Technology

Founder of Internet Says ‘Internet Access Is Not a Human Right’

Co Founder of Internet Says Its Not a Human Right

Map of Internet.

With many initiatives to bring the Internet to third-world countries, ensure its availability under oppressive regimes and increased spending to bring technology into classrooms, Vint Cerf’s — a man often referred to as the father of the Internet – recent op-ed in the New York Times may come as a surprise to you.

The headline: Internet Access Is Not a Human Right

In his piece, Cerf talks about the success recent protests have had thanks to use of the Internet to spread the message. With that has come questioning over whether “Internet access is or should be a civil or human right.” Cerf notes that governments in countries like France and Estonia have declared that the Internet is a human right, but Cerf says:

But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things.

With that, let’s consider a few examples reported on The Blaze over the last few years where access to Internet was given the term “right” and instances where technology was “exalted” enough to …:

  • In August 2011, Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide said that it considered access to the Internet a civil right. Here are more examples of those believing Internet is a right from that article:

Back in December 2010, The Blaze brought you a video of FTC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn(daughter of Rep. James Clyburn) discussing her belief that the Internet must become an “open platform.” During this same month, another FCC Commissioner, Michael Copps, said, “Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right…[though] not many people have talked about it that way.”

[...]

Over at The Huffington Post, telecom researcher Chris Mitchell writes that, as a result of its merger with NBC, Comcast is required to make the Internet affordable and available to 2.5 million low-income households over the next two years. Interestingly, Comcast’s Executive Vice-President David Cohen had the following to say about the civil rights issue: “Access to the internet is akin to a civil rights issue for the 21st century. It’s that access that enables people in poorer areas to equalize access to a quality education, quality health care and vocational opportunities.”

  • There have been at least two instances of in 2011 where public school funds were designated to providing iPad access to 5 and 6-year-old students. For one school in Auburn, Maine, about $200,000 was spent to give nearly 300 kindergarteners ”a revolution in education.” Shortly after, a school in Massachusetts said it would buy $25,000 worth of iPads for kindergarteners. In both cases, the iPads were met with excitement over a new teaching tool or skepticism that the tool would be effective at such a young age and if it was an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
  • In this video, Jesse Jackson says the way to raise unemployment is to change the Constitution so that every student had the right to a good education and notes giving every kid an iPod and a laptop would accomplish both goals:

To bring it back to Cerf, the co-founder of the Internet writes that “critical freedoms”, like that of speech or access to information, should not be considered “bound” to technology:

Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself.

Cerf states that he believes the same logic can be applied to the argument that the Internet is a civil right. Cerf goes on to write that the creators of technology have the responsibility to uphold human and civil rights but the Internet is still just a means to improving the human condition and that we should not “pretend that access to it is a right.”

Here are some responses on Twitter to Cerf’s statement:

Co Founder of Internet Says Its Not a Human Right

Co Founder of Internet Says Its Not a Human Right

Co Founder of Internet Says Its Not a Human Right

Co Founder of Internet Says Its Not a Human Right

Back in August, we polled Blaze readers on the topic if access to the Internet should be considered a “civil right”. The poll results found that 96.6 percent of respondents felt that it was not a civil right. Check out the poll results here.

[H/T Gizmodo]

Comments (69)

1 2
  • grammalou
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:56pm

    Governor Gregoire has a TV ad on FOX to promote making sure that all the poor students have access to the internet. What is wrong with plugging their computer into their phone line is what I’d like to know.

    Report Post »  
    • Secret Squirrel
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 11:50pm

      .
      He’s right, the internet is not a right.
      It’s a product. Is a Cadillac a right?
      Are Air Jordan’s a right?

      I’m not even sure if ACCESS to the internet is a right.
      Like everything else, you get a job, work hard, save your money, and buy it.

      Report Post » Secret Squirrel  
    • Hobbs57
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:50am

      Not until they make driving a right, they can’t possibly make the internet a right. Allthough, several cases have been won in the supreme Court( I believe Michigan and some others), finding that driving was a right as long as it wasn’t being done for commercial purposes. It is a part of a mans reasonable right to pursue happiness. The reason the state keep it as a privilege is so they can charge us fee’s, insurance, license, and charge us for breaking the laws they made for driving. Truth be told, driving should remain a right. This is where I line up with the Paul people. Just as nobody should be forced to get car insurance, so should they not be forced to get car insurance. Everybody thinks that the roads would be filled with people driving around wrecking into eachother and causing chaos, but I assure you this wouldn’t be the case. Actually, the opposite. If people had to pay for accidents with real money, I bet they wouldn’t be letting their ignorant irresponsible spoiled child run all over town joy riding. I bet the kid would never be that way if he ever wanted to drive the family car, he better demonstrate he is responsible and able to contribute to the family so if something did happen. People just drive now if they don’t have insurance. Technically, a police officer is breaking his oath to uphold the constitution if he pulls you over at anytime unless you are infringing upon the rights of another. Don’t believe me ~ http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-1.htm

      Report Post » Hobbs57  
    • Hobbs57
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:55am

      Sorry, cut and past the link in goggle, you will find the link. It is actually a bulletin for police officers, warning that they are for sure acting against the constitution for pulling somebody over for any reason.

      SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN

      U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM “DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE” IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.

      People like Glenn will say , oh no, well of course we should make people have car insurance and regulate the road ways. Well, this is how all of this crap with our government began. Go back to the 1900′s as cars started to become available and travel started to become regulated. even with trains crossing state lines. Ever since, government has stepped into our lives in every form.

      Report Post » Hobbs57  
    • hypnos
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:52pm

      Is that al gore’s pen name.

      Report Post » hypnos  
    • READRIGHTHERE
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:32pm

      Freedom of speech is a right, but a typewriter, pencils, pens, paper, spray paint, and any other medium such as computers, poster board, or biplanes with smoke are products created through the labor of others. Your own labor is a right, but no one else’s is. Otherwise we would have to institute mandated slavery to provide mediums for our freedom of speech other than our own vocal chords. And we don’t have the right to do that, so there you have it.

      Report Post »  
  • The Gooch
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:53pm

    I agree with Mr. Cerf. The Internet is a medium thru which the world can and should practice free speech. That which you don’t agree with or approve of, you can ignore. Hands off, busybodies.
    Internet access is a privilege. Hell, the UN doesn’t recognize self-defense as a human right, but playing Farmville or watching Japanese vomit porn is? I tend to judge rights as that which, if denied, could see me dead or at the mercy of the powers that be. Privileges are those activities or products that I can choose to pursue in order to satisfy my wants (NOT my needs).
    Baggy pants? Cell phones? Redefining marriage? The Internet? Not rights.
    By the by, who gives a p!ss about Al Gore? This PMRC promoting political washout has made it clear he doesn’t care much for free speech. I spit in his general direction.

    Report Post »  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:43pm

    Unless your a minority…..OR AN ILLEGAL ALIEN… Then the Democrats will pay for your WI-FI

    Report Post »  
  • Weiners Wiener
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:42pm

    I don’t care what this clown says, because I already know he’s a big liar. AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET. Duh. Everyone knows that. He even said so himself.

    Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:30pm

    Oh no Obama said it was, I think he has funded poor people’s internet service! If he hasn‘t I’ll bet he has said he did!

    Report Post »  
  • RightThinking1
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:22pm

    Al Gorleone said that?

    Report Post »  
  • mrfunn
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:02pm

    A civil right yes.
    A human right will cost U.S.

    Report Post »  
    • mrfunn
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:24pm

      A civil right to access the net, not to provide the internet device, service, etc.
      A ‘human right’ sounds too much like the U.N. getting involved.

      Report Post »  
  • RestoreCapitalism
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 9:02pm

    In times past, would it have been thought reasonable to say that everyone has a right to having a river running along their property? After all, look at the useful things it brings. Transport and water, and all those good things that go along with it. But obviously not everyone can have their own river access.

    I think this is more of a step toward using the internet as the ultimate propaganda tool. It’s how they have toppled governments recently in the middle east. How handy.

    Report Post » RestoreCapitalism  
  • Apple Bite
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:19pm

    It’s not a Human right… It‘s also not the right for a government to undermine it’s use for their own desires to make money and force people into a little corner with limited access to information, while shaking a finger at foreign countries like China for doing the same damn thing….

    Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:58pm

      A human right is whatever we say a human right is. One day we will deam access to health care a human right and a living wage or guaranteed income or a free higher education a human right.it is not enough to have a bill of rights or a constitution [that can be interpreted to mean anything we want it to mean].We claim the right to life but that does not apply to people we choose to kill. one day the pursuit of happiness will be deemed to necessitate the above mentioned :“rights” and may very well include access to the internet for all people.

      Report Post »  
    • mred33
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 9:29am

      rose-ellen; As usual you are wrong again. The constitution cannot be read any way but the way it was written. It‘s people like you that don’t know how to read that are trying to make it say something that it does not say. Read the preamble to the constitution and if you really READ it you will understand what I am saying. It gives you NOTHING. No rights, no laws, and no freedoms. It gives you NOTHING. Now go read it again and tell me where it gives you the first thing and PROVE it. It does NOT give you freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, or any other thing that you progressives think it does. It also cannot be interpreted any way but the way it was written. I would dearly love to see you prove one thing that can be read any way but the way it was written. Take the bill of rights and show me ONE place where it gives you ANYTHING. I don’t mean read it your way, I mean read it the way it was written. I’ll give you a hint. The first amendment does NOT give you the freedom of speech, it limits the GOVERNMENT and what they can DO to you freedom of speech. Now go read it again and show me where I am wrong. You may want to use a dictionary to make sure you understand what each word means while you are at it.

      Ed

      Report Post » mred33  
    • Nanner-SW
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 10:23am

      Vocabulary changes over time, human rights today is different than its intended/initial meaning, so to keep from confusion I shall rename the initial meaning as ‘rights of humans’. God given rights, and for the atheists, rights that stem from being cognizant beings. Every human around the world has the same rights, its just some governments respect them more than others. I have the same rights as a woman 500 years ago, mine are just acknowledged. One, the ability to speak, communicate, form relationships (free speech, right to form groups). Two, the ability to believe, think independently (freedom of religion). Three, the ability to own things [even way back when a caveman held berries to his chest and thought mine], the ability to protect what you own (right to own guns, property, your own body/skills/knowledge, berries. . . ). The only reason why the founder chose those 10 is because they’re the first to go when a government goes bad. Everyone already has a right to internet (and every other good and service in the world), if they own it the government should not take it away and they should not interfere with the private exchange of the person (who owns the skills/knowledge) and the consumer. Please help me critique my beliefs through truths. Have a great day!

      Report Post » Nanner-SW  
    • mred33
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:07pm

      Nanner-SW; You almost got it, but you stopped short. These rights are given by GOD, NOT the government. The constitution is nothing but a CONTROL over the government on our rights and limits what they can do. It says that they cannot take away these rights, but does not give them to us. 1st Amendment; Congress shall make NO laws. That says that the government cannot make laws limiting our rights. It doesn’t say we have any rights and the government is granting anything. WE THE PEOPLE: The first three words of the constitution. THAT says who wrote it and who owns it. We do, NOT the government. We own it and we wrote it. Nowhere in that constitution does it say anything about giving up anything. It only says what the government CAN and CANNOT do.

      ALSO, to interpret the constitution correctly, you need the dictionary from 1823, NOT today’s dictionary. When you want a true meaning to this contract you use the words and meaning that were in affect THEN, not now. That is the second mistake most people make. I can write a dictionary now and say any word means anything I want it to mean, so why use that one. You use the one that was in effect THEN. This is why we are loosing our rights. because people do not know how to read anything written then and don‘t understand the words used then and really don’t know WHAT the constitution is. Learn to read CORRECTLY people or we loose……….

      Ed

      Report Post » mred33  
    • mred33
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 8:17pm

      Nanner-SW; OK, I’ll cut you all some slack. Watch this and you will see just what I am talking about. One thing I will say though, it doesn’t matter what a word means NOW. When you read the constitution, you use the dictionary from 1823, not the one now. Your right. Meanings change, so you HAVE to use the one from 1823, since that was the one in use back then. You want to know what the words meant then, not now. Also, you read it as though you were telling the government what it can and cannot do, since THAT is what it is doing anyway. It’s not giving you rights, you already have those. Your simply telling the government that it cannot take anything away………….

      Ed

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpXBckyDac
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN29tAiNV7o&feature=related

      Report Post » mred33  
    • handsmcml
      Posted on January 8, 2012 at 11:10am

      To Rose-Ellen’s comment, “A human right is whatever we say a human right is.” A right is what you are left with after technology fails. Should we ever experience an EMP attack or a major solar flair, our modern technology will be gone and we would instantly be sent back to the Iron Age. Anything that depends on electricity will be useless until the infrastructure can be rebuilt but we would still have all of our human and civil rights intact. It is immoral to demand goods and services be provided from others with out due compensation. In a free market people voluntarily exchange goods, services, or money and both parties are satisfied with the transaction. It is only a government that believes that it can “legally” steal from its citizens.

      Report Post » handsmcml  
  • Grasshopper42
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:18pm

    Wait a minute, I thought Algore invented the internet !

    Report Post » Grasshopper42  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:37pm

      Exactly! This “Vint Cerf” is trying to horn in on the acomplishment of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.
      Shameful

      Report Post »  
    • @leftfighter
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:58pm

      Go back and read the headline.

      Vint Cerf is the CO-Founder of the Internet. That means he was probably standing right next to Gore when he created it.

      Report Post » @leftfighter  
    • iblvingd
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:17pm

      The US Military was using the internet (not publicly known, but leaked by the Vets) in the Vietnam War. Where does Vint Cerf and Al Gore fit into the puzzle.

      Hey….if the internet is a “human right” why do we have to pay for it?

      Report Post »  
    • iblvingd
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:21pm

      Vinton Gray “Vint” Cerf[1] (/ˈsɜrf/; born June 23, 1943) is an American computer scientist, who is recognized as one of[4] “the fathers of the Internet”,[5] sharing this title with American computer scientist Bob Kahn.[6][7] His contributions have been acknowledged and lauded, repeatedly, with honorary degrees and awards that include the National Medal of Technology,[1] the Turing Award,[8] the Presidential Medal of Freedom,[9] and membership in the National Academy of Engineering.

      In the early days, Cerf was a program manager for the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funding various groups to develop TCP/IP technology. When the Internet began to transition to a commercial opportunity during the late 1980s,[citation needed] Cerf moved to MCI where he was instrumental in the development of the first commercial email system (MCI Mail) connected to the Internet.

      Vinton Cerf was instrumental in the funding and formation of ICANN from the start. Cerf waited in the wings for a year before he stepped forward to join the ICANN Board. Eventually he became the Chairman of ICANN.

      In 1992 he co-founded, with Bob Kahn the Internet Society to provide leadership in Internet related standards, education and policy.

      Cerf has worked for Google as its Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist since September 2005.[3] In this function he has

      Report Post »  
    • iblvingd
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 3:26pm

      Al Gore and the internet?……………one of the other lies like Global Warming. I am glad he thinks highly of himself because no one else does.

      Report Post »  
    • Dinkiecb
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 11:40pm

      Well Al Gore said he invented it! He wouldn’t LIE would he?

      Report Post »  
  • chips1
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:15pm

    Did anyone bother to tell Jessie Jackson that his people refuse to stay in school and that if they were provided Ipads and laptops, they would only sell them for drug money?

    Report Post »  
  • Rowgue
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:12pm

    He’s absolutely correct. Internet access is not a human right.

    Saying it’s a human right is the equivalent of saying every product that is produced is a human right. The internet is nothing more than another product that people consume, and it’s an unnecessary luxury product to boot.

    Whether the government should have the power to meddle with or control aspects of the internet is a valid debate. But overzealous people screaming that internet access is a human right aren’t doing anything to advance an argument. They’re just making themselves look like simpletons.

    Report Post »  
    • taxpro4u03
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 11:28pm

      The ‘civil right’ to be able to LEARN to read and write — ACCESS to books, etc isn‘t a ’civil right‘ anymore than ’Freedom of Speech.’ (?) — HowEVER: BUYING the right of way (i.e. paying an ISP, or going to your local bookstore to purchase your book of choice or to access ‘information on the www) — is what I believe they’re talking about. As with ‘jobs.’ When the gubmint/Corporatocracy BLOCKS ACCESS (opportunity to ‘work’ via offshoring for increased profits to shareholders which in and of itself IS ‘capitalism’ at its finest.etc) for purposes of CONTROLing the population or to further their own agenda — that’s where the rub comes in.

      Report Post »  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 1:18pm

      Yes that’s why I said discussing whether the government should be interfering is a valid debate. It still has nothing to do with human rights.

      Report Post »  
  • stefooch
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:06pm

    The right to free speech is a civil right. The means in which we “usually” engage are consumer driven, ie. newspaper, radio, television, internet, etc.

    Report Post » stefooch  
  • HuckleberryFriend
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:04pm

    I do not understand what people’s hangup is. You have no more right to access of the internet than you have a right to a loaf of bread. You must earn, create or be given both of these things through a man-made process. Rights are derived from the natural state of human being, (or nature’s God if you are more religious), not just anything that can be provided for us. You do not lose rights when the power goes out in a thunderstorm.

    Until people start being naturally born with Wifi in their brain, then you can’t really make the case that the internet is a part of our nature and therefore a right.

    What you do on the internet, like exchange ideas and communicate are protected rights, but the means of communication is not protected as it isn’t natural.

    Report Post » HuckleberryFriend  
  • Master_and_Commander
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:58pm

    haha I bet the blue on the map of the internet represents Facebook…

    Report Post »  
  • spirited
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:57pm

    If human right means ‘may’ have access to…, then the internet is a human right.
    If human right means ‘is entitled to’, then, absolutley not!

    $^>Every body ‘should’ have a flushing toilet. Yet, many ‘do’ without.

    Report Post » spirited  
    • beckyspatflaveredstew
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 8:09pm

      Flushing gallons of drinking water to get rid of a turd is wasteful to say the least, it should be considered uncivilized. In the near future wars will be fought over access to clean drinking water.

      Report Post »  
  • sonnyboy1
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:54pm

    But, but, but……….didn’t Al Gore invent the internet? HA!

    Report Post »  
  • reff44
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:50pm

    A human right is something that does not have a cost to the individual, except the actions needed to protect the right, such as reasonable laws or military might. The Internet comes with a cost, some amount that an individual must pay to obtain access, not a protection cost. If I have to pay money for someone else to have access, that is not a right but it is a theft of my property to give it to someone else.

    Report Post »  
  • Eliasim
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:44pm

    That‘s because access to information isn’t a human-right. That’s why the very first libraries in the U.S were created by private citizens and not tax dollars. The internet should be available to people if they want to pay for it, well like me and everyone else I know. If people want poor people to have access to the internet, then open your own charity Internet Cafe.

    Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:47pm

      Getting into Heaven isn’t a human-right either, even though evil people are teaching that all while condemning people’s souls with that teaching.

      Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:48pm

      And what is it the Bible says about those who lead to Captivity? That they will also go to Captivity. Stinks to be Jim Wallace.

      Report Post »  
    • beckisnutsisnuts
      Posted on January 10, 2012 at 3:31pm

      Now this is getting scary. I’m actually agreeing with ELIASIM here

      Report Post »  
  • vtxphantom
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:39pm

    Freedom of speech is a right. Not allowing me to use the internet limits my speech. May violate the commerce clause too!

    Report Post »  
    • HuckleberryFriend
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:44pm

      By that same logic, not giving you a prime time TV show to espouse your views limits your right to free speech as well. Everyone must be have a prime time TV show for this to be a truly free country! (SARCASM)

      Report Post » HuckleberryFriend  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:52pm

      Freedom of speech is a right, and so you can go outside flapping your mouth all you want to if you please, because no money comes out of my house for you to flap-off at the mouth. But I’m not paying for your internet.

      Report Post »  
    • Smug
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:49am

      Lol!……………..MSSMUG

      Report Post »  
    • Smug
      Posted on January 6, 2012 at 12:52am

      Lol!…………

      Report Post »  
  • BOMUSTGO
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:37pm

    Having a cell phone is a right if you are on welfare..How else are you going to call 911 when McDonalds runs out of McNuggets or the local Footlocker runs out of Air Jordan shoes????

    Report Post » BOMUSTGO  
  • lukerw
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:36pm

    Access to Information & Knowledge… is a Right… of a Free Society!

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • PaBowHunter
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:33pm

    These are the ramblings of an unintelligent, communist, career politician.

    Report Post »  
  • BetterDays
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:32pm

    No, Alberta Gore is the cause of global warming, climate change, socialist detention centers, and brain freeze.
    I was using a LAN in the seventies, while in the Navy.

    Report Post »  
  • BOMUSTGO
    Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:26pm

    I thought Al Gore invented the internet???

    Report Post » BOMUSTGO  
    • liberalescheisskopf
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:32pm

      Algore invented himself, global warming, and his sexual fantasies…

      Report Post » liberalescheisskopf  
    • Jase
      Posted on January 5, 2012 at 7:45pm

      He did invent environmental paranoia, and that seems to be catching on.

      Report Post » Jase  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love