Read the following article from the Atlantic Wire: U.S. Funding Secret Internet Access for Dissidents Abroad. This seemed like a good fit for our summer assignment, which relies on the power of the web. So what do you think--is internet access a basic human right? Can you foresee potential problems as a result of this? Is it in the best interests of the American government to promote revolutions or anti-government activity around the world? Feel free to respond to these or other questions in the comments.
Reminder: Comments should be 100-200 words and can offer your opinion on the topic at hand, respond to a classmate’s comment, or ask questions related to the material. Remember that your writing will be posted for all to see—therefore it should be carefully proofread, reflect thoughtful analysis, and be respectful of others ideas. Do not wait until August to write all three required comments!
I wouldn’t say internet is a “basic human right,” but it is coming close in most countries. If the internet was shut down in the US, it would be chaos. Thousands of people would be put out of work, because most jobs involve the internet in one way or another. People wouldn’t know how to contact people without e-mail, businesses would have to develop a new system for keeping track of their profits and goods, and anyone who has a job working with computers or internet companies would risk losing their jobs. If something catastrophic happens in the future that could cancel the internet in the United States, people wouldn’t know what to do with themselves. It has become a huge part of our lives. We could survive without it, but it would take a while to get used to it, and people wouldn’t be happy about it.
ReplyDelete-Kareena G.
I agree with Kareena. Although the Internet isn't necessarily a "basic human right," it is a tool that millions of people rely on for tasks that weren't possible before its existence. If it were to be denied to U.S. citizens, chaos would definitely ensue over issues as small as not being able to access Facebook, to a company not being able to communicate with a million-dollar client overseas, which is an issue of importance in a Capitalistic society such as our own. In addition to this, I can foresee issues arising regarding the U.S. Government's stand on aiding other countries. Although they are conducting research and spending copious amounts of money to benefit the revolutionists, it is an act that promotes rebellion against government, which is not something the U.S. government has the right to do, in my opinion. I believe this because it may give slightly less sane people around the world bad ideas, and jeopardize the safety of other not-so-stable governments in similar countries. It's basically like saying: "Revolting against your government? No problem! America's here to help!" Now, to clarify, I think that it's great our government is making such a big effort to aid the people in need in countries like Syria and Libya, but there is a line that needs to be drawn as far as appropriateness of that aid. Supplying food or shelter or something of the sort may have been a much safer, less controversial route.
ReplyDelete--Maliyah T.
According to a United Nations (U.N.) report issued in June of this year, the Internet is now considered a basic human right. It is not just another source of information, like the television, newspaper, or magazine. Certain countries shutting down internet access goes directly against the U.N.’s declaration. Thus, even though helping to stop shutting the internet down may cause more controversial issues between the offending country’s government and the opposing parties, it should still be undertaken. In addition, because internet access is much cheaper then a cell phone bill or phone of any kind it may be some peoples only connection to other people around the world.
ReplyDeleteTo amplify on what Kareena said, shutting down the internet in America would be catastrophic, not only from a job perspective, but because so much of what the average American does, has come to rely on the internet, from purchasing, to paying bills to social networking.
The uprisings of the people in Libya and Syria against their governments was fueled by access to the internet, one could even argue that without the internet these uprisings would not have happened. While some may believe that the dispute between the government and the citizens of the countries should be resolved internally we should still support allowing everyone involved access to the internet in the process.
Abbie R.
The point of the U.N. guaranteeing Internet access as a basic human right was guaranteeing access to all information, not just that which is government approved. Unlike the rights to free speech or religion, rights that protect the initiatives of citizens or are preventing unfair actions against them, access to the Internet requires a computer, a phone, etc., something beyond just citizen initiative. If the U.N. is going to give access to the Internet as a basic human right, do individual governments have to provide these means of access? If so, it would be extremely expensive. If not, the impoverished, oppressed citizens that would have benefited the most are left in the dust. Isn't the point of basic human rights that they apply to everyone? There is no way that everyone, if left to their own means, could afford the access that the wealthier citizens get.
ReplyDeleteI agree that assisting in anti-government revolts could send a bad message, but I don’t think the American government can just back off. As a promoter of human rights, we have gotten involved in protecting the freedoms of oppressed citizens in the past. But, as an international power, the relationships and alliances America has are complicated and important. Assisting in every revolt that occurs stresses these relationships considerably. I think that the American government will have to walk a fine line between assisting revolts and maintaining relationships, a line whose boundaries citizens and leaders alike surely don’t agree on.
Mira N.
Internet is definitely a basic human right. The core of the internet generation is increased access to information, freedom of speech and easy flow of ideas. Because the net is such a large part of daily life in this country and most other highly developed countries, cutting off access to it is as crippling nowadays as revoking right to free speech.
ReplyDeleteObama is taking a risk in defying other governments though. In the past the United States has been notorious for getting caught up in other countries business and tying up supplies and troops for years. Though everyone deserves the right to the internet, I do not believe it is the United States job to supply it. The American government should stop its involvement with the support of revolution. Revolution is often going to be violent and bloody, as it has been for all of history. But it is necessary if Egypt, Tunisia and Libya want to change their flawed governments. Either way, it would be easy for the United States to do too much and get some malevolent attention from the immoral governments we are fighting against. We need to avoid spreading ourselves too thin and worry about our own economic problems so that they might get fixed faster. In the end though everyone deserves the right to the internet and I fully support individuals fighting for that right.
Christian P.
I believe that the right to gather information is a basic human right. This incorporates the right to have resources to gather the information with, including the internet. Just as the previous comments have said, the United States would be lost without internet access. Mira N.'s question on the idea that with the right to internet access comes the responsibility to provide the tools necessary to have internet is a very good point. In my opinion, when something is considered a "basic human right" the idea is that everyone has the opportunity to carry out the action. If the US did provide internet access around the world, people in poverty in other countries such as Syria might not have the means to get internet access, but the basic human right to have it is still there. These people would not be denied access even if their government tried to take it away. Whether they have the means to get it or not is up to them and not the United States' responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI can foresee a lot of problems with the US' plan to overstep other governments' power. Other countries do not run by the same morals and values as the United States does. Their idea of basic human rights may be different than ours. I believe the United States is correct in saying internet is a basic human right, but to go further to say it is our duty to provide it to the world against other government's will is using power that the US does not have. Taking away the internet is not something to be justified. Fighting to insure that other governments will not be tyrannical to their citizens would be the more appropriate way to stop the banning of internet than to just go behind their backs. Providing internet no matter what other governments want for their citizens would cause more harm and war than good. The world is going to know what the US is doing, and the countries that do not agree with us are going to try and stop it from happening. Our government needs to focus on what is best for our own country before engaging with other countries.
Emily B.
The action that the United States is taking to ensure that everyone can freely use the internet is somewhat unnecessary. In my opinion it seems that the United States government is trying to interfere with what other countries are doing. And although these ideas are good, they do not need to be applied to something such as this. If they were to be applied during a time where tens of thousands of people could not contact anyone through radio, internet, or cellphones then that would be great and useful for any country. It also seems that our government is once again, trying to show its power against other nations who are not as well off as we are.
ReplyDeleteWhat I also noticed in the article is that the U.N decided that the internet is a basic human right. I believe that the internet is certainly not a basic human right, you do not need the internet to survive and live happily. Of course the internet is a great tool to use to almost instantly handle just about anything. For example, we are all using the internet to respond to the articles that are posted on the internet. But to consider it a basic right is a little excessive because many people in the world do not have access to the internet, and are doing just fine.
I agree with Emily when saying that the ability to gather information is a basic human right. However, I would not consider Internet access a “basic human right,” in the way that freedoms of speech or religion are. Although I do believe in freedom for all people, I do not agree with the US providing secret Internet access because it goes against the laws of that country. There is something to be said for each individual country and the way they are run, whether we, as a nation, believe it is right or not. If the US wants to maintain relationships with other countries, we cannot be going behind their backs and assisting the revolts against the government. How would the US government feel if another country assisted our people in revolting against our government? I can guarantee they would not be happy. I feel that by providing secret Internet access we are disrespecting a nation, which is a right we do not have, and potentially starting a problem that was really none of our business to begin with. This can be a very sticky situation because the people of other countries are now being deprived of something that has been declared as a “basic human right”, which goes against our country’s principles. The question now is does the US really need to get involved behind another country’s back—and what is the price we will pay? Although the US promotes world peace and basic rights to citizens, they seem to do so in very violent or disruptive ways. We justify our actions by saying that we are helping the people of a country, but are we disrupting their nation?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Internet is "a basic human right". When are we not using the Internet? Not only is the Internet used for entertainment, but the Internet is used throughout our everyday life from things as simple as using GPS to get to certain destinations, to managing businesses. The Internet provides great means of communication as well. We use the Internet to contact colleges and stay up to date with things happening in the world. People can even connect with family members overseas through skype. Even though some may argue that we have been without Internet before and we could live without it now, it would be catastrophic as Kareena stated before and a change that would take forever for everyone to adapt to! Taking away Internet access would also have a huge negative effect on our education. We are using the internet right now, i can't imagine what I would do if i weren't allowed to e-mail my teachers or interact with my classmates.
ReplyDelete-Quaneisha R.
The Internet shouldn't be considered a human right; it was originally solely made to make sharing information easier. However, it has grown so much over the past fifty years, becoming now a prominent part of our society today, which is somewhat becoming a problem. If anything, the right to use the Internet ties into the right to free speech so therefore it shouldn’t become a basic human right if it is included in another. The right to use the Internet is more of an implied right, much different from our basic human rights. Although we rely on it so much today for communication, education, and entertainment we could hypothetically live without it if we needed to. If we were deprived of our human rights, our society would become chaotic.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the technology being made for the future should “protect our human rights and promote free speech”, as was intended, but it shouldn’t “target foreign governments.” If all Americans knew that that was the intention of the creation of the new “gadgets”, not everyone (I hope not everyone!) would agree behind the morality of it.
Isabel S.
I believe that internet access is a basic human right because without it many people would be lost. Internet has become such a necessity today that just about everything is done online, including this assignment. People have come to rely on the internet as a source of income, communication, and even entertainment. So many people have internet access these days that taking it away would seem as bad as violating the Constitution. There are potential problems as a result of our increasing dependence on the internet because people have become so accustomed to using the internet that they no longer know how to live without it. Should the internet fail, the results would be catastrophic. Also, there are potential problems with Obama interfering with internet access in other countries. Although his intentions may be for the best it is ultimately up to the government in the country whether or not to give their people internet access and if they decide to take that away then it is their decision. America has no right to interfere with other country affairs seeing as we have enough problems of our own, let alone trying to get involved with something that has absolutely nothing to do with us. Not to mention the risk that we are taking by revolting against another government. It is definitely not in the best interests of the American government to promote revolutions or anti-government activity because what would we do if that government decides to come against us? We don’t need any more wars, especially when they can be avoided by minding our own business.
ReplyDeleteEver since the internet was made available it has been being used as a haven for free speech and new ideas. The government has absolutely no right to take away that free speech. As a country that prides itself on our civil rights, it seems to me that it is our duty to spread those same rights to everyone around the world. This is what Obama thought when he called for military action in Libya. It is not enough to just have freedom in the U.S., it is our countries job to spread it around the world and if we see freedom being suppressed, we must take action. I agree with what Abbie said, taking away people’s free speech is what triggered the rebellions, therefore, the U.S, has a vested interest in this situation not only for reasons regarding liberty, but to keep our world safe and secure.
ReplyDeleteAlaina B
I do not believe that Internet access is a basic human right, in the same way that using a cell phone is not a basic human right. It is not fair to decree that a technology is a basic human right when it isn't possible for everyone to have access to it. In a perfect world, everyone would have the opportunity to access the Internet, but if a government chooses to suspend the Internet it is not up to us to secretly interfere and jeopardize our own international relations. The motive behind the U.S.'s actions may be good, but these actions could yield dangerous, unforeseen costs. Going against another country's government by sneaking technological assistance to rebels is far different from bringing food or medical supplies to those in need. Diplomacy and other, more open methods could instead be used to seek to lift the Internet bans.
ReplyDeleteKathryn T.
I do not believe that America has the authority to undermine other countries. By creating this "secret" internet, we are saying that we are better than the government of the other countries where we are instating this internet. I do believe that many people have internet but I do not believe that it should be considered a "human right" seeing as some people in America do not have internet. I think we should be more concerned about the lack of internet in our country than the lack of internet in other countries. All in all, I just do not think it is our place to go into other countries and set up this secret internet.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that internet access is a basic human right. It doesn't seem right to label technology has a basic human right. If it were a right then everyone would have it. I don't think that the United States should be worried whether or not someone in another country doesn't have internet access. The Chinese government regulates what information the news can share with its people. By watching the news you are acquiring information. Why isn't there a huge uproar about the regulation of news. There are other means of acquiring information. I just don't think that technology should be a basic human right.
ReplyDeleteSeyi G
I do not think the internet is a basic human right, because not everyone in the world needs to use the internet to survive. My grandparents have never used the internet and they are not suffering from it, they simply do not see the point in using it if they can get everything done without it. I think the next generation finds it difficult to do everyday things without the internet, because they are use to having it available to them. I think the internet and other uses of technology have made us lazy and we think everyday tasks are impossible to do without them, but that’s not true. Without the internet things would be difficult, but people have survived without the internet before and so can we. If the internet for some reason becomes unavailable people would find everyday things a lot more difficult, but that is normal when people are use to having something that made accessing information a lot easier.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is in the best interest of the American government to promote revolutions or anti-government around the world, because we are in an enormous economic crisis that if we do not get it solved soon we will be in a default, which would cause an even bigger problem for the United States. I think the United States should worry about its’ country first before it helps others, and even though it is a benefiting idea for other countries in the end the government needs to get the United States in better conditions for its citizens.
-Vanessa C.
I don't think that having internet is a basic human right, or that our government should try to supply it to other nations. I agree with Emily when she said that it is a basic right to gather information, but i don't think that means every form of gathering information is also a basic right. It is important for people in those oppressed countries to still have access to news that may affect them, and having internet is not the only way to get information. The internet is such a new idea, and people are relying on it too much. Before the internet, people easily attained information and were perfectly fine. How can we invent something and rely on it so much that we consider it a right to have? I think our involvement could be harmful. I agree with Connor that our intervention in this issue is sending a bad message, that we a better than other governments. We should not be spending money to go against another countries desires. It's taking time and money to develop these products that may not even work. If these devices are detected, or searched for, there could be serious consequences, such as death or time in prison. If this were to happen, we would have given a reason for people to be punished. I think we should let other countries decide how they will control the flow of information and stay out of this.
ReplyDeleteEllis M.
Although the internet is not quite a “basic human right,” it is an increasingly vital source of information and communication, and societies that are restricted from its benefits will suffer as a whole. Political revolution in such countries would be difficult at best. With this being said, I still disagree with the U.S.’s actions to support and financially aid rebels with our resources. The United States, as a country, is in no position to be using our resources for causes that have no immediate benefit to us. Even though it is a tragic situation, it is not within the U.S.’s authority, or best interest to be taking action at this time.
ReplyDelete-Nile R
Event Current #1
ReplyDeleteA basic human right is defined as privilege to which all humans are entitled. That is definitely not the case for Internet access. I agree with Mira, that the Internet would have to be provided by governments to be considered a basic human right. I highly doubt any individual nation would be able to afford such means. The Internet is more of a convenience than a need. Without it, people would still be able to communicate. It is true that life would be chaotic without the Internet. However, consider if the Internet was never discovered. We would still be able be able to communicate. It may be more of a challenge but would be possible. I do not consider internet a basic human right. Although, it is nice to be able to access information easily, is it necessary for our survival?
Our government should not involve itself in other countries’ affairs. We do not need any more enemies. If we were going to help anti government revolutions, we need to focus on ways that do not contradict other governments. When we create secret ways for citizens to contact each other, we risk ruining the relationship we already have with the governments involved. Furthermore, do we really need to be spending so much money on other countries when we need it for our own country? I do support America’s campaigns to help other countries when we focus on humanitarian issue such as ending starvation, poverty and sickness. The internet is nowhere nearly as important as hunger in Africa. I understand the Internet had made it possible for us to know about poverty in other countries. Still, it is not a basic human right.
Kelly.C
I agree with some of the comments people have posted, i don’t think it’s right that the United States government is interfering in other countries affairs. In my personal opinion, having Internet access is not a basic right,rather...a luxury we sometimes take for granted. Having the U.N go as far as declaring it a basic right seems rather insane to me, as Kelly stated a basic human right is defined as a privilege to which all humans are entitled. Many people in 3rd world countries can barley afford to pay for Internet access let alone even having it. We,people who live in wealthy countries such as the U.S depend on the Internet as a source of information, communication and many other things we sometimes forget that it’s a luxury,a want and not a need. It may be wrong for a countries government to shutdown Internet access to its people but who are we to try and change that? Some people seem to forget that we pay to be able to use the Internet, if it was a basic right...shouldn't it be provided free of charge by the government?
ReplyDeleteThe internet isn’t even close to a basic human right. America has survived perfectly well without it for the first 220 years of our existence, so now why are we preaching that the internet is now this super-duper, incredible thing that we can’t possibly live without? Most of the world today lives without internet access, as do many people in America, and they’ve all done perfectly fine. There will be conflict if we fund internet activities abroad, as conflict is inevitable, but it will be minor. I believe our government should try to spread democracy, so long as we don’t become too extreme. The last thing this country wants is a war started because America was attempting to install a democratic system of government into a defiant country. We don’t need another Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteBen S.
To call the Internet a basic human right is insensitive to those who have no means of Internet access. As has been reiterated throughout this discussion, if one has to have a certain economic status to afford something, can that really be considered a "basic human right"? Inalienable rights, which according to our Constitution cannot be taken from anyone by the government, are also granted to everyone. As Nick questioned, if the Internet is to be considered a basic human right, the government must provide it to all.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the access to information that the Internet provides is a right that should not be denied. In America, even without the Internet people have ways to communicate, ensured by our free press. However, in nations where this right is not guaranteed the Internet has become a sole source of information. When the governments of such nations ban the use of the Internet, they are essentially keeping their people from accessing information. The question that the U.N. should be posing is not whether the Internet is a basic human right, but whether denying certain citizens access to the Internet is impeding their ability to exercise other rights that are inalienable.
- Phoebe W.
I do believe Internet access has become a basic human right. We use the Internet to convey our ideas, opinions and can be looked at as a form of speech. And I believe they fall under the first amendments protection and clauses. Although it is true that not all nations and people have access to it. And twenty or thirty years back we probably would not even consider the internet as a right but the internet and access to it has become a necessity. It is a way to share with people around the world and through it people are constantly learning from it. Not to say that I think America should just ship off those “ internet in a suitcase” because currently we are in a financial crisis and two million per suitcase does not seem like something we can afford. And in June the U.N has declared Internet as a basic human right they need to find a way to negotiate this declaration with the nations that have shut down Internet because it is not the U.S place to decide what to do we can help facilitate the changes we just can’t start them.
ReplyDelete