[IRP] [charter] right to life liberty and security of person--- relevant for internet governance
Max Senges
maxsenges
Sat Oct 24 02:04:01 EEST 2009
Hi Anja, and all
I would suggest that we include and stress access as the first principle. So
please feel free to contribute language there.
Also my suggestion is that we continue to refine section one (especially in
terms of consolidating), while we start to tease out section two
yours
Max
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Thanks!
> Anja
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 13:16 +0100, Lisa Horner wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > 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,
> > Lisa
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> > Emily
> >
> > 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
> > inventing
> > > 'new' rights that pertain primarily to the internet, broadly
> > defined.
> > > However, there are clearly issue-areas specific to the internet that
> > either
> > > diverge from or amplify those rights enshrined in the UDHR. A
> > difficult
> > > balancing act at the best of times as this recurring discussion
> > indicates.
> > >
> > > However, Olivier's example about the technological imperative that
> > is being
> > > put in place as more and more public services go online/become
> > automated
> > > 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
> > Shaila
> > > and Anja).
> > >
> > > Whilst I empathise, the question that goes begging is whether the
> > internet
> > > (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
> > the
> > > 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
> > in
> > > richer regions (read OECD) which ipso facto have high ICT
> > penetration. So,
> > > here, this charter may well be in the process of constructing new
> > rights
> > > *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
> > strike
> > > (forgive the term) given that the UDHR was created in pre-internet
> > times.
> > >
> > > Where does this leave the charter at present? For me it presents us
> > with
> > > 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
> > disenfranchisement
> > > that are already being put in place by virtue of the internet *not*
> > being as
> > > yet universally available, let alone accessed/accessible (Anja,
> > Shaila,
> > > Olivier)? I hope this does not preclude us from being ahead of the
> > ball
> > > 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
> > through.
> > > 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
> > I'm
> > >> using the correct medium for the following comment(s).
> > >>
> > >> Please also bear with my usual disclaimer, i.e. although I work
> > for
> > >> the European Commission (dealing specifically with policies
> > on
> > >> "Internet Governance", "Network and Information
> > Security",
> > >> "Fundamental Rights on the Internet") here I am writing in my
> > personal
> > >> 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
> > of
> > >> > person > is possibly the most fundamental of them all,
> > but
> > >> > is it really > necessary to point out that that is also
> > true
> > >> > on the internet?
> > >>
> > >> > In my view this right does not need an explanation
> > regarding
> > >> > > 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
> > this
> > >> Charter is supposed to "elaborate on what [UDHR rights] *mean* in
> > the
> > >> context of the internet".
> > >>
> > >> Therefore, it seems to me that the point is not whether the rights
> > to
> > >> life, liberty and security (of person) apply on the Internet -
> > the
> > >> answer is obviously yes. The real question seems to be how
> > their
> > >> application/enforcement should be framed when related activities
> > are
> > >> exercised on the Internet.
> > >>
> > >> If my understanding is correct, then I would like to stress that
> > many
> > >> policy-making organisations have been framing the concept
> > of
> > >> "[Internet] security" in a rather dichotomic way vis-?-vis
> > other
> > >> 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
> > approach
> > >> on these matters must be duly substantiated (why do we need
> > more
> > >> "security"?), appropriate to the goal at hand (do we really
> > achieve
> > >> more security by centralising key decision-making powers on
> > Internet
> > >> infrastructures?) and proportional (do we really want to monitor
> > all
> > >> traffic of all Internet users to catch up the bad guys and protect
> > the
> > >> good guys?). And so on.
> > >>
> > >> Incidentally, making a strong point that discourses on
> > "security"
> > >> should be framed (at the very least *also*) in terms of
> > the
> > >> fundamental right to security of persons makes the work of
> > certain
> > >> officers in policy-making organisations much easier, believe me. ;)
> > >>
> > >> On a more substantive side, I would strongly argue against making
> > any
> > >> specific example of security-related policies or problems in
> > the
> > >> actual text. Technology changes very rapidly and what is the
> > hysteria
> > >> 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
> > for
> > >> 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
> > Program
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > IRP mailing list
> > > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> > >
> >
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IRP mailing list
> > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> >
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IRP mailing list
> > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> >
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> Fellow
> Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 4092 6283
> www.cis-india.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20091024/c61e0137/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the IRP
mailing list