Is Internet Access A Human Right?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/egypt-blocked-in-china-is-internet-access-a-human-right/15746?tag=nl.e539


China has blocked searches for #Egypt on its State-approved, State-controlled version of Twitter.

Searches for #Egypt on Sina (with over 50 million users) returns the message, “According to relevant laws, regulations and policies, the search results are not shown.”


As we all know, to the shock and surprise of millions around the world, on January 27 Egypt pulled the plug on its citizens Internet access. Egypt is a very big place, a lot of people were effectively cut off from the outside world.

This is a frightening thing. But I don’t think may people realized just how much it would terrify them on a personal level.

...

That China is attempting an embargo on information about Egypt is not surprising to anyone. Countries that traffic and trade in human rights abuses are studying Egypt right now like it’s time to get an MBA in communication.


They are blocking #Egypt because they are scared. They should be terrified.


The top three countries that censor the Internet are North Korea (#1), China (#2) and Burma (#3). On January 14, Barney Warf, professor of geography at the University of Kansas, published a definitive study of the geography of Internet censorship. Warf cited Myanmar, Iran and North Korea as among the most severe cases of governments that censor people’s access to the Web.

In 2010 a BBC poll found that 4 out of 5 people globally believe that Internet access is a fundamental right.

Anyone want to bet we’re at 5 out of 5 now?


Foreign Policy Journal Article about what is missing from the news in Egypt (http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/31/this_just_not_in_what_s_missing_from_the_247_cairo _news)


The technology component of this cell-phone and Twitter fueled popular wildfire is fascinating not only in that it feels both new and here to stay but that it suggests that democracy itself may have to be updated to stay abreast of contemporary realities. For example, the outrage at shutting down the Internet raises a real question about whether the natural extension of accepted beliefs about both a free press and the right to peaceful public assembly is a new right to virtual public assembly to e-association. Far more people have cell phone than had access to either printing presses or their products (or the ability to read them) in the day that the right to a free press was enshrined as fundamental. [emphasis mine]

[Blake]

short answer, no.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Its not, but it damn well should be

[DarrinS]

No, and neither is cable TV or phone service.

[Yonivore]

No, it is not a human right but, the constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures [shutting down the internet by government] is something we enjoy as U. S. Citizens.

We also enjoy the freedom [for now] to associate with one another and to engage in commercial markets that sell internet access and the tools and services that allow us that access.

[greyforest]

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

[Blake]

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

not really.

[lefty]

It's a human right

We as human should be entitled to freedom of expression, access to information, etc...
When the Egyptian and Chinese do what they have done, it's goes again what we are (or should be) entitled to.

[RandomGuy]

For anybody saying "NO":

Define "free press"



Given the decline of newspapers and printed word in general, as well as broadcast media, radio, TV, when will access to the wider world of internet news and information be considered a right?

Consider a rough parallel:

You are denied access to newspapers or radio in 1920.

[Winehole23]

Define "denied access."

If you've been charged for a newspaper, have you been unconstitutionally denied it? I think not.

[RandomGuy]

it's not a human right, but using it is necessary to function in today's society.

Just as access to a printing press was necessary when the first amendment to the US Constitution was added. :stirpot

[RandomGuy]

Define "denied access."

If you've been charged for a newspaper, have you been unconstitutionally denied it? I think not.

Where is the line?

If you tax newspapers, based on their contents, with a $500 each tax, does that deny you access?

[Winehole23]

What's the analogy here? There isn't a $500 tax on newspapers that I know of.

[Winehole23]

What's the relevance to the broader discussion?

[admiralsnackbar]

short answer, no.

+1

[greyforest]

Just as access to a printing press was necessary when the first amendment to the US Constitution was added. :stirpot

your analogy is flawed. no one needs access to a printing press to read what comes out of them, just as no one needs a webhost to read the internet.

today's society highly embraces the internet as a crucial means of communication and cataloging information. anyone without access to the internet, especially the younger generation, is severely disadvantaged in a first-world country.

[Winehole23]

excellent post, greyforest.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

free press is defined as freely reported on. It's not my fault they don't have access. I believe the same concept as public restrooms should be applied to remedy this so-called malady.

[MannyIsGod]

Human rights are always evolving. Ask the next few generations this question and I think you'll get a different answer.

[Spurminator]

I'm a little confused about how the question relates to the story. I don't think access to the Internet is a human right in the sense that it should be free for everyone to have web access in their homes. But if they do have the means to have access, the information available to them should not be limited by the government.

Anyway, most people still have free access to the Internet in the same place they have free access to books, newspapers, and other information... the Library.

[Blake]

internet = today's press, which is why obama's proposed kill switch is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I didn't realize Egypt adopted the U.S. Constitution.

[Drachen]

The press is still free to write what they want, only the public will not have access to it. Therefore Free Press is still protected. I don't remember reading the "free access" clause in the constitution.

[RandomGuy]

obama wants a kill switch right here in america based on the chinese model!

link?

(to something other than infowars.com\fucknoiamnotreadingthatshit ?)

This is one of those things that sounds 1/4 true. Some grain of truth wrapped in paranoia, seuted in rumor juice.

[Yonivore]

link?

(to something other than infowars.com\fucknoiamnotreadingthatshit ?)

This is one of those things that sounds 1/4 true. Some grain of truth wrapped in paranoia, seuted in rumor juice.
Judge for yourself. I haven't read the article or the legislation but, it's not from InfoWars.com

As Egypt goes offline US gets internet 'kill switch' bill ready (http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/as-egypt-goes-offline-us-gets-internet-kill-switch-bill-ready-20110131-1aah3.html)

[Yonivore]

From CBS News:

Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029302-501465.html)

[LnGrrrR]

No, it is not a human right but, the constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures [shutting down the internet by government] is something we enjoy as U. S. Citizens.

We also enjoy the freedom [for now] to associate with one another and to engage in commercial markets that sell internet access and the tools and services that allow us that access.

Well said Yoni. I agree that ACCESS isn't a right (ie you are not granted access if you don't have it) but unlawful RESTRICTION of said rights shouldn't be legal. It's an interesting question.

[Yonivore]

This image and that legislation should concern us all...

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/01/31/2159785/Egypt_lead_internet-420x0.jpg

[Blake]

obama wants a kill switch right here in america based on the chinese model!

even if that were true, if the internet were shut down, it wouldn't shut down the press.

We would be reading the newspaper the next day about how the internet was shut down.

[Yonivore]

even if that were true, if the internet were shut down, it wouldn't shut down the press.

We would be reading the newspaper the next day about how the internet was shut down.
Most presses are operated by a very few printers that receive content...yep...over the internet.

Today's press files their stories from laptops, blackberries, etc... They wouldn't be back to the "presses" the next day.

[Blake]

Most presses are operated by a very few printers that receive content...yep...over the internet.

Today's press files their stories from laptops, blackberries, etc... They wouldn't be back to the "presses" the next day.

Mere inconvenience is not an argument for it being a human right.

[Yonivore]

Mere inconvenience is not an argument for it being a human right.
I don't think I was making such an argument. I was arguing that I don't think the press will be back up and running as quickly as was being suggested.

[Blake]

I don't think I was making such an argument. I was arguing that I don't think the press will be back up and running as quickly as was being suggested.

Who suggested that it would be up and running quickly?

[Yonivore]

Who suggested that it would be up and running quickly?

You did.


even if that were true, if the internet were shut down, it wouldn't shut down the press.

We would be reading the newspaper the next day about how the internet was shut down.

[Blake]

You did.

I guess I did. Touche.

Edit:

We would be reading the newspaper in the following days about how the internet got shut down.

:tu

[LnGrrrR]

I guess I did. Touche.

Edit:

We would be reading the newspaper in the following days about how the internet got shut down.

:tu

Somehow, I think the internet shutting down in the US would involve some form of rioting/protest before we got to the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

[Blake]

Somehow, I think the internet shutting down in the US would involve some form of rioting/protest before we got to the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

I think that there would be somebody out there printing the story.

I'm too lazy about this issue to riot myself.

My lazy self will probably read about the internet getting shut down one day and read about the rioting the next day.

I'll probably also read the funny pages. I haven't read Dilbert in years.

and TV news? Will broadcast news take a few days to recover as well? I honestly don't know.

[boutons_deux]

Warning to spittle-flicking retrogrades, New Deal mentioned below as moving America forward.


Stimulus funds help wire rural homes for Internet

Bolstered by billions in federal stimulus money, an effort to expand broadband Internet access to rural areas is underway, an ambitious 21st-century infrastructure project with parallels to the New Deal electrification of the nation's hinterlands in the 1930s and 1940s.

President Barack Obama emphasized the importance of Internet access in his State of the Union address last week.

"To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information — from high-speed rail to high-speed Internet," Obama said.

In the Depression, it was power to the people — for farm equipment and living-room lamps, cow-milking machines and kitchen appliances. Now, it's online access — to YouTube and digital downloads, to videoconferencing and Facebook, to eBay and Twitter.

"Rural areas all across the country are wrestling with this, somewhat desperately,"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-01-30-broadband-rural_N.htm

[LnGrrrR]

I think that there would be somebody out there printing the story.

I'm too lazy about this issue to riot myself.

My lazy self will probably read about the internet getting shut down one day and read about the rioting the next day.

I'll probably also read the funny pages. I haven't read Dilbert in years.

and TV news? Will broadcast news take a few days to recover as well? I honestly don't know.

I didn't say YOU would be rioting... just that somebody would be. Probably all the people who work for businesses that make most of their money off the internet. :lol

[Blake]

I didn't say YOU would be rioting... just that somebody would be. Probably all the people who work for businesses that make most of their money off the internet. :lol

I know.....my point was that there will be at least one person involved in the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

[LnGrrrR]

I know.....my point was that there will be at least one person involved in the "reading from the newspaper" phase.

I didn't say there wouldn't be. I just said that the rioting/protest phases would probably be well underway before you read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper.

In other words, you wouldn't need to read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper, because if it was, government officials would be talking about it that night on TV. :lol

[Blake]

I didn't say there wouldn't be. I just said that the rioting/protest phases would probably be well underway before you read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper.

In other words, you wouldn't need to read about the internet being shut down in a newspaper, because if it was, government officials would be talking about it that night on TV. :lol

Yeah, I figure that we would for sure be watching it on TV first, but that was part of my earlier question. How much would it affect TV news if the internet was blocked?

[Yonivore]

Yeah, I figure that we would for sure be watching it on TV first, but that was part of my earlier question. How much would it affect TV news if the internet was blocked?
I think the internet has become more pervasive than you might imagine. Much of broadcast television has infrastructure segments that are reliant on the internet. Particularly now that the government has completed it mandated conversion to digital television.

It wouldn't be total [and, quite frankly, I don't know to what affect it would be] but, a shutdown of the internet will affect broadcast television in many markets.

[Spurminator]

CNN couldn't exist anymore without Twitter.

[sickdsm]

Define "denied access."

If you've been charged for a newspaper, have you been unconstitutionally denied it? I think not.

So then by that thinking you're not being discriminated against by having to have an ID card to vote, right? I agree with you.

[Proxy]

CNN couldn't exist anymore without Twitter.

There would be a tenfold increase in the lies by FOX, without access to the correct information on the internet.

[baseline bum]

There would be a tenfold increase in the lies by FOX, without access to the correct information on the internet.

But where would Fox News and Rush get their news from if not the chain email?

[sickdsm]

Somehow, I think the internet shutting down in the US would involve some form of rioting/protest before we got to the "reading from the newspaper" phase.


You think so? Wouldn't it be mildy humorous to see more urban cities looting TV's to prove there point about media being shut down?

I'd have a hard time believing that the U.S. could every pull off a protest like Tunsia did and only riot/protest to prove their point.

[The Reckoning]

so everybody should be provided internet access (free of charge) 24/7?

[Wild Cobra]

Its not, but it damn well should be
There are quite a few things that we would differ on what "should" be a human right. Now I agree that all people of the would should have unrestricted access to such information. That, simply isn't practical though. Sovereign nations will treat their people as they will.

Your Bamabuddy doesn't seem to think it's a first amendment right for us. He wants a law to allow him to shut it down. What do you think of that?

[Wild Cobra]

For anybody saying "NO":

Define "free press"

I would say it is a right to have access to it, not to have it, here in the USA. Our constitution doesn't apply to the rest of the world though.

[Wild Cobra]

Where is the line?

If you tax newspapers, based on their contents, with a $500 each tax, does that deny you access?
Apply that to those who employ people, and it has the effect of taking jobs away.

[Wild Cobra]

link?

(to something other than infowars.com\fucknoiamnotreadingthatshit ?)

This is one of those things that sounds 1/4 true. Some grain of truth wrapped in paranoia, seuted in rumor juice.
I've heard it on reliable radio programs. I'm sure it's on the internet somewhere.

[Wild Cobra]

This image and that legislation should concern us all...

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/01/31/2159785/Egypt_lead_internet-420x0.jpg
Are you sure that isn't an image of what are economy will look like with all this liberal tax and spend legislation?

[LnGrrrR]

You think so? Wouldn't it be mildy humorous to see more urban cities looting TV's to prove there point about media being shut down?

I'd have a hard time believing that the U.S. could every pull off a protest like Tunsia did and only riot/protest to prove their point.

Well, I didn't mention looting specifically, but that could certainly be included under the "rioting" category :lol

[nkdlunch]

is healthcare a human right?

[Yonivore]

is healthcare a human right?
Nothing, in which you would have to force others to provide it, is a human right. No person has the right to the fruits or labors of another; that includes health care.

[Proxy]

Nothing, in which you would have to force others to provide it, is a human right. No person has the right to the fruits or labors of another; that includes health care.

Yeah. Fuck helping other people. Everyone born into poverty deserves to die without sufficient aid, and education. It's the American way.

It's the most efficient way to keep minorities down where they belong too, and to keep the whites in power.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah. Fuck helping other people. Everyone born into poverty deserves to die without sufficient aid, and education. It's the American way.

It's the most efficient way to keep minorities down where they belong too, and to keep the whites in power.

How can you say that? We are country that was founded on Judeo Christian values.. at least that's what the right continues to complain about.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[ChumpDumper]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."*If you can afford it.

[Yonivore]

Yeah. Fuck helping other people. Everyone born into poverty deserves to die without sufficient aid, and education. It's the American way.

It's the most efficient way to keep minorities down where they belong too, and to keep the whites in power.
No one is claiming you should be prohibited from helping anyone. Just that no one has the right to demand it.

Actually, the American way is a lot more charitable than you give credit.

Creating some "right" out of whole cloth so the government can inefficiently administer a program that will undoubtedly fail a good many it proposes to aid, only diminishes the wealth many of us would willingly contribute to care for those who needed it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

caveat " Life saving treatment is only if you can afford it"

[ChumpDumper]

No one is claiming you should be prohibited from helping anyone. Just that no one has the right to demand it.

Actually, the American way is a lot more charitable than you give credit.

Creating some "right" out of whole cloth so the government can inefficiently administer a program that will undoubtedly fail a good many it proposes to aid, only diminishes the wealth many of us would willingly contribute to care for those who needed it.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."*If the mechanism for preserving life is efficient enough for yoni.

[Yonivore]

caveat " Life saving treatment is only if you can afford it"
So, if a surgeon is constantly required to give his services away or, if his income is so reduced (due to his forced provision of services) that he can no longer justify the exorbitant cost of his education, liability insurance, and overhead; what do you think will happen?

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, if a surgeon is constantly required to give his services away or, if his income is so reduced (due to his forced provision of services) that he can no longer justify the exorbitant cost of his education, liability insurance, and overhead; what do you think will happen?

He'll quit and go on unemployment? Skip out on his student loans? You tell me

[Blake]

So, if a surgeon is constantly required to give his services away or, if his income is so reduced (due to his forced provision of services) that he can no longer justify the exorbitant cost of his education, liability insurance, and overhead; what do you think will happen?

what do you think the average salary currently is for a surgeon and in your opinion, what would the average salary be after a "forced provision of services."

[Yonivore]

what do you think the average salary currently is for a surgeon...
A lot, and worth every penny.


...and in your opinion, what would the average salary be after a "forced provision of services."
Lower.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The future is not a gift: it is an achievement. Every generation helps make its own future. This is the essential challenge of the present

[Blake]

A lot, and worth every penny.


Lower.

a penny lower won't make anyone feel sympathy for them.

[Yonivore]

a penny lower won't make anyone feel sympathy for them.
I don't they're concerned with your sympathy.

Here's something for you to consider. I know a surgeon that not only tithes 10% of his income to religious-based medical charities and his church; he also travels twice a year, for a month, with Doctors Without Borders, to provide free surgery that is restoring people to independent lives.

As his income is reduced, so is his ability to be charitable.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't they're concerned with your sympathy.

Here's something for you to consider. I know a surgeon that not only tithes 10% of his income to religious-based medical charities and his church; he also travels twice a year, for a month, with Doctors Without Borders, to provide free surgery that is restoring people to independent lives.

As his income is reduced, so is his ability to be charitable.


He'll quit and go on unemployment? Skip out on his student loans? You tell me

So he will still practice medicine... :lmao

[Yonivore]

So he will still practice medicine... :lmao
Actually, he's indicated to me, he may not.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Actually, he's indicated to me, he may not.

So what? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

[Yonivore]

So what? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?
Nope.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nope.

There wil be other doctors if this guy wimps out.

[Yonivore]

There wil be other doctors if this guy wimps out.
Yes there will. Government paid, government educated doctors.

Like I said, if you devalue medical care you'll get less valuable medical care.

[Blake]

I don't they're concerned with your sympathy.

Here's something for you to consider. I know a surgeon that not only tithes 10% of his income to religious-based medical charities and his church; he also travels twice a year, for a month, with Doctors Without Borders, to provide free surgery that is restoring people to independent lives.

As his income is reduced, so is his ability to be charitable.

Who requires that surgeons be charitable?

God forbid he may actually have to work 11 months out of the year instead of 10.

[Yonivore]

Who requires that surgeons be charitable?

God forbid he may actually have to work 12 months instead of 11.
No one. And, I would argue he is working that 12th month...for no pay. There are many that are thanking God for his charity.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes there will. Government paid, government educated doctors.

Like I said, if you devalue medical care you'll get less valuable medical care.

Since when has the govt trained doctors?

[Yonivore]

Since when has the govt trained doctors?
There will be when you can only get people to go to med school by paying for their education with a government grant.

[Blake]

No one. And, I would argue he is working that 12th month...for no pay. There are many that are thanking God for his charity.

so your friend is bitching about having to take a pay cut for doing surgery here in the states which will keep him from performing free surgery in other countries?

FUCK your friend for pulling that shitty card.

[cheguevara]

so your friend is bitching about having to take a pay cut for doing surgery here in the states which will keep him from performing free surgery in other countries?


Yoni's doctor friend is Josef Mengele

[Proxy]

Yes there will. Government paid, government educated doctors.

Like I said, if you devalue medical care you'll get less valuable medical care.

and more lives can be saved.

You think it's okay for a college student to go about without insurance? Do you think it's okay for the working class to go on with their jobs, that on average, demand higher manual labor without the comfort of knowing their sickness and injuries can be helped without thousands of dollars owed in the end?

These are the people suffering. They're the ones that have to pay full price for their medication and treatment.... it doesn't make sense. The poor stay poor.

[TeyshaBlue]

and more lives can be saved.

You think it's okay for a college student to go about without insurance? Do you think it's okay for the working class to go on with their jobs, that on average, demand higher manual labor without the comfort of knowing their sickness and injuries can be helped without thousands of dollars owed in the end?

These are the people suffering. They're the ones that have to pay full price for their medication and treatment.... it doesn't make sense. The poor stay poor.

This is all well and good. But you don't fix the underlying, structural defects in healthcare in this country by shoveling money into the maws of insurance companies.

[Yonivore]

and more lives can be saved.

You think it's okay for a college student to go about without insurance?
Yes. If they don't want insurance, they shouldn't be forced to have insurance. That has nothing to do with medical care.


Do you think it's okay for the working class to go on with their jobs, that on average, demand higher manual labor without the comfort of knowing their sickness and injuries can be helped without thousands of dollars owed in the end?
Quality medical care costs money. I'm glad you didn't roll out the canard that they couldn't get medical care but, that they would actually owe money for it.


These are the people suffering. They're the ones that have to pay full price for their medication and treatment.... it doesn't make sense. The poor stay poor.
Most poor people don't pay a dime for medical care.

[cheguevara]

forcing someone to get affordable insurance vs. ignoring someone who wants affordable insurance

which one is the lesser evil?

[Yonivore]

forcing someone to get affordable insurance vs. ignoring someone who wants affordable insurance

which one is the lesser evil?
You do, of course, realize that insurance isn't actual medical care, right?

[TeyshaBlue]

forcing someone to get affordable insurance vs. ignoring someone who wants affordable insurance

which one is the lesser evil?

Newsflash. My insurance aint exactly affordable anymore. Careful how you toss that term around.

Which is the point I was trying to make. We didn't do a fucking thing to address healthcare costs. We practically guaranteed it would become more expensive by reinforcing the Health Insurance as HMO model that forces insurance into a role it was never intended to be.

[TeyshaBlue]

You do, of course, realize that insurance isn't actual medical care, right?

It's being used that way, Yoni. That's the gist of the problem.

[Yonivore]

It's being used that way, Yoni. That's the gist of the problem.
People without insurance get quality medical care all the time.

[George Gervin's Afro]

People without insurance get quality medical care all the time.

what about life saving treatment?

[TeyshaBlue]

People without insurance get quality medical care all the time.

You're serious, right?:depressed

[Yonivore]

You're serious, right?:depressed
Are you suggesting the care offered at indigent care hospitals and clinics (mostly government owned and operated), isn't quality?

[Yonivore]

what about life saving treatment?
What about it?

[TeyshaBlue]

Are you suggesting the care offered at indigent care hospitals and clinics (mostly government owned and operated), isn't quality?

Let's define quality shall we?

[Winehole23]

Are you suggesting the care offered at indigent care hospitals and clinics (mostly government owned and operated), isn't quality?Access to quality care prevents a lot of ER visits and hospital stays.

That is no reflection on the quality of the ERs and indigent care hospitals.

[Yonivore]

Access to quality care prevents a lot of ER visits and hospital stays.

That is no reflection on the quality of the ERs and indigent care hospitals.
That's what the free clinics are for...I did mention them, didn't I?

[Yonivore]

Let's define quality shall we?
Sure, go ahead; define it.

[TeyshaBlue]

Sure, go ahead; define it.

No. You're lugging it around. You tell me what you think it means in this context.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's what the free clinics are for...I did mention them, didn't I?

Ever been to one?

[Yonivore]

Ever been to one?
What's the problem with them?

[Yonivore]

No. You're lugging it around. You tell me what you think it means in this context.
I think we're getting to it if you'll just keep playing along.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think we're getting to it if you'll just keep playing along.

No. I don't think we are. I'm pretty sure you're unable or unwilling to commit to a definition. It's safer to hide behind the coward's skirts of innuendo and implications.

[Yonivore]

No. I don't think we are. I'm pretty sure you're unable or unwilling to commit to a definition. It's safer to hide behind the coward's skirts of innuendo and implications.
So, you seem to indicate there's a problem with indigent care. What is it?

[TeyshaBlue]

No. I don't think we are. I'm pretty sure you're unable or unwilling to commit to a definition. It's safer to hide behind the coward's skirts of innuendo and implications.

Don't worry. You've got lots of company in that regard...including most of our enlightened congress people.

[TeyshaBlue]

So, you seem to indicate there's a problem with indigent care. What is it?

We need to have a common vocabulary to discuss it. I'm still trying to ascertain whether or not we do. Failing to elucidate what you consider quality healthcare is telling tho.

[Yonivore]

Don't worry. You've got lots of company in that regard...including most of our enlightened congress people.
You seem to be skirting away from the issue of what you believe is wrong with free clinics and indigent care, as it currently exists.

[Yonivore]

We need to have a common vocabulary to discuss it. I'm still trying to ascertain whether or not we do. Failing to elucidate on what you consider quality healthcare is telling tho.
You asked me if I've ever been to a free clinic. Why? [By the way, I have -- hundreds of times].

And, I'm getting to the quality issue but, I would really like to hear why you thought it was important to know whether or not I'd been to a free clinic.

[TeyshaBlue]

You seem to be skirting away from the issue of what you believe is wrong with free clinics and indigent care, as it currently exists.


I believe they are inadequate to the task. They are chronically understaffed. They are chronically overloaded. A 4 hour wait is not practical for someone with a $10/hr job. Ergo, time lost becomes an important factor in whether or not to use "free" services. BTW, none of these clinics are "Free". Most require a modest payment.

Now, would you kindly stop dodging my question?

[TeyshaBlue]

You asked me if I've ever been to a free clinic. Why? [By the way, I have -- hundreds of times].

And, I'm getting to the quality issue but, I would really like to hear why you thought it was important to know whether or not I'd been to a free clinic.

My ex worked in one for 7 years. I was not totally impressed with her experience. Neither was she.

[Yonivore]

My ex worked in one for 7 years. I was not totally impressed with her experience. Neither was she.
What was the level of government involvement in the clinic? What percentage of the clinics revenues were provided by the government?

[TeyshaBlue]

What was the level of government involvement in the clinic? What percentage of the clinics revenues were provided by the government?

It was a county clinic. It receives local, state and federal funds. It's also one of the better ones in the nation.

It's still a problem.

How about you stop asking questions and start answering mine, ok?

[Yonivore]

It was a county clinic. It receives local, state and federal funds. It's also one of the betters ones in the nation.

It's still a problem.

How about you stop asking questions and start answering mine, ok?
The Los Angeles Free Clinic is 40% government funded and it is considered one of the best in the country.

St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital (to which I donate) is 0% government funded and turns no one away. They are leading the country in Pediatric Cancer Research.

Every Shriner's Childrens Hospital is completely funded by Clowns and they turn no one away. They are also innovators in burn treatment and childhood bone ailments.

And, I'm sure there are similar medical facilities for adults; I'm just not aware of them.

My point being, it seems the quality of care received at free clinics and hospitals is directly related to the level of government involvement. The more the government is involved, the more problems you have. I agree, the free clinic atmosphere is abysmal. But, turning our entire health care system into one big free clinic isn't the answer.

What liberals want is for everyone to receive Steve Jobs medical care. It's not possible. But, what is possible, is for government to get out of the way and let the medical community put together a system that serves everyone.

[TeyshaBlue]

The Los Angeles Free Clinic is 40% government funded and it is considered one of the best in the country.

St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital (to which I donate) is 0% government funded and turns no one away. They are leading the country in Pediatric Cancer Research.

Every Shriner's Childrens Hospital is completely funded by Clowns and they turn no one away. They are also innovators in burn treatment and childhood bone ailments.

And, I'm sure there are similar medical facilities for adults; I'm just not aware of them.

My point being, it seems the quality of care received at free clinics and hospitals is directly related to the level of government involvement. The more the government is involved, the more problems you have. I agree, the free clinic atmosphere is abysmal. But, turning our entire health care system into one big free clinic isn't the answer.

What liberals want is for everyone to receive Steve Jobs medical care. It's not possible. But, what is possible, is for government to get out of the way and let the medical community put together a system that serves everyone.

Yes, that's all well and good. Of course, you make no mention of what it takes to get into one of these facilities and the time, often considerable, it takes to even be considered.
I have experience with Shriners. I know the one in Dallas took a nice chunk from T Boone Pickens. But that's neither here nor there.

Define quality in the context of healthcare Yoni, since you've yet to do that.

[Yonivore]

Yes, that's all well and good. Of course, you make no mention of what it takes to get into one of these facilities and the time, often considerable, it takes to even be considered.
I have experience with Shriners. I know the one in Dallas took a nice chunk from T Boone Pickens. But that's neither here nor there.

Define quality in the context of healthcare Yoni, since you've yet to do that.
I think I have. The quality of health care, I believe, is directly related to the level of government involvement in that health care. Introducing government regulations, inefficiencies, fraud, and abuse into a system that has a direct impact on the health and well-being of my family, is something I oppose.

If you want to go to a government clinic. Fine. Don't make the entire health care system one big fucking government free clinic. I don't want it. Except for those in the military -- which are generally private doctors who enlist or are called to active duty as part of a reserve unit -- government medical care sucks.

Just look at the free clinic where your ex worked. It sucked.

No thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

Strawman alert!!!!!!!!

[Yonivore]

Yes, that's all well and good. Of course, you make no mention of what it takes to get into one of these facilities and the time, often considerable, it takes to even be considered.
I know for a fact all the Shriners require is a clown sponsor. I've referred 10 ten children to a clown in my neighborhood. Every one of them received the care they needed.

Not one was ever charged a dime.

And, in the literature I receive from St. Jude's, testimonial after testimonial suggest the parents drove from various parts of the country, walked through the door at St. Jude's and received care. No one mentions a means test, a examination to determine priority, or being turned away.


I have experience with Shriners. I know the one in Dallas took a nice chunk from T Boone Pickens. But that's neither here nor there.
No, it is here and there. How much more could T Boone Pickens do if he weren't forced to support a government health care scheme? How much more could all of us do, if so much of our treasure wasn't flushed down the toilet of government inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse?

Thank God for the T Boones and Yonivores of the world who, in spite of a confiscatory tax structure that demonizes and penalizes the producers of this country, still have a heart to contribute to quality health care.

[Yonivore]

Strawman alert!!!!!!!!
Was that the phrase of the week on Sesame Street or something?

[Yonivore]

it's just some gay trolling tactic started by ChumpHumper that all of his admirers thought was cool and started to use
I figured it was something like that.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't they're concerned with your sympathy.

Here's something for you to consider. I know a surgeon that not only tithes 10% of his income to religious-based medical charities and his church; he also travels twice a year, for a month, with Doctors Without Borders, to provide free surgery that is restoring people to independent lives.

As his income is reduced, so is his ability to be charitable.Is he black?

[ChumpDumper]

Was that the phrase of the week on Sesame Street or something?


it's just some gay trolling tactic started by ChumpHumper that all of his admirers thought was cool and started to uselol it's not our problem you don't know what it means.

[ChumpDumper]

i know what it mean's but here it's frequently just used as a trolling tactic, along with your question asking gameNo, usually there is a straw man argument that is being called out.

And it's not my problem people like you are afraid to answer my questions. That's an answer in itself.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think I have. The quality of health care, I believe, is directly related to the level of government involvement in that health care. Introducing government regulations, inefficiencies, fraud, and abuse into a system that has a direct impact on the health and well-being of my family, is something I oppose.

If you want to go to a government clinic. Fine. Don't make the entire health care system one big fucking government free clinic. I don't want it. Except for those in the military -- which are generally private doctors who enlist or are called to active duty as part of a reserve unit -- government medical care sucks.

Just look at the free clinic where your ex worked. It sucked.

No thanks.
Ok. So you can't define what constitutes quality healthcare. Nice try at the cowardly dodge. Those skirts fit you well.

[Yonivore]

Ok. So you can't define what constitutes quality healthcare. Nice try at the cowardly dodge. Those skirts fit you well.
What, you can't look up the term "quality" in the dictionary? I'm not sure what you're asking anymore.

Do you want the definition of good quality or bad quality?

I've already stated I believe the quality of health care improves as the level of government involvement, in it, decreases.

[TeyshaBlue]

What, you can't look up the term "quality" in the dictionary? I'm not sure what you're asking anymore.

Do you want the definition of good quality or bad quality?

I've already stated I believe the quality of health care improves as the level of government involvement, in it, decreases.

Lol. When you make baseless, asinine statements about the quality of healthcare, its fairly germane to ask what you define as quality. I see now that you don't have even the foggiest notion of what is or is not an element of quality as regards heathcare. Good to finally get that of the way.

[Yonivore]

Lol. When you make baseless, asinine statements about the quality of healthcare, its fairly germane to ask what you define as quality. I see now that you don't have even the foggiest notion of what is or is not an element of quality as regards heathcare. Good to finally get that of the way.
Okay. Now what? We're back to asking you why you want the government to control all of health care when the free clinics and indigent care hospitals -- already controlled by the government -- do it so badly.

Or, did I get you wrong and you actually believe the poor and indigent are receiving good quality health care at the government supported free clinics and hospitals?

Which is it? This "quality" defined rabbit hole you've chased us down has kind of distracted from the central question.

[TeyshaBlue]

Okay. Now what? We're back to asking you why you want the government to control all of health care when the free clinics and indigent care hospitals -- already controlled by the government -- do it so badly.

Or, did I get you wrong and you actually believe the poor and indigent are receiving good quality health care at the government supported free clinics and hospitals?

Which is it? This "quality" defined rabbit hole you've chased us down has kind of distracted from the central question.

No, quality is central to the discussion....except you're not even remotely interested in a discussion. Most likely because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Yonivore]

No, quality is central to the discussion....except you're not even remotely interested in a discussion. Most likely because you have no idea what you're talking about.
So, educate me. How does quality relate to the discussion?

[boutons_deux]

"government to control all of health care when the free clinics and indigent care hospitals -- already controlled by the government -- do it so badly."

your out-of-your-ass anecdotes don't prove shit, nothing but directed reasoning, arriving at your foregone conclusion, unsubstantiated reasoning.

my anecdote: why do vets rate their health care with higher satisfaction than clients of for-profit insurers?

any "I know a vet who hates Tri-Care" doesn't prove shit, either.

[TeyshaBlue]

So, educate me. How does quality relate to the discussion?
You have zero interest in being educated in this area, otherwise you would do this yourself. But, since I can't help myself, Ill get you started:

1. Outcome.
2. Effectiveness

See if you can think of a few attributes on your own.

[Yonivore]

You have zero interest in being educated in this area, otherwise you would do this yourself. But, since I can't help myself, Ill get you started:

1. Outcome.
2. Effectiveness

See if you can think of a few attributes on your own.
You're right, I'm not interested.

But, the outcome and effectiveness of government-run health care is inferior to that of private health care providers. You add the quality attributes and, odds are, private providers can do it better. Which leads to the obvious question of why you want government fucking with it.

Your point?

[TeyshaBlue]

You're right, I'm not interested.

But, the outcome and effectiveness of government-run health care is inferior to that of private health care providers. You add the quality attributes and, odds are, private providers can do it better. Which leads to the obvious question of why you want government fucking with it.

Your point?

Those are only 2 attributes. And, you are talking out of your ass to boot.
Forget it, Yoni. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of intellectual honesty.

[Yonivore]

Those are only 2 attributes. And, you are talking out of your ass to boot.
Forget it, Yoni. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your lack of intellectual honesty.
You're pissed because I won't discuss this topic on your terms. Forget defining quality, I can't even get you to make a distinction between the quality of care provided by government vs. private health care providers.

You came close when you whined about how bad the clinic was where your ex worked but, when you saw what I was driving at, you tried to drive me down the "quality" hole.

So, which is it? If money were no object, would you drive your child, suffering from an idiopathic arrythmia to the free clinic or to the Mayo Clinic?

[ChumpDumper]

You're right, I'm not interested.Good talk.

[Kori Ellis]

One time, I banned someone from SpursTalk and they sent me a hate-filled email how I had denied their civil rights, as well as their human rights.

So, I guess the answer to the original questions is... Yes. :lol

[Winehole23]

cedes to the reality principle. For purposes of this forum it would appear the matter is settled. Cheers to that. :toast

[ElNono]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think it is. I think there's alternative sources for information/communication.

[ChumpDumper]

One time, I banned someone from SpursTalk and they sent me a hate-filled email how I had denied their civil rights, as well as their human rights.

So, I guess the answer to the original questions is... Yes. :lolThanks for letting me back on btw.

[Winehole23]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think it is. I think there's alternative sources for information/communication.Facetious. I should have blued. :toast

[Winehole23]

(I just meant, Kori is the big wheel around here, so that settles it for this forum, so to speak.)

[cheguevara]

Newsflash. My insurance aint exactly affordable anymore. Careful how you toss that term around.


I was talking about once Obamacare kicks in. not now.

[cheguevara]

You do, of course, realize that insurance isn't actual medical care, right?

I am talking about insurance.
If you are poor and
when you get a stomach pain, if you have insurance you go to the doctor. If you don't have insurance you live with it.

If you have a knee or shoulder pain, you go get treated if you have insurance, if you don't have insurance you live with it.

that's what I'm talking about.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You're pissed because I won't discuss this topic on your terms. Forget defining quality, I can't even get you to make a distinction between the quality of care provided by government vs. private health care providers.You came close when you whined about how bad the clinic was where your ex worked but, when you saw what I was driving at, you tried to drive me down the "quality" hole.

So, which is it? If money were no object, would you drive your child, suffering from an idiopathic arrythmia to the free clinic or to the Mayo Clinic?

Isn't your argument that people (without health insurance) get good healthcare now because of the govt?

[johnsmith]

I didn't read this thread, just skipped to the last page.......wasn't this supposed to be about internet access?

[TeyshaBlue]

Thanks for letting me back on btw.
:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Isn't your argument that people (without health insurance) get good healthcare now because of the govt?

Funny, huh? That boy stepped in a logic snare.:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Funny, huh? That boy stepped in a logic snare.:lol

I guess when you make it up as you go along this tends to happen. You end up undermining the premise of your original argument.:lmao

[Winehole23]

I didn't read this thread, just skipped to the last page.......wasn't this supposed to be about internet access?Support for internet access as a human right appears to be more sentimental than closely reasoned so far. Maybe that's why the topic got derailed so easily.

[Wild Cobra]

Support for internet access as a human right appears to be more sentimental than closely reasoned so far. Maybe that's why the topic got derailed so easily.
If it's a human right, what happens if nobody decides to fund it?

[RandomGuy]

From CBS News:

Renewed Push to Give Obama an Internet "Kill Switch" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029302-501465.html)

Thank you.

I'm sure the key word for you in that sentence is "Obama".

Would you be concerned if that had read:
Renewed Push to Give (insert Republican here) an Internet "Kill Switch"?

I am unsure what to think, quite frankly. I think the ability to shut down the internet in case of an attack by a foreign government may indeed be warranted. Yes both China and Russia have the capability, and seeming intent to do so to foes.

Such power would have to be SEVERELY limited, with some strong legislative branch oversight/checks.

[hater]

the internet was cutoff in Egypt. Look what happened.

[Winehole23]

If it's a human right, what happens if nobody decides to fund it?Why assume it's a human right? Because it's popular to do so? Just curious.

[RandomGuy]

Support for internet access as a human right appears to be more sentimental than closely reasoned so far. Maybe that's why the topic got derailed so easily.

We have a reasoned bill of rights, because we decided that certain things done by governments to individuals/groups were unconscionable.

If, going forward, most news and information about the outside world comes through the internet, when does the ability to access that, or government ability to deny it, become a "right"?

It is looking more and more like the economic model for print media is looking less and less sustainable, with many larger cities losing their 2nd or 3rd newspaper. The trend shows no sign of slowing down.

Many people only access books via liabraries, in a manner similar to internet access.

Is it really that much of a stretch to lump in internet access with broadcast media and print media as part of a "free press"?

[RandomGuy]

You're right, I'm not interested.

But, the outcome and effectiveness of government-run health care is inferior to that of private health care providers. You add the quality attributes and, odds are, private providers can do it better. Which leads to the obvious question of why you want government fucking with it.

Your point?

What about government run insurance?

Insurance company burocracies limit care all the time. Does that bother you?

How do you reconcile the profit motive, which provides motive for health insurers to provide as little care as they can get away with, with the greater economic good of keeping people healthy?

Do you just blindly trust that health insurers will make the call that advances the public good over their own profit margins?

[Winehole23]

Is it really that much of a stretch to lump in internet access with broadcast media and print media as part of a "free press"?Depending on what you mean by access, perhaps not. What do you mean by access?

[Oh, Gee!!]

obama wants a kill switch right here in america based on the chinese model!

Senator Susan Collins does, and Joe Lieberman too.

[LnGrrrR]

I am unsure what to think, quite frankly. I think the ability to shut down the internet in case of an attack by a foreign government may indeed be warranted. Yes both China and Russia have the capability, and seeming intent to do so to foes.

It's definitely unwarranted, imo. First off, shutting down the internet isn't well defined. Is it just for US consumers? Or shutting down the internet for everyone? DNS is owned by WHOIS, which is an American company. (A sore spot for a few other countries.) We could shut down DNS entries, but that would have severe effects worldwide, and would piss off alot of other countries.

I can think of no attack that would affect us so greatly that we would need to shut off the internet for US consumers. A self-inflicted denial of service is probably the best outcome for any attacker anyways.

[boutons_deux]

"DNS is owned by WHOIS"

:lol gotta link?

DNS root-servers (sine qua non of DNS) are run by volunteers on servers spread around the planet.

[Blake]

We have a reasoned bill of rights, because we decided that certain things done by governments to individuals/groups were unconscionable.

If, going forward, most news and information about the outside world comes through the internet, when does the ability to access that, or government ability to deny it, become a "right"?

It is looking more and more like the economic model for print media is looking less and less sustainable, with many larger cities losing their 2nd or 3rd newspaper. The trend shows no sign of slowing down.

Many people only access books via liabraries, in a manner similar to internet access.

Is it really that much of a stretch to lump in internet access with broadcast media and print media as part of a "free press"?

Slowing down the speed or limiting the current accessibility of free speech ≠ abridging free speech/the press

If it wasn't a human right just 20 years ago, I don't see how it's suddenly a human right today.

[boutons_deux]

"If it wasn't a human right just 20 years ago, I don't see how it's suddenly a human right today."

A country can define/restrict rights arbitrarily.

eg, Human-Americans think they have human rights, but they are really American rights, Americans don't "give" those rights to Human-Non-Americans. Complete arbitrary.

No rights are "inalienable".

God ain't in the loop.

[ElNono]

"DNS is owned by WHOIS"

:lol gotta link?

DNS root-servers (sine qua non of DNS) are run by volunteers on servers spread around the planet.

Correct, although Verisign, a US company, explicitly controls certain immensely popular TLDs, such as .com, .net and .org

That's exactly what ICE has been abusing lately in order to seize domains without contacting domain registrars or the actual owner of the domain.

[LnGrrrR]

"DNS is owned by WHOIS"

:lol gotta link?

DNS root-servers (sine qua non of DNS) are run by volunteers on servers spread around the planet.

Follow me here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whois



On December 1, 1999, management of the top-level domains (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Top-level_domain) (TLDs) com, net, and org was assigned to ICANN (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/ICANN).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN



The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, pronounced /ˈaɪkæn/ (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) EYE-kan (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key)) is a non-profit (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Non-profit) corporation (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Corporation) headquartered in Marina del Rey, California (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Marina_del_Rey,_California), United States (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States) that was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998[1] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-kepler.ss.ca.gov-0) to oversee a number of Internet (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Internet)-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority)).

ICANN is responsible for managing the Internet Protocol (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Internet_Protocol) address spaces (IPv4 (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/IPv4) and IPv6 (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/IPv6)) and assignment of address blocks to regional Internet registries (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Regional_Internet_Registry), for maintaining registries of Internet protocol identifiers, and for the management of the top-level domain name (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Top-level_domain_name) space (DNS root zone (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/DNS_root_zone)), which includes the operation of root nameservers (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Root_nameserver). Most visibly, much of its work has concerned the introduction of new generic top-level domains (TLDs). The technical work of ICANN is referred to as the IANA (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority) function.

ICANN's primary principles of operation have been described as helping preserve the operational stability of the Internet; to promote competition; to achieve broad representation of global Internet community; and to develop policies appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes.[2] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-1)


I won't deny that there are DNS nameservers in other parts of the world. I'm not sure how effective they would be if US portions got shut down. Do you know about Start-of-authority? Zone transfers? etc etc.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure how effective they would be if US portions got shut down. Do you know about Start-of-authority? Zone transfers? etc etc.

I think it would work fine. Some of the newer root servers are distributed geographically and use AnyCast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anycast) to provide better fault tolerance and load distribution.

The issue with .com, .net and .org domains is that ICANN subcontracts with Verisign for the management of those TLDs, which is an American company.

[LnGrrrR]

Slowing down the speed or limiting the current accessibility of free speech ≠ abridging free speech/the press

While I agree with you in this case, I don't think that works universally. That's like saying, "The freedom to vote is still maintained if we only open one voting center statewide, that happens to be in the most red/blue district".

While the right remains, the limited access capability does seem to "limit" the freedom.


If it wasn't a human right just 20 years ago, I don't see how it's suddenly a human right today.

RG isn't arguing there's a NEW right, just that the internet might fall under the right to freedom of speech.

And even then, that argument isn't a strong one. For instance, female voting rights weren't considered a "human right", until they were.

[LnGrrrR]

I think it would work fine. Some of the newer root servers are distributed geographically and use AnyCast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anycast) to provide better fault tolerance and load distribution.

The issue with .com, .net and .org domains is that ICANN subcontracts with Verisign for the management of those TLDs, which is an American company.

Can Verisign block access to all those TLDs instantaneously though? I know they can shut down sites and whatnot, just not sure about shutting down whole swathes of the internet.

[ElNono]

Can Verisign block access to all those TLDs instantaneously though? I know they can shut down sites and whatnot, just not sure about shutting down whole swathes of the internet.

They can redirect them to 127.0.0.1 in one big swoop, effectively doing basically the same.

Now, obviously ICANN could protest. But if there's a warrant?

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeriSign

[LnGrrrR]

They can redirect them to 127.0.0.1 in one big swoop, effectively doing basically the same.

Now, obviously ICANN could protest. But if there's a warrant?

Ah, didn't think about redirecting. I guess it wouldn't be too hard if all that info was located/routed on Verisign servers/routers.

One way or another, a US-based company DOES have the ability to cripple the Internet world-wide, regardless of worldwide DNS server location. Assuming, of course, that ICANN doesn't have backups of all .com/.net DNS entries to relocate to some other server somewhere else, along with the routing required to shift said traffic.

I'm guessing they don't.

[Blake]

While I agree with you in this case, I don't think that works universally. That's like saying, "The freedom to vote is still maintained if we only open one voting center statewide, that happens to be in the most red/blue district".

While the right remains, the limited access capability does seem to "limit" the freedom.

Yes, it would be limited but the right would remain.

Convenience is not a human right.


RG isn't arguing there's a NEW right, just that the internet might fall under the right to freedom of speech.

I understood his question from post #1.

In and of itself, the internet does not have anything to say.

People do though.

[MannyIsGod]

I did some thinking about the OP and I don't think internet access is necessarily a right. The information distribution of yesterday was the newspaper and then the radio and then the television. The evolution of that has been obviously towards the internet. However, never has it been asked if it is a human right to have a newspaper subscription, a television, or even a radio.

We should strive to have the best possible dissemination of information and strive to make sure everyone has access to it but no, the internet is not a human right. The internet is obviously not essential for life and should not be put at the same level as food, shelter, or to be generally free from unjust persecution and punishment.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, it would be limited but the right would remain.

Convenience is not a human right.

So you think a state run by a Republican/Democrat that only allowed one voting place (coincidentally in the middle of a red/blue district) would be kosher/constitutional?


I understood his question from post #1.

In and of itself, the internet does not have anything to say.

People do though.

I think that was his point though, that the government blocking access to sites might be considered limiting a person's freedom of speech. (To be fair, it was an open-ended question.)

[boutons_deux]

There are no rights unless government grants them, and enforces them.

[Winehole23]

Super bowl related?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/rojadirecta-org-seized_n_817458.html

[LnGrrrR]

There are no rights unless government grants them, and enforces them.

Boutons, we know your whole "no rights" shtick. But whether a right is enforced/allowed/etc says nothing of the inherent moral rights.

Ie. right to life, liberty and happiness is a MORAL argument. It's obvious that life, liberty and happiness can be taken away.

[Yonivore]

Boutons, we know your whole "no rights" shtick. But whether a right is enforced/allowed/etc says nothing of the inherent moral rights.

Ie. right to life, liberty and happiness is a MORAL argument. It's obvious that life, liberty and happiness can be taken away.
And, if you change "pursuit of happiness" to "property," you have the basics of a libertarian ideology.

[Blake]

So you think a state run by a Republican/Democrat that only allowed one voting place (coincidentally in the middle of a red/blue district) would be kosher/constitutional?

That extreme situation would absolutely suck.

But as long as every voter standing in line is given the opportunity to vote, it is absolutely constitutional, imo.


I think that was his point though, that the government blocking access to sites might be considered limiting a person's freedom of speech.

Yes, blocking particular sites based on the content can definitely be considered as an infringement of 1st Amendment rights.

Blocking internet access entirely is a different matter.


(To be fair, it was an open-ended question.)

"Human right" has not really been defined in this thread either.

Most have been playing the American 1st Amendment card to which I've been playing along.

At a base level, it seems like a spoiled kid crying that his daddeh has no right to take away the PS3.

[boutons_deux]

"moral" rights are irrelevant.

You may think you have the "moral" right to privacy, but it will be violated when TSA takes your laptop and pda, without a warrant, copies everything, sends it all into the govt servers, stored forever. You have no right to stop them.

moral rights are as useful as thinking Corporate-Americans have "ethical" responsibilities.

[ChumpDumper]

And, if you change "pursuit of happiness" to "property," you have the basics of a libertarian ideology.There must be a reason they didn't use the word "property" then.

[ElNono]

Super bowl related?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/rojadirecta-org-seized_n_817458.html

Yep... Most of those sites already relocated to non-VeriSign TLDs though...
It's sad too, because Rojadirecta was sued twice in Spain and both times it won.

[ElNono]

Ah, didn't think about redirecting. I guess it wouldn't be too hard if all that info was located/routed on Verisign servers/routers.

.com and .net are handled by their datacenters in Maryland. They also manage .edu, but I'm not sure if they're the final authority on that one.


One way or another, a US-based company DOES have the ability to cripple the Internet world-wide, regardless of worldwide DNS server location. Assuming, of course, that ICANN doesn't have backups of all .com/.net DNS entries to relocate to some other server somewhere else, along with the routing required to shift said traffic.
I'm guessing they don't.

Well, all root servers are supposed to be able to handle failover, so the data is certainly distributed if the VeriSign servers actually go down. The problem is if Verisign intentionally redirects to a dummy spot. I don't know they can do much about that, as the other root servers would propagate that info also.

[Wild Cobra]

Why assume it's a human right? Because it's popular to do so? Just curious.
Oh, I know it's not a right. I am just curious what the answer is of those who believe it is a right.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, all root servers are supposed to be able to handle failover, so the data is certainly distributed if the VeriSign servers actually go down. The problem is if Verisign intentionally redirects to a dummy spot. I don't know they can do much about that, as the other root servers would propagate that info also.

Hm... couldn't they just kill the routing links/zone transfers from the offending nameservers?

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, blocking particular sites based on the content can definitely be considered as an infringement of 1st Amendment rights.

Blocking internet access entirely is a different matter.

Agreed. It wasn't clear, I don't think. He was trying to draw a parallel with what's happening in Egypt today, where large parts of the Internet are shut down due to gov't action.


"Human right" has not really been defined in this thread either.

True that.

[LnGrrrR]

"moral" rights are irrelevant.

You may think you have the "moral" right to privacy, but it will be violated when TSA takes your laptop and pda, without a warrant, copies everything, sends it all into the govt servers, stored forever. You have no right to stop them.

moral rights are as useful as thinking Corporate-Americans have "ethical" responsibilities.

You're a putz. You can have a "moral" right and still not be able to exercise it. For instance, you have a choice whether to steal from your boss or not. The MORAL choice is to not do so, but that has no final say on what your ACTUAL action is.

Per your logic Boutons, we should not worry when Republicans do something bad, or when TSA invades our privacy, etc etc, because there's no inherent right they're affecting.

[LnGrrrR]

That extreme situation would absolutely suck.

But as long as every voter standing in line is given the opportunity to vote, it is absolutely constitutional, imo.

I believe there was a court case that says otherwise, but I'll have to look it up.

[Yonivore]

I believe there was a court case that says otherwise, but I'll have to look it up.
I say anything that intentionally serves to suppress a legal vote should be unconstitutional.

[coyotes_geek]

So 8 pages later have we figured out whether or not a parent who takes away their kid's computer is committing a human rights violation?

[Winehole23]

Not even close."Human rights" and "access" are still more or less undefined.

[ElNono]

Hm... couldn't they just kill the routing links/zone transfers from the offending nameservers?

Potentially, but it depends when they figure out that the redirects commenced.
It's a lot easier to do when you know it's going to happen.

[ElNono]

Good to see Senator Ron Wyden probing the DOJ and ICE about the domain seizures. He sent a letter today that really hits on all points, imo. The letter can be read here:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110202/23363812934/senator-wyden-asks-wtf-is-up-with-homeland-security-domain-seizures.shtml

[LnGrrrR]

Potentially, but it depends when they figure out that the redirects commenced.
It's a lot easier to do when you know it's going to happen.

I would hope it'd be relatively quick, but even 10 mins of worldwide .edu/.com downtime would drive the world berserk. Heck, when email goes down on-base we have brass ringing our phone all over :lol