internet rights

This page considers the notion of global internet rights, in particular a 'internet bill of rights'.

It covers -

• introduction
• issues

It supplements discussion of human rights, censorship, privacy, secrecy and other matters elsewhere on this site.

     introduction

One outcome, other than self-congratulation and frequent flyer points, of what has been marketed as the "UN Internet Governance Forum process" has been calls for an Internet Bill of Rights.

That Bill - modelled on national Bills of Rights (discussed as part of the Human Rights profile elsewhere on this site) - would have a global coverage.

Proposals have encompassed the -

• 1996 Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace (DIC), discussed elsewhere on this site
• 1997 Declaration of Human Rights in Cyberspace (DHRC), an outcome of the San Francisco 'Be-In' (a replay of the "summer of love")
• 1998 Human Rights Declaration of Individual Rights in Cyberspace (HRDIRC)

The latter was intended as a "Universal Declaration of Individual Access Rights to Electromagnetic Energy Transmission Across the Internet" and features verbiage such as

We the people, do recognize that we individually have the right to seek truth and other benefits wherever we feel that we might find them.

We the people, do recognize that we each are the individual owner of a unique sensory management system called a human brain which we each use so that we survive, procreate, work, educate ourselves and our children, seek and attain contentment and peace, individually, and therefore, collectively.

We the people, do recognize that our brain receives energy from various channels. One form of energy is photons which represent useful information which is processed at the eye's retina, the eye channel(tm), before being transmitted electrochemically for our understanding. Other forms of energy channels are the nerves which deliver sound, smell, and taste to our brain. Each form of individual energy channel can be called an i(r)Channel(r).
We the people, do recognize that the Internet is universally an open and accessible transmission system for energy which is created, sent, and received by individual human beings, and therefore, it is a form of communications medium, just like air which contains the necessary oxygen which we breathe to sustain life. Without air, we would not be able to breathe, nor would we be able to exist because our brain would suffocate from a lack of oxygen. Likewise, without individual access to the electromagnetic energy transmitted across the Internet, the intellectual capacity of our brain would suffer from a lack of access to information available universally through the Internet.

The 2007 Dialogue Forum in Italy, an outcome of the "Tunis Mon Amour" campaign (undeterred by Tunisia's hostility to free speech), more modestly aims to -

• reaffirm the nature of the net as a public good and access to knowledge as a fundamental right.
• advance international dialogue aimed at deciding whether we need to clearly identify a set of Internet rights and - in the affirmative - identifying which are the most relevant areas and rights that should be considered.
• start a discussion about how to guarantee Internet rights.

     issues

What are some key issues regarding calls for an international Internet Bill of Rights?

One issue, arguably insurmountable, is the utopian nature of such calls.

Not every nation has established a national Bill of Rights, justiciable or otherwise. Australia for example does not have a national Bill or Charter of Rights and Bills at the provincial level (eg in the Australian Capital Territory) are advisory only, being ignored by legislatures, judges and officials on occasion. It is unlikely that all nations - or even most nations - will agree on a new Bill.

Unlikelihood reflects lack of clear support at the domestic and international level, with many policymakers presumably considering that existing mechanisms for the protection of civil liberties within their jurisdiction are adequate.

Unlikelihood also reflects disagreement about the nature and significance of human rights. Not all governments share the same definition of human rights. Governments - and more broadly the cultures that they embody - place different priorities on human rights.

A second issue is internet exceptionalism.

Advocacy within Australia (for example in ISOC-AU fora) has been replete with assertions that "the Internet is now at a critical point in it's [sic] development" and that - yet again - there is a very "last chance to save the Net". The author's immediate response to some of the more fervent calls in Australia was what makes the net special? Why privilege netizens? Aren't rights innate, rather than endowed by access to the net? Does the net deserve protection beyond a gener right of communication?

A third issue is the shape of advocacy, with questions about -

• the legitimacy of entities such as the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition (IBRDC) and claims byself-appointed individuals to represent substantial contituencies
• sponsorship by governments that have shown little interest in the rights of their citizens (wired or otherwise)
• whether much consultation, like that in relation to the WSIS, is essentially an excuse for international travel and feelgood statements that divert attention from substantive efforts to grapple with national and international challenges regarding electronic commerce, content regulation, a range of digital divides and so forth.
  
  

::