Is Internet Access a Human Right?

A recent article by Vinton Cerf, one of the “fathers of the Internet” disagrees with the idea that Internet access should be a human right.  This article has generated an interesting debate, with retorts from Amnesty International among others.

I believe that the question over whether Internet access is or is not a human right is critically related to the definition that we give of human rights.  Or, in other words, when does a specific right pass to the “category” of a “human right”?  The possible answers we can give arise from distinct perspectives: rights can exist that for “moral” or “philosophical” or “normative” reasons acquire the character of a human right.  In order to respond to the question above we must be clear on what level we are discussing.  Sometimes debates seem to be discussing a mixture of these three categories and that debate, in my opinion, is futile. 

Cerf seems disagree with categorizing access to the Internet as a human right for any reason.  Many people reacted by saying that he has an extremely narrow view of the concept of human rights.  Yet Cerf’s main argument, that is, that the right to have access to the Internet has not been explicitly included in any enumerative list of human rights norms on an international level, is a plausible argument that we should take into account.  However, it is a normative argument, and to respond to it with philosophical arguments is to change the core of the discussion. 

In any case, we must take into consideration the fact that some countries, whether through court decisions or laws, consider access to the Internet a human right.  It’s not incorrect that, for now, it is difficult to say that there are international standards that oblige us to understand Internet access as a human right.  But this could change, and it seems that it will change in the near future.

The report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Protection and Promotion of Freedom of Expression and Opinion Frank La Rue, to my mind, indicated the beginning of a path that will end in the “normativization” of access to the Internet as a human right.  In my opinion, it is strategically desirable that this happen, as it will encourage public policy to make a more decided effort with regards to increasing access to the Internet for a greater number of people.  And, with this strategy, it will be important to create good (philosophical) arguments on why access to the Internet is a human right.

El acceso a Internet: ¿es un derecho humano?

Un reciente artículo de Vinton Cerf -uno de los "padres de Internet" niega que el acceso a Internet sea un derecho humano. Ese artículo ha generado un interesante debate, entre otros, con réplicas de Amnesty International.

Creo que la pregunta planteada sobre si el acceso a Internet es o no un derecho humano tiene estricta relación con la definición que le demos a los derechos humanos. Dicho de otro modo, ¿cuando un determinado derecho pasa a la "categoría" de "derecho humano"? Las respuestas que se pueden dar pueden provenir desde distintas perspectivas: pueden existir derechos que por razones "morales" o "filosóficas" o "normativas" adquieren el carácter de derecho humano. Para responder a la pregunta tenemos que estar claro en que nivel estamos discutiendo. A veces, los debates parecen discutir mezclando esas tres aproximaciones y el debate es un debate a mi juicio estéril.

Cerf parece negar la categoría de derecho humano al acceso a Internet por cualquier razón. Muchos reaccionaron diciendo que tenía una visión muy estrecha del concepto de derechos humanos. Pero el principal argumento de Cerf, esto es, que el derecho a tener acceso a Internet no ha sido incluido expresamente en ningún catálogo normativo que enumera derechos humanos a nivel internacional, es un argumento plausible de tener en cuenta. Pero es un argumento normativo, y responderle con argumentos filosóficos es cambiar el eje de la discusión.

De todos modos, hay que considerar que algunos países, ya sea por medio de decisiones de tribunales, o por sus leyes, consideran el acceso a Internet como un derecho humano. No es menos cierto que, por ahora, es difícil decir que existen estándares internacionales que obligan a entender el acceso a Internet como un derecho humano. Pero ello puede cambiar, y parece que cambiará dentro de poco.

El informe del Relator Especial para la Promoción y protección de la Libertad de Expresión y Opinión de las Naciones Unidas, Frank La Rue, indica a mi modo de ver el inicio de un camino que culminará en la "normativización" del acceso a Internet como un derecho Humano. En mi opinión, es estratégicamente deseable que así ocurra, dado que ello impulsará políticas públicas más decididas en pos de ampliar el acceso a Internet a un mayor número de personas. Y, en esa estrategia, será importante generar buenos argumentos (filosóficos) sobre por qué el acceso a Internet es un derecho humano.

What can governments do to protect human rights online?

As a Latin American academic, I recently participated in a panel at The Hague during the conference “Freedom Online,” organized by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to address this question. My answer is simple and clear: to protect human rights online, governments should act with CARE.  This means that governments should Coordinate their policies with other countries; Apply international human rights standards, especially freedom of expression ones; Regulate the Internet with responsibility; and take into account the Economic impact of their policies.

Coordination of policies is an essential consideration that governments must take into account. Policy makers must understand that in an Internet world, a government’s actions regarding the Web go beyond the limits of national borders. While some Internet regulation might be designed to apply within the country where the rule was enacted, its impact is commonly felt in other nations. 

Applying international standards is essential to guarantee respect of human rights in the Internet era. It is very common for judges and policy makers not take basic human rights standards into account when they solve cases or draft regulations that have an impact on the Internet, such as telecommunications rules. Those who take on this task must be trained on which aspects of these regulations are prohibited by basic human rights principles. For example, if the regulation imposes a restriction to free expression, it has to comply with the three-part test required by article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. The restrictions must be clear and provided explicitly by law, should be legitimate in order to protect specific rights, and be definitively necessary in a democratic society.

Regulating the Internet with responsibility is fundamental. In recent years, the Internet has substantially contributed expanding the exercise of rights such as freedom of expression. It has also helped increase international commerce and international business. Yet regulating with responsibility also means regulating the Internet in a manner that increases the amount of people who can benefit from it, expanding the possibility of accessing high quality, rapid Internet. 

Economic impact of these policies should also be taken into account. Good intentions that inspire policies can sometimes negatively affect Internet service providers (ISPs) or other intermediaries because rules impose obligations that are difficult to comply with.  Think, for example, about policies that require ISPs to retain personal data for long periods of time. These policies could not only affect a basic human right – the right to privacy – but can also create a negative economic impact on small or new ISPs or other intermediaries that don’t have the infrastructure to maintain the data retained.

In conclusion, governments should take action to protect human rights online.  International treaties on human rights are very clear when they impose obligations on states. Governments not only have to respect human rights but they should also provide conditions for the exercise of such rights.  But when policy makers take on this job, they must do so with CARE.

---