<\/p>\n
Wednesday on the Opinion Pages of the NY Times the renowned Vinton Cerf \u201cfather of the internet\u201d published an article titles Internet Access Is Not A Human Right<\/a>. It could be argued that the key word here is \u201caccess\u201d, but before I address access again, I should start with the definition of the internet. I had this debate while at Michigan State in October of 2010 with the philosopher Andrew Feenberg<\/a>. I\u2019ll do my best not to be redundant while everything is still live via the links in this article.<\/p>\n Perhaps the internet requires much more definition, as the roots of the word can be confusing. Inter: situated within \u2013 Net: any network or reticulated system of filaments or the like. Its terminology is synonymous with the \u201cweb\u201d or a web, which requires multiple linkages to points of initiation in order to exist well. If this is the internet that Feenberg is referring to then I\u2019d think it accurate. However, the internet is not actually a web of ever connected points. Information destinations are not required.<\/em><\/p>\n The internet is analogous to space. Regardless of whether or not we access space, its potential exists \u2013 we can access or insert entities of sorts into the space regardless of, if another user were present to receive information of sorts from the distributed. Space is a dynamic system of expanding material potential as is the internet\u2019s material potential. The potential of the internet expands as users (or rather, potential users) access to the internet expands \u2013 access could come in many forms including, user population(s) growth or by computing speed or by computing power\u2026 The internet, regardless of the constraints of the word, it cannot be identified as a specific technology.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n While visiting MSU, Feenberg uses a \u201cramp\u201d as analogous with the internet, which was at the center of his mistake. I don\u2019t mean to read gerontophobic<\/a>, but based on the pervasive analysis that I\u2019ve witnessed from Feenberg and Cerf\u2019s generation; I\u2019d have to accredit their perspective to the relatively similar changes in technology that they\u2019ve seen during the 20th<\/sup> century. The difference in composition and utility of a technology (hardware, software, methodology) and that of the internet are synonymous with that of an air-craft and the expanding celestial matter beyond earth\u2019s ionosphere (that\u2019s a sufficient analogy).<\/p>\n Cerf wrote \u201ctechnology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right.<\/em><\/p>\n He is correct! The problem exists when he identifies the internet as a technology, which it cannot be (to be redundant). This is in fact a human rights issue. It is perhaps the most significant human rights issue of our time, because of the internet role in providing the potential for transparencies in the public and private sectors. The deterministic nature of our technologies is bridging the cultural, political, legal, and economic GAPS<\/a> of all our societies today, and if we as individuals allow a few mistaken \u201cleaders\u201d or the interests of institutions to control our ability to access a space, because of their resume, then we are all doomed. The implications of the masses adopting Cerf and Feenberg\u2019s view on space are tremendous in building an ethically sound environment for human development.<\/p>\n Regarding Cerf\u2019s word \u201caccess\u201d, it may provide him an out from his varied rhetoric in the article. Near the end he transitions to civil rights<\/a> where he writes \u201cthe responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights\u201d <\/em>suggesting the internet hold egalitarian<\/a> virtues. I\u2019m no egalitarian, as it just doesn\u2019t prove feasible in a world of, even, hyper-connected individuals.<\/p>\n While the ability to access an open space should not be prohibited, the technologies of certain kinds could be. Reference weapons of sorts. I\u2019m no advocate for government supplying all of their citizens with camera phone (although it would be great idea for the individual and institution), but I am against governmental and other agents making efforts to restrict the individual\u2019s ability to populate space with their entities aside from the technologies that one would hold on his\/her person.<\/p>\n When the United Nations declared the Internet as a Human Right<\/a> (PDF), they weren\u2019t necessarily evaluating its full potential, but they were stressing that individuals should have the ability to be transparent and review information of all kinds as they so pleased, catering to the collective knowledge of the species and everything it supports. The problem with this article are the future implications of its rhetoric, even as he means well.<\/p>\n Tangent: Cerf having studied math, computer science, and IS<\/a> for decades; knows as well as anyone that it is virtually (pun intended) impossible to prohibit internet expansion as small pockets of those educated in the knowledge community of development can find a way. Any computer (which would the blockage point) can be hacked its just a matter of time and will<\/a>. I spent the last year consulting with Hewlett-Packard Global Info Security on multiple acquisitions of competitive companies and security tool providers, and as anyone in the IS\/IT security industry can tell you, there are no solutions, only active management of incidents and problems. This is why methodologies are as (if not more) value than hard\/software in modern business transactions. So then why wouldn\u2019t Cerf think more thoroughly about this before publishing in the NY Times? Could it be because he has an equity stake (as an employee of multiple firms) in a less open space (internet). Speculation aside, I\u2019m in the business services industry, I studied \u201ccontrol\u201d specifically. Business is about control, which is the value proposition in establishing institutions virtues as separate from those of the individual. We can only forecast and manage risks well in areas that we can define and control. Business itself doesn\u2019t require an suppressive type of control to make good calls on risks. A more transparent world could tell us all (individuals and institutions alike) more about the types of decisions that benefit the most in a society.<\/p>\n In the future let\u2019s all make a conscious effort to keep spaces open and hope that the benefits incentivize philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and governments to provide technology to the masses at a rate that enhances the human condition.<\/p>\n