The title is misleading, as this is more about "denying" access. But this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any* operational implications, but every operator to see this was immediately worried. I figure it warrants a discussion.
http://m.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right
Gadi.
This is the same organization that says there is no basic human right to keep
and bear arms. They have no standing to lecture us about human rights, as
their body largely consists of mass murderers and thieves.
Not that I don't agree it's criminal for a tyrant to disconnect their country
from the Internet, but they are tyrants after all.
No discussion needed - yes, it appears to conflict with "3 strikes you're off"
copyright laws, until you accept that only criminals will get hit with 3
strikes, and criminals can be required to give up some rights as punishment, so
it's OK.
</snark>
- PLONK
What a moron
Nice to see you took the time to form a well thought out and concise argument.
Nice to see you took the time to form a well thought out and concise argument.
OK, if you need it spelled out for you - you asked for it. 
"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first
object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether
we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a
government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
--- Thomas Jefferson
Concise enough for you? You may also want to investigate the relative
importance of communications and armaments in Ghandi's struggle for a free
India, the US civil rights movement, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
That's 3 examples of change mediated by communications without rifles. Then
there's Darfur - an example of rifles without communications infrastructure.
Oh, and as Bryan said... 'PLONK'.
The problem is that even stating that denying access to the internet violates human rights allows the UN to begin to get it's claws into regulating the internet. These guys want it to be a right? I'm forwarding the UNSG my home DSL bill. Let him pay it. Obviously you're correct regarding firearms, without recognizing the basic right to protect human life against criminals and despots, there are no other rights (as a criminal and despot will take those rights with impunity).
Andrew
admins? Warning? hello?
This is the same organization that says there is no basic human right to keep
and bear arms. They have no standing to lecture us about human rights, as
their body largely consists of mass murderers and thieves.- PLONK
What a moronNice to see you took the time to form a well thought out and concise argument
OK, if you need it spelled out for you - you asked for it.
"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first
object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether
we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a
government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
--- Thomas Jefferson
You had the temerity to quote Jefferson while arguing for gun control?
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." -- Jefferson
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." -- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."-- John F. Kennedy
Ooh right the last one was Kennedy, my bad.
Concise enough for you? You may also want to investigate the relative
importance of communications and armaments in Ghandi's struggle for a free
India, the US civil rights movement, and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I did, and guess what I found!
Malcolm X on firearms:
�Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I�ve ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of N, it�s time for N to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn�t mean you�re going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you�d be within your rights � I mean, you�d be justified; but that would be illegal and we don�t do anything illegal. If the white man doesn�t want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job. That�s all.�
There's no quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King, but he both possessed firearms, and a permit to carry them. (this being a matter of public record)
Gandi was pro gun:
'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.' --Mahatma Gandi
So of your three "communication over armament" examples, two were run by people armed, and pro gun, one deprived of his arms by a tyrannical British government.
That's 3 examples of change mediated by communications without rifles. Then
there's Darfur - an example of rifles without communications infrastructure.
French Revolution
American Revolution
Russian Revolution
There's three that overthrew tyrants with force of arms.
Oh, and as Bryan said... 'PLONK'.
Immaturity astounds.
Andrew
There's a significant difference between Internet "access" and Internet "service". I have access to the roads. But that doesn't magically get me vehicular transportation from place A to place B. I need to buy a bus ticket, or buy a car and gasoline, in order to get service over these roads to transport myself from place A to place B.
When the UN says that Internet access is a human right, they aren't saying it should be provided for free, but they are saying that it should be available (for those who can afford a service fee), and more importantly that cutting it off for political purposes should be treated as a violation of human rights of freedom of assembly and communication. In the 1700s the US revolution and subsequent state formation (the United States of America) was created first by people assembling at public halls and private houses. In 2011, the Arab Spring revolutions have taken place by public assemblies that were initially organized in internet forums (Facebook, Twitter, private blogs, etc.). I do not see anything wrong with the UN position on Internet access.
jc
I will happily go along with this argument when the "3 strikes you're off" copyright laws are enforced thru a process which A) assumes you are innocent until proven guilty; B) that you are allowed to present a defense and challenge all witnesses; and C) that you are entitled to have your case heard by a jury of your peers. To the best of my knowledge, none of the "3 strikes you're off" copyright laws proposed or enacted have provided these basic human rights.
jc
I will happily go along with this argument when the "3 strikes you're
off" copyright laws are enforced thru a process which A) assumes you
are
innocent until proven guilty; B) that you are allowed to present a
defense and challenge all witnesses; and C) that you are entitled to
have your case heard by a jury of your peers. To the best of my
knowledge, none of the "3 strikes you're off" copyright laws proposed
or
enacted have provided these basic human rights.jc
I think we should just kick those UN buggers right out of office the
next time they stand for election. Oh, wait - nevermind.
From: Gadi Evron [mailto:ge@linuxbox.org]
The title is misleading, as this is more about "denying" access. But
this is still quite interesting. I don't think this has *any*
operational implications, but every operator to see this was
immediately
worried. I figure it warrants a discussion.
IPv4 or IPv6 ?
Nice try, but the human right you just made a case for is "the right to rid
yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for citizens to have
firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need to be
removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have to be
military - there are other types of force that work well too...
Anyhow, enough of that, except as it relates to communications.. 
You missed the '</snark>' at the end, didn't you?
I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should have the right to be at least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal has access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should not be forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my compliance with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed than their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent them from being successful.
At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms, and so I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this situation may change.
Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the average
criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding population can
be compelled to disarm.
That day is coming through US force as "Operation Gun Runner" from the
ATF allowed Mexican drug cartel straw purchasers to come in, purchase
5 or so AK-47 rifles, and when the gun store owner had suspicions
about not selling it - the ATF told the owner to "let the guns walk"
so the group could track down the weapons.
Unfortunately, those weapons were used to kill a DEA agent in Mexico
and a Border Patrol agent who was only armed with bean bag rounds in
his shotgun then died trying to cycle out those rounds to put in live
rounds.
Also with al-CIAda patsy Adam Gahdan inaccurately reporting in his
latest video to other jihadists about purchasing "automatic weapons"
from gun shows, I believe the ball is rolling for everyone in the
United States to be disarmed through force by new legislation to
outlaw weapons. I do not think the average gun owner would ever disarm
because the gun culture in our country is so deep and passionate in
any freedom loving citizen's blood.
The Second Amendment, in my opinion and most gun owners agree with,
was put in the Bill of Rights for the average citizen to remove
tyrants if the process of democracy does not work.
At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms, and so I
do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this situation may
change.
Better get one before it's too late 
No, I didn't miss it. It wasn't clear what part you were snarking at. Some people DO make that argument, and I wanted to point out why it was faulty logic.
The bigger point is how our basic human rights are being eroded by corporations and governments on a daily basis. People willingly submit to "exit checks" at stores, being treated like potential shoplifters because they think they HAVE to submit. (The only store where you have to submit to an exit check is a membership store where agreeing to this policy is part of your membership agreement. Unless the store has reason to suspect you are shoplifting, they can't block or detain you if you want to bypass the exit check and leave with your paid purchases. If they try to stop you when they have no evidence of shoplifting, you can sue for false arrest.)
I joined a gym more than a year ago, with a pre-paid 24 month membership. Recently they put in a finger scanner, and it's "optional" to enroll to have your fingerprint scanned and then the data points stored in their computer. Then you scan your finger and enter a pin number. I choose to not opt-in to this optional system. Last night, I attempted to work out by presenting my membership card and a photocopy of my license. This was the acceptable method when I enrolled (they photocopied my license and put it in a plastic card holder along with the membership card). But now they want to see the actual physical driver's license every time I work out.
I find this intrusive, and a violation of my contract for 24 months of gym membership because when I enrolled there was no requirement to show my driver's license every time I worked out - I showed it on joining and then THEY said a photocopy was sufficient for future visits. But there's no way to win this fight. It's not worth trying to get corporate to change their policy, they won't actually change their policy no matter what I do. All it will do is cause me more angst. So I have to either deal with the inconvenience (and risk of losing/misplacing my license) by bringing in my license (and thus my wallet) into the gym when I want to work out, or I have to submit to having my fingerprint put into their database. So much for my right to "opt-out" of this "optional" scanner system. It's a right, but they have made it so difficult and inconvenient to use the alternate method that my right doesn't *really* exist.
And let's not forget TSA.
These small incremental incidents are how rights are eroded, how people get brainwashed into believing that they must submit to these intrusions.
"Show us your papers" is not far behind.
jc
Nice try, but the human right you just made a case for is "the right to rid
yourself of criminals and despots". A "fundamental right" for citizens to have
firearms does *not* automatically follow. Yes, despots usually need to be
removed by force. What Ghandi showed was that the force didn't have to be
military - there are other types of force that work well too...I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should have the right to be at least as well-armed as the average criminal. If the average criminal has access to firearms, then I should have that option as well. I should not be forced into a disadvantage against criminals by virtue of my compliance with the law. Once law enforcement is effective enough to prevent the average criminal from having access to firearms, then the law-abiding population can be compelled to disarm. This stance can result in an escalation scenario in which criminals strive to remain better-armed than their intended victims, but the job of law enforcement is to prevent them from being successful.
I take it a step further. I believe that in order to preserve the ability of the people to defend themselves from the possibility of tyranny, the people must be allowed to possess any level of hardware allowed to the government.
While your statement above sounds wonderfully utopian, the reality is that unless the citizens can take up arms against the government, the government can, over time, become criminal. A disarmed populace has no ability to protect itself from such a government.
At present, the average criminal in my area does not have firearms, and so I do not own one. Gun crime is on the increase, however, so this situation may change.
In my area, most of the gun murders are committed by police officers. I live in San Jose, California.
Owen