Tries to be anonymous, but Google knows better. Looks like this is mostly a Deutsche Telekom AG project. Someone has to make money providing this "right".
Currently, ahumanright.org is designing a pilot program for a developing country to roll out 10,000 end-user devices and ground stations to test the feasibility of such an idea using pre-existing satellite infrastructure. On their board, the organization has had people like the late Senator Gaylord Nelson, principal founder of Earth Day International; Lon Levin, founder of XM Satellite Radio; and Simon P. Warden, Director of the NASA Ames Research Center. So far, ahumanright.org has secured funding from Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile) and are looking for volunteers.
You're not supposed to be able to read the majority of the text. That's the point, analogous to the majority of the population which doesn't have access to broadband. It's supposed to feel frustrating and exclusionary.
Yes, I'm afraid I gave up reading it after a couple of clicks.
No, mysterious group hiding its identity, I will not invest more mouse clicks just to read your advertising spiel. If you want me to read something you can give it to me in plain twelve-point text, thanks.
> I think it is a mistake to make something a human right that has to be provided by somebody else.
So you don't believe in property rights; the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser? All of these things require someone else to do something they might not be paid to do or would be paid by the government to do through tax revenue.
Take a look at the South African Bill of Rights - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_South_Africa_Ch... - it includes rights to education, health care, water, access to information and human dignity (which many of the other rights are a result of).
Perhaps it is a result of our history, but I don't see why promoting a basic standard of living through socio-economic rights is a mistake - you can't properly exercise your right to freedom of speech (which I assume is the sort of right that you are in favour of) without food and water.
Their page finishes "...Because access to information is a human right" and it sort of is:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Looks to me like they are saying "we will build a free communications network because equal access to information is a human right" not "because it should be a human right".
(Also, "protection from X" is mentioned in several of the articles in the universal declaration and that always has to be provided by somebody else. So does the court of law and the other countries to which you have a right to travel).
Agreed about the lucky part, but I generally disagree with saying "X is a human right." Because different resources are always competing with each other at the margin so if you put in a huge campaign for Internet access, etc, you're probably crowding out other valuable infrastructure, like plumbing or electricity.
Furthermore you can take things too far. Water is so cheap in the US because "it's a human right" but this doesn't mean that it's above the laws of supply and demand, which in Southern California anyway means that people still take long showers during droughts, because the water's not priced at market level. See more here http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=davi...
On another note, just putting in Ethernet lines and computers won't have magic side effects. I was in India last spring, and when I went out to the field most places generally had a computer. However it was almost always under-utilized; for example in one place the computer had been off for 2 months because the mouse was broken, and another place had Photoshop and was using it only to resize images because they didn't know how to use it.
I would like to believe these guys but the figures seem a little low and I couldn't find a citation. What does 'access' mean here? How do they define 'broadband'?
Their campaign to try to equate internet access with a human right is unfortunate.
It takes whats a very sensible overall idea that almost everybody agrees with (increasing the unhindered flow of information) and immediately makes it sound bad or controversial to a large and influential part of the technical community.
Wait, wait. It's "A FREE COMMUNICATION NETWORK AVAILABLE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD" yet only accessible to "95%" of the world's population? .. either "95%" have the technology to access it, or 5% live in outer space .. or did I miss something.
Or 5% live on Earth, have the access available, but don't have the cognitive ability to use it (babies, mentally disabled, physically disabled, presumably).
[+] [-] ynniv|15 years ago|reply
Currently, ahumanright.org is designing a pilot program for a developing country to roll out 10,000 end-user devices and ground stations to test the feasibility of such an idea using pre-existing satellite infrastructure. On their board, the organization has had people like the late Senator Gaylord Nelson, principal founder of Earth Day International; Lon Levin, founder of XM Satellite Radio; and Simon P. Warden, Director of the NASA Ames Research Center. So far, ahumanright.org has secured funding from Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile) and are looking for volunteers.
[ https://www.stanford.edu/group/sdg/cgi-bin/dev/liber/?q=node... ]
Palomar5’s main sponsor has been Deutsche Telekom AG, one of the world’s leading telecommunication companies.
[ http://www.gaffta.org/tag/palomar5/ ]
EDIT: As if to prove my point:
As the CTO of Deutsche Telekom Thomas Curran advised us: “You’re evangelizing for access, expanding it. That can only help the industry.”
[ http://www.blog.ahumanright.org/2010/10/buy-that-satellite/ ]
[+] [-] wccrawford|15 years ago|reply
What a horrible design.
[+] [-] Lagged2Death|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NickPollard|15 years ago|reply
[0] http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/
[+] [-] hugh3|15 years ago|reply
No, mysterious group hiding its identity, I will not invest more mouse clicks just to read your advertising spiel. If you want me to read something you can give it to me in plain twelve-point text, thanks.
[+] [-] wyclif|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VMG|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnaritas|15 years ago|reply
So you don't believe in property rights; the right to an attorney; the right to a trial by jury; the right of a speedy trial; protection from unreasonable search and seizure; the right to confront your accuser? All of these things require someone else to do something they might not be paid to do or would be paid by the government to do through tax revenue.
[+] [-] kilps|15 years ago|reply
Perhaps it is a result of our history, but I don't see why promoting a basic standard of living through socio-economic rights is a mistake - you can't properly exercise your right to freedom of speech (which I assume is the sort of right that you are in favour of) without food and water.
[+] [-] billswift|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cromulent|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jodrellblank|15 years ago|reply
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Looks to me like they are saying "we will build a free communications network because equal access to information is a human right" not "because it should be a human right".
(Also, "protection from X" is mentioned in several of the articles in the universal declaration and that always has to be provided by somebody else. So does the court of law and the other countries to which you have a right to travel).
[+] [-] kevinburke|15 years ago|reply
Furthermore you can take things too far. Water is so cheap in the US because "it's a human right" but this doesn't mean that it's above the laws of supply and demand, which in Southern California anyway means that people still take long showers during droughts, because the water's not priced at market level. See more here http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=davi...
On another note, just putting in Ethernet lines and computers won't have magic side effects. I was in India last spring, and when I went out to the field most places generally had a computer. However it was almost always under-utilized; for example in one place the computer had been off for 2 months because the mouse was broken, and another place had Photoshop and was using it only to resize images because they didn't know how to use it.
[+] [-] sbt|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CPops|15 years ago|reply
It takes whats a very sensible overall idea that almost everybody agrees with (increasing the unhindered flow of information) and immediately makes it sound bad or controversial to a large and influential part of the technical community.
[+] [-] xd|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jodrellblank|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TGJ|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psawaya|15 years ago|reply
http://www.blog.ahumanright.org/2010/10/buy-that-satellite/
[+] [-] trikkia|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vivtek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] earl|15 years ago|reply