Petition Calls For Making Net Access Inalienable Right 427
CelticWhisper writes "Targeted at stopping SOPA, a petition has been started at the White House's 'We The People' page calling for a Constitutional amendment that would render internet access an inalienable right. Other countries have already adopted such classification for internet access. An excerpt from petition text reads: 'The United States Government is actively attempting to pass legislation to censor Internet. There are numerous campaigns against this Act, but we need to do more than just prevent SOPA from passing. Otherwise, future Acts of similar nature will oppress our rights.' Is calling for a Constitutional amendment to guarantee this too extreme, or is the Internet sufficiently entrenched in modern life that access to it should be guaranteed by the Constitution?"
Sign it! (Score:5, Interesting)
(Posting AC from work)
Show me a Canadian version of it and I'll sign! Imagine a world in which people would be banned from having access to a telephone. Seems pretty insane, right? Well, the internet is now in the same realm as phone access - it is a vital means of communication. Banning access to it is unacceptable. Sign it.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And So If Your Connection Is Down... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does that mean the staff of your ISP has to be hauled into The Hague and charged with Crimes Against Humanity, for denying you of your "human rights"?
If they carefully and systemically removed access solely to certain minorities while providing better service exclusively to members of the 1%, then yeah, sounds good to me.
There are no non-monopoly ISPs in my area, thats they price they pay for the government enforcing a monopoly. If they wanted a free market, they should have paid the govt for one instead of paying the govt for a legally enforced non-free market.
Re:Not so fast (Score:4, Interesting)
The internet is made up of other people's networks. One uses the internet through access provided, for profit, by other people. Making internet access an inalienable right would mean giving one group of people, those without internet access, a right to the property of other people, ISP owners. Also, it would require that people who have no means of access the internet (i.e. someone without a computer), the means to do so. Libraries, etc. are not acceptable because then the libraries would have to be open 24/7, otherwise the person "inalienable" right is being alienated for part of the day. Then, there is the small problem of content filtering. Libraries would be unable to prevent people from looking at hard core porn.
Are you getting the idea?
Re:Not so fast (Score:0, Interesting)
Both. I dot own an ISP. I don't own any servers. In fact, I own no part of the Internet. Where, then, does this "right" come from?
That's easy.
Consider this: Just because you can own water, doesn't mean the law should allow you to withhold that from everyone to get what you want. If you had all the water, we should take that water from you and nationalize it.
The right to the Internet would come from democratically elected governments (a.k.a. the people (or supposed to be)) saying there is that right.
Then, of course, the owners of the pipes and machines and whatnot could get out of the business, if supplying this inalienable right to people was somehow against their misanthropist ideals.
If that would leave the Internet too pipe- and serverless, governments should step in and provide more of those things with tax income.
Re:It already is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Freedom of Assembly could legitimize DDoS attacks, at least if done manually with a browser. It's just a lot of people visiting a website at the same time right?
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Interesting)
That's true, but we're not talking about property here, we're talking about ACCESS to property, public property I might add.
What these guys are trying to do is limit our access to the internet. This is no different than your phone company only allowing you to call people that they approve. You still have to pay for your phone connection, but the phone company has no right whatsoever to tell you who you are allowed to call until you infringe upon that person's rights (i.e., harassing them). You can call whoever you want with a telephone, period.
This is really no different than the concept of the internet. The ISPs can charge us for service, but they can't tell us who we can "talk" to online. We can talk to whoever we want because we're free citizens. Just TALKING to a bunch of people on, say, a forum for breaking the encryption on a new disc-based format (09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, for instance? [wikipedia.org]) is not grounds to cut me off. I have every right to talk about that subject, this is a free country; up until the point that my actions actually break the law they are protected by it. End of story.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand this point? We're not trying to make the internet a right as in "they have to give it to you for free". We're trying to make internet access a right, as in you can go wherever you want on the internet without your ISP, either for their own reasons or on someone's behalf, playing content police predetermining what you have a right to access, who you have a right to talk to, etc.
Re:It already is... (Score:3, Interesting)
This, every time I read a petition and people organizing against SOPA or whatever other law the *IAA comes up with I just face-palm and *cough* first amendment *cough*.
There is no need to organize against this law. The day it gets signed (if ever) it will get overturned on first amendment grounds.
Congress keeps trying to wipe their asses in the constitution and the courts will keep knocking them down.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Interesting)
So what happens if the government recognizes "unfiltered Internet access" as an inalienable right?
imamac's point was that recognizing it as a right doesn't get you anywhere. It is like saying food security or access to medical care is an inalienable right: Somebody has to pay to provide it, and it requires the transfer of goods or services from one person to another. That makes it different from the things that we traditionally recognize as inalienable rights.
Re:It already is... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no need to organize against this law. The day it gets signed (if ever) it will get overturned on first amendment grounds.
oh, how cute. somehow who still believes the system works for us little folk.
look, mate, the governments are totally and all inclusively in fear about the freedom equalization that the net brings to citizens. not one of them likes it. its against the control-concept of governments (every single one of them, by nature) to allow your ruled subjects to have this kind of power.
"but its wrong!"
yeah a lot of things are not just in this world. deal with it. you and I are the 99% and its how its always been and will always be.
and when they want to take this and that from us, THEY DO AS THEY PLEASE. with little fight from us, usually.
and they know it.
we should at least realize it, too.
and stop looking to the system to help you. the system IS the problem, don't you see that?
Re:It already is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the Constitution was meant to enumerate the rights of the federal and state governments. It also specifically excludes some known abuses of government, such as ex post facto laws. It's the amendments to it that specifically enumerated the rights of the people. Founders like James Madison were actually concerned that enumerating them imply that these were the ONLY rights held by the people, so just for the cretins and the power hungry the ninth and tenth amendments were included to clarify this. Of course, despite the stupidly obvious fact that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" means every right does not have to be enumerated, we're constantly having to explain this to people who apparently didn't learn it in public school. I guess that's what you call a conflict of interest.
Re:It already is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Freedom of speech should be within the bounds of respect for others (as with any kind or right/priviledge).
So in addition to your examples, freedom of speech shouldn't allow you to be offensively racist, derogotory against disabled people, disdainfully homophobic, etc.
That said, as long as you are respectful, you should have the right to voice your honest opinion.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't separate the politicians from the government, no matter how much you'd like to. If you don't trust politicians, then you sure should not be trusting any government program in the long term.
This is the fundamental difference, as I see it, in your thinking and my own; I believe that there are plenty of good men out there that would not fuck over their fellow man if given the chance, they're just never given the chance because they're not as easily corruptible, whereas you feel that the government itself corrupts any man so that no matter how good he is, he will fuck over his fellow man.
Assuming that I am correct in that assessment, I have to disagree. I have worked along side and interacted plenty of people that still have the good moral character and civic virtue to, in my opinion, execute those offices fairly and responsibly. Cincinnatus was a real person, remember. [wikipedia.org] The problem is they will never, ever get the chance. Why? Because everyone must pass the gatekeepers before they can even attempt to run for office, i.e., the GOP and the DNC.
They are the reason why our government is so broken, not government itself. They have secured their stranglehold on the political process in this country, little by little, over the last hundred or so years, and in doing so, have totally twisted our government to act in their own interests. It's not government in itself that did this, but men, corrupted men, that ignored their civic responsibility to their constituency and instead served their own interests. At no other time have the same two political parties held onto their power in our government as they have today. There is almost no chance whatsoever for anyone to have the resources to run for office in this country without going to one of those two parties with their hat in hand, asking for their support. Said support comes with a price, promises are exacted, and the corruption continues.
If we were able to force simple changes on our government it would clean itself up pretty quickly. Term limits, for one. Disallowing any sitting rep to run for more than two terms would end the political dynasties and cliques. Campaign Finance Reform is another one, a huge one. Disallowing people to give money directly to a candidate, and instead forming and mandating a general election fund that is distributed equally to qualifying candidates, would pretty much end the stranglehold of those two parties in one fell swoop. It would give truly independent politicians a real chance in competing with the guys sponsored by Team Donkey and Team Elephant. Corporate contributions (and control of our government) would end quickly, because they would no longer be able to give their money to the guy they want directly...in making a donation to the guy they support, they would be giving money to his opponent, too.
Then, of course, would be the disallowing of people to move between the public and private sector with impunity, particularly the regulators that jump ship and go immediately work in the industries they previously regulated. Anyone with a brain can see how allowing them to switch sides like that is going to cause problems. The FEC and other financial regulatory bodies are all full of ex-Wall Street Bankers...and those Wall Street firms are all full of ex-Regulators. They trade players back and forth every year. They have luncheons together and conferences to, no shit, discuss how they regulate the financial industry. Imagine if our police met with drug dealers and pimps to discuss how they would enforce laws on drugs and prostitution and took their advice. There would be blood in the streets.
So was it their office that corrupted them? Does their existence in itself necessitate corruption? It didn't for decades, our regulatory bodies worked just fine, for the most part. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but to make the leap from "[organization] is screwed up, we must dump it completely and let the market do what it will" is irresponsible and, honestly, a little ridiculous.
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd be forced to work in a position that is not under the umbrella of regulation you previously had a part in crafting and enforcing.
As an example, the Backscatter Radiation/Full Body Scanners in airports that everybody loves so much. Back in like 2007 and 2008, higher up's in the TSA set down regulations for their use, contracted out for their manufacture, training on how to use them, etc. All the things that would be necessary with a new technology. Seems fine, right, I mean, that's their job.
Then, once the regulations were completely in place and these machines were contractually getting bought by the government for $250,000 a piece, (not to mention the dozens of billable training hours multiplied across what, 60,000 employees in the TSA?), then a whole slew of these higher-ups all resigned their posts in the public sector and immediately started working for the private contractors that supplied and maintained them. People from both the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security did this.
See the huge conflict of interest there? They obviously signed those contracts knowing full well that they would be the ones collecting the checks in a few short months. They make the regulations that will benefit these private companies, then go work for these private companies. That's just the obvious cases, there are tons of people in government that are good friends with these government contractors, too. Dick Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton for 5 years before he got elected vice-president in 2000, then 2 years later the war in Iraq and, holy shit, Haliburton was getting blank checks from the government for security over there
If a person wants to hold elected office, they're going to have to take concessions. If you are a policy maker in a regulatory agency or the government, there is no way you should be allowed to immediately transfer to the industry you previously regulated. It is far too easy for people to set up their own sweetheart deals and then immediately jump ship and capitalize on them.
There is no reason why people working in regulatory roles shouldn't have to make sacrifices. In private industry it happens all the time, there are non-compete clauses for a reason. Why is it such a stretch to expect the same thing in public/private career changes?