which of the two would your government say it is?

Re:Won't work (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569417)

Probably felonious.

I'm still not sure that helps.

Re:Won't work (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569883)

So as a human out smart them. A buddy of mine did. he has a cover over his patio painted to look like his patio. you cant see what is going on from the sky and it looks as if nothing is out of the ordinary.

Turn to military strategy to hide from your own government.

Is it made of tinfoil?

Just don't say anything mean. (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568099)

in particular freedom of expression

"...Now give us control of the root DNS servers so we can take down anyone daring to express unpopular ideas about WWII, religion, socialism, or the latest pseudo-royal who can afford a super-injunction to hide the bink he boinked."

Oh boy...that's almost funny... (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568107)

Does that mean that UN itself is going to stop turning around, and trying to take it over every other week. And go hand in hand with the dictatorships of the world to throw the shackles on the rest of the world in order to protect their "sensitives" from the rest of us?

Re:Oh boy...that's almost funny... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568223)

Does that mean that UN itself is going to stop turning around, and trying to take it over every other week. And go hand in hand with the dictatorships of the world to throw the shackles on the rest of the world in order to protect their "sensitives" from the rest of us?

Of course not, you silly person.

They're the good guys. They're in white (and that pretty blue).
They're on your side.

Re:Oh boy...that's almost funny... (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568253)

"oliver's army is here to stay,
oliver's army are on their way..."

Freedom of Speach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568109)

Freedom of Speach must be protected at all cost. Its under attack all over the world
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/14/alexander-aan-atheist-who-blasphemed-on-facebook-sentenced-to-two-years-in-prison/

http://www.google.com/webhp?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS433US433&sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS433US433&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=blasphamy%20laws&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=e757a35b73c411c2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=984&bih=720

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

Same rights online as offline (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568131)

Part of what the resolution says is that the Human Rights Council "...[a]ffirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online..." (emphasis added)

This is pretty much opposite the legal situation in the U.S. at least, where the government can demand access to your ISP's logs and the courts pretty much go along with it, but they still need a warrant to put you under physical surveillance.

I would tag this "sudden outbreak of common sense" except that I expect this resolution will have even less impact than the typical U.N. resolution.

Re:Same rights online as offline (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568387)

Yeah, UN resolutions seem to be more 640x480 than 1920x1200, if you know what I mean.

Re:Same rights online as offline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569577)

May be the next step is to cut back your rights offline so that you'll have the same lack of right offline and online?
It is not like they are respecting much of your rights at the airport these days.

Horrible headline (5, Informative)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568157)

Yet another horrible headline. The resolution doesn't declare the Internet a basic right, it declares that the Internet isn't exempt from the protection of basic rights. Not even close to the same thing, though it doesn't surprise me that Soulskill apparently couldn't tell the difference.

Re:Horrible headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568681)

Can't really blame Soulskill given that the article he references has the same headline.

Maybe you should blame SOMINI SENGUPTA, the guy who wrote the referenced article.

Re:Horrible headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568735)

The headline says "Internet freedom" was declared a right, not "the Internet". Not even close to the same thing, though it doesn't surprise me that some posters apparently couldn't tell the difference.

Re:Horrible headline (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568821)

Yet another horrible headline. The resolution doesn't declare the Internet a basic right, it declares that the Internet isn't exempt from the protection of basic rights. Not even close to the same thing, though it doesn't surprise me that Soulskill apparently couldn't tell the difference.

I was about to pile on, but you're misreading the /. headline, which is almost plagia^H^H^H^H^H^Hidentical to the Times headline.

The headline says "UN Declares Internet Freedom a Basic Right", not the Internet itself as a basic right. Unless they changed it, or something.

Hypocrites (0)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568205)

This is the same group that tried to get the ACTA treaty passed everywhere and NOW they say Internet access is a basic human right?

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569343)

Uh... the UN is not the US, even if the headquarters for the UN are in the US.

***CENSORED*** (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568251)

haha ***CENSORED*** the ***CENSORED*** really is ***CENSORED***

***CENSORED***,

John

And we're all reassured (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568287)

That governments will show the same care for freedom of the Internet that they show for freedom of speech, right?

sp0&nge (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568295)

GNNA anD support So there are people BSD sux0rs. What

It only follows... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568329)

I think it only follows that some access to the Internet, and some freedom on the Internet, will need to be recognized as a basic right. It may sound silly, but think of it this way: If "freedom of speech" is a basic and inalienable human right, how divorced can that "free speech" be from communications infrastructure?

The internet is the way that people are communicating and organizing. It's where we share thoughts and ideas and artistic expression. Denying access to the Internet today would be roughly equivalent to denying colonial Americans access to roads and meeting places. You can't say that free speech is a basic human right, and yet still find it reasonable to deny people the means to communicate with each other.

The UN is a joke. (2)

detritus. (46421) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568361)

The UN is a joke. The US will never ratify this and implement this in our laws. It only applies to those "other" UN members. Take the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty which was implemented 17 years ago, but we have YET to ratify it because the conservatives have a huge problem with children having rights or their own views and feelings being taken into account on things like education, parental placement, etc. as well as being prohibited from the death penalty if you are under 18 years old, etc. Good luck with that. Who is going to stop us? The UN?

Conspiracy hat on (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568447)

Ron Paul is championing internet freedom as a key tenant of individual liberty in the 21st century. The UN is declaring internet freedom a basic right.

Large portions of the population of the United States do not trust the government. The "two party system" is broken.

Solution? Give more power to a one world government. Trust the UN to do what the corrupt US government, beholden to their corporate masters cannot/will not do.

Something stinks here. Control over the internet is one of the only levers of power that America has left. With the dollar on the way out, governance over the internet is the last thing (besides an insanely huge military) that gives the United States any control over the rest of the world.

As scary as having the US control the internet might be, the idea of UN doing it is even worse. This is the same body that cannot speak with a unified voice on Syria. That is a serious issue where people are dying in large numbers. How well are they really going to handle issues like censorship and intellectual property?

Re:Conspiracy hat on (1)

Teresita (982888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569867)

The thing is, the US doesn't control the Internet now. There's a US company called ICANN that governs which names resolve to IP's on the World Wide Web to keep people from walking over each other. But the WWW is only part of the Internet. Think USENET, Peer2Peer, IRC, FTP...

Ron Paul Agrees with the UN (2)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568463)

There's something that doesn't happen every day, much less only 16 /. posts apart.

*all* freedom of expression? (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568541)

I find this statement, considering that it came from the UN, to be somewhat suspicious. Do they really want to protect all freedom of expression? Would the UN continue to champion my freedom of speech if I blasphemed the false prophet muhammad? Or is this just one more case of the UN trying to make an Internet power grab without thinking things through?

Horse before cart please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568557)

The private sector is not the problem. Getting deep packet app providers to abide by UN rules will not stop China and Russia from developing inhouse censorship solutions.

That's great and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568599)

but is this really that important when people are dying because of their lack of other basic human rights?

I don't know about everybody else, but I think food, water, shelter, and personal safety are a damn sight more important than Internet access.

Re:That's great and all... (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569029)

Why would effort toward resolving both problems at the same time not possible? (at least, for some definitions of "resolving")

Re:That's great and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569093)

but is this really that important when people are dying because of their lack of other basic human rights?

I don't know about everybody else, but I think food, water, shelter, and personal safety are a damn sight more important than Internet access.

Indeed. That's why the UN ought to be demanding the universal right of private citizens to keep and bear arms for personal safety.

anarchy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40568775)

The only effective means towards internet freedom is for the internet to be an anarchy. No one must control any significant fraction of it.

Any time you have one party with a large degree of control, whether that is the US government, China, or Facebook, you're going to have a less free internet. The problem seems to be that most people WANT a less free internet, so they act to give these entities more and more control all the time. The end result is that the same power that can "protect us from evil things online" is the same power that will also stifle freedom of political speech, freedom from having our every move tracked, and more.

The impetus for internet freedom must come from the people, and the people don't appear to give a shit. I don't know how to solve that.

0 - 0 = 0 (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568981)

Even China, which filters online content through a firewall, backed the resolution. It affirmed that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice.”

The Chinese delegation was probably laughing when they voted. Sure, same rights, no problem.

what about water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40569011)

so access to internet is a human right but not access to drinkable water?

Waitaminnit ... (1)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569161)

Is this the same UN that wants to take over the Internet to keep 'Muricans from saying all kinds of offensive things about furrin religiosities?

I tend to think the most liberal set of rights should set the standard for Internet rights, rather than the most conservative. But I'm a liberal, so take that for what it's worth.

UN's Idea of Freedom (1)

hackus (159037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569307)

UN Decleares the internet a basic human right.

I would be careful though, because the UN's idea of freedom isn't meant for _you_ it is meant for _them_.

As in, _they_ want to track, control and insure everyone is connected so that _they_ can have access to track, control and insure....insure nothing changes, and only those approved changes happen to further their control and tracking efforts of every single man, women, child, cat, dog on the planet.

That way they continue to live in luxery while you are put in your place.

That is what they are talking about when they discuss internet freedom.

Remember, you are dealing with the same criminals that have been trying to create wars of conquest throughtout the world anywhere there is a private central bank that doesn't accept Federal Reserve notes, and any population just happens to be sitting on large resource reserves.

-Hack

Rights, Indeed (1)

LordGr8one (1174233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569369)

As long, of course, as one doesn't use those rights contrary to the purposes of the UN.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?