[148204] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave CROCKER)
Thu Jan 5 13:30:19 2012
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:29:10 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJNg7VKRNniDTA4ig128gSuPtncH4_K+AH0ucaRLBg__P7rKtw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/5/2012 7:36 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth<jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>> Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
>
> With all due respect to Vint, I think that it isn't now, but it will be.
With all due respect for the view that it will be, I'll suggest that this
entirely misses the point of his op-ed.
His point is to distinguish means versus ends and that something as basic as a
human right needs to be about ends, not means.
Means often change -- sometimes quickly -- but ends are typically quite stable.
Discussion about means needs to be in terms of the ends they serve.
From the US perspective, speech and assembly are examples of rights.
The 'right' to telephone service is not a direct right; it's a derivative of the
speech right, I believe. Onerous assembly laws are examples of unacceptable
means. The Internet is a set of means. (Zaid's concrete example about blog
blocking is also on point.)
Broadly, we need to be careful to distinguish between core issues (rights,
causes, and the like) from derivative and surface issues (means, symptoms, and
the like. It's extremely easy to get caught up with the details of means and
symptoms and entirely miss the underlying, strategic issues.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
