[IRP] [charter] right to life liberty and security of person--- relevant for internet governance
Wed Nov 4 11:05:59 EET 2009
Might have missed the reply amidst everything else. Anyway, o echo Anja's
query; the charter is still open leading up to Sharm?
--On Friday, October 23, 2009 12:52 +0530 Anja Kovacs <anja at cis-india.org>
> Dear Lisa and Emily,
> Just wanted to check whether your suggestion is to at the moment not
> further expand on access under relevant sections of the rights part of
> the charter then? Or would you agree that we can still go ahead with
> this, without actually calling it a right at the moment?
> Also I wasn't sure whether we can still make changes to the rights part,
> or whether that has been closed for now... Can someone please advise?
> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 13:16 +0100, Lisa Horner wrote:
>> That sounds like a good way to proceed. It has been a really
>> interesting and useful conversation. These discussions aren't new at
>> all, and we definitely won't resolve them in the short term. In the
>> mean time I think it's good to be strategic and to make progress where
>> we can.
>> And I like the notion of a super-principle!
>> All the best,
>> From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org on behalf of
>> Emily Laidlaw
>> Sent: Wed 21/10/2009 13:13
>> To: M.I.Franklin
>> Cc: irp
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] [charter] right to life liberty and security of
>> person--- relevant for internet governance
>> This has been a very interesting and useful discussion. I am short on
>> time, but wanted to quickly respond that perhaps we can see this work
>> on the charter where we examine the articles under the UDHR and flesh
>> them out for the Internet as principles, as a stepping stone or
>> exercise in the sense that once we work through it there might be
>> certain issues, such as this issue of accessibility, that might not be
>> adequately dealt with as a principle. This might not mean it needs to
>> be set out as a new right (I am not going to way into that discussion
>> at the moment, though the discussion today on that topic has been very
>> useful I think), but might not be adequately addressed as an
>> interpretation of an existing right either. Access is an interesting
>> one because it consistently arises for the enjoyment of any of the
>> rights set out in the UDHR thus becoming a supe-principle of sorts.
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:48 PM, M.I.Franklin
>> <M.I.Franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > Dear All,
>> > These issues are very complex to put it lightly. Here's how I
>> understand it
>> > for the moment; transcribing (as we have been doing) the UDHR in
>> writing a
>> > Charter on Internet-based rights and principles is distinct from
>> > 'new' rights that pertain primarily to the internet, broadly
>> > However, there are clearly issue-areas specific to the internet that
>> > diverge from or amplify those rights enshrined in the UDHR. A
>> > balancing act at the best of times as this recurring discussion
>> > However, Olivier's example about the technological imperative that
>> is being
>> > put in place as more and more public services go online/become
>> > computerised services begs a question in these discussions about
>> whether or
>> > not we should work up an explicit clause about a fundamental -
>> universal -
>> > right to internet access, over and above freedom of speech etc (see
>> > and Anja).
>> > Whilst I empathise, the question that goes begging is whether the
>> > (again, however defined!) is at present *universally* available. It
>> is not.
>> > That said, if the next call (IGF, WSIS< all the rest) is to 'connect
>> > next billion' this recalls earlier tussles around ' universal
>> access' in
>> > telephony (if I'm correct). That is as yet not the case either, at
>> least not
>> > in the fullest sense of the term 'universal'.
>> > Back to the internet; the trend Olivier points to is a fact of life
>> > richer regions (read OECD) which ipso facto have high ICT
>> penetration. So,
>> > here, this charter may well be in the process of constructing new
>> > *despite* attempts not to be seen doing so (lisa's word of caution
>> here). In
>> > other words, we could consider this case in terms of a pre-emptive
>> > (forgive the term) given that the UDHR was created in pre-internet
>> > Where does this leave the charter at present? For me it presents us
>> > some strategic decisions for the short-term (e.g. Lisa, Emily) about
>> > sticking with what we know (UDHR vs. new rights). BUT, does this
>> preclude us
>> > from thinking ahead in order to pre-empt exclusion and
>> > that are already being put in place by virtue of the internet *not*
>> being as
>> > yet universally available, let alone accessed/accessible (Anja,
>> > Olivier)? I hope this does not preclude us from being ahead of the
>> > because, like it or not, some rights and principles may indeed need
>> to be
>> > invented i.e. created anew.
>> > Hope that's clear because I'm still thinking the implications here
>> > Forgive me if it isn't.
>> > cheers
>> > MF
>> > --On 21 October 2009 12:52 +0200 Andrea Glorioso
>> <andrea at digitalpolicy.it>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Dear all,
>> >> I apologise for chiming in so late in the discussion. I do hope
>> >> using the correct medium for the following comment(s).
>> >> Please also bear with my usual disclaimer, i.e. although I work
>> >> the European Commission (dealing specifically with policies
>> >> "Internet Governance", "Network and Information
>> >> "Fundamental Rights on the Internet") here I am writing in my
>> >> capacity.
>> >>>>>>> "max" == Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com> writes:
>> >> > Hi Shaila Thanks for your input. I understand and support
>> >> > your point that the right to life liberty and security
>> >> > person > is possibly the most fundamental of them all,
>> >> > is it really > necessary to point out that that is also
>> >> > on the internet?
>> >> > In my view this right does not need an explanation
>> >> > > what it means on the net. It is straight forward.
>> >> > It would be good to hear other opinions.
>> >> My understanding of the process is that the first section of
>> >> Charter is supposed to "elaborate on what [UDHR rights] *mean* in
>> >> context of the internet".
>> >> Therefore, it seems to me that the point is not whether the rights
>> >> life, liberty and security (of person) apply on the Internet -
>> >> answer is obviously yes. The real question seems to be how
>> >> application/enforcement should be framed when related activities
>> >> exercised on the Internet.
>> >> If my understanding is correct, then I would like to stress that
>> >> policy-making organisations have been framing the concept
>> >> "[Internet] security" in a rather dichotomic way vis-?-vis
>> >> fundamental rights. The usual "security vs
>> privacy" (false)
>> >> opposition is but one example of this kind of approach.
>> >> Stressing that "security" (on the Internet) is first and
>> foremost a
>> >> tool to achieve a fundamental right makes it clear that any
>> >> on these matters must be duly substantiated (why do we need
>> >> "security"?), appropriate to the goal at hand (do we really
>> >> more security by centralising key decision-making powers on
>> >> infrastructures?) and proportional (do we really want to monitor
>> >> traffic of all Internet users to catch up the bad guys and protect
>> >> good guys?). And so on.
>> >> Incidentally, making a strong point that discourses on
>> >> should be framed (at the very least *also*) in terms of
>> >> fundamental right to security of persons makes the work of
>> >> officers in policy-making organisations much easier, believe me. ;)
>> >> On a more substantive side, I would strongly argue against making
>> >> specific example of security-related policies or problems in
>> >> actual text. Technology changes very rapidly and what is the
>> >> of today becomes the fad of yesterday in the blink of an eye.
>> >> Hope this is a useful contribution to the debate. I'm at disposal
>> >> any clarification.
>> >> Thanks, ciao,
>> >> --
>> >> Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/
>> >> M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133
>> >> * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali *
>> >> * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal *
>> >> "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the
>> >> people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will
>> >> secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost
>> >> protection. They are rules proscribed by
>> >> Philip sober to control Philip drunk."
>> >> David J. Brewer (1893)
>> >> An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation
>> > Dr Marianne Franklin
>> > Reader/Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media
>> > Media & Communications
>> > Goldsmiths, University of London
>> > New Cross
>> > London SE14 6NW
>> > United Kingdom
>> > Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
>> > Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
>> > email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
>> > http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > IRP mailing list
>> > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 4092 6283
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader/Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
London SE14 6NW
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
More information about the IRP