The BBC World Service has conducted a poll of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries to answer one primary question: is internet access a fundamental human right? We can skip right past Finland and Estonia who've already
made laws to that effect, and take a look at what the other nations thought. Mexico, Korea and Brazil lead the way here with all having greater than 90 percent agreement, while Pakistan, India and Kenya -- countries with a slightly different perception of what fundamental needs are -- offer the least support, though they're all still above 50 percent in agreement. Other interesting stats include the claim by 85 percent of Japanese internet users and 81 percent in Mexico that they would not be able to "cope without the internet," while 55 percent of Brits and most other European nations believe that the internet should be regulated by governments in at least some way. Ghana and Nigeria are most worried about fraud (ha!), while people in the Philippines see explicit content as the web's biggest threat. Hit the source for more such pearls of wisdom and do let us know what you think in the comments below.
posted March 9th 2010 6:37AM
n
holy crap the girl on the right looks like Kendra. But who am i kidding
@ dkraves
If you don't have any thing to add to the conversation get out of the posts.
@25i
There are plenty of places to go to church. Would it be OK for the government to close the church in your neighborhood, and tell you to attend the church in the next town?
I'd say no.
Lulz look at the lady in the background playing WoW
@ike760 I wonder which one has that kitten/duckling screensaver
79% of adults are wrong.
@Darkroom I hope we don't get a law like that passed. It's stupid. You don't have the right to internet access. People seem to not know what fundamental rights actually are. We don't have property rights in this country, but you want rights to internet access, which is far less important? Freedom of speech, thought, privacy, and equal protection (under the law) are fundamental rights. Access to some websites is not. Nor should it ever be.
There is no such thing as a "fundamental right." The only "fundamental rights" we have are the rights we have successfully fought for.
@nealg
That's not quite true. If you're an American, you believe that we have inalienable rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. We're all born with these rights. They are not the governments to hand out.
Of course, there will always be those who want to trample on these rights, or try to claim that they don't exist. Sadly, we may have to fight, and possibly die, for these rights. Because they're priceless, there will always be someone who wants them for themselves.
@Spiny Norman
Post o' the day Spiny Norman... maybe post o' the month.
Engadget needs to go to school to make better headlines. All adults were not surveyed. And only 27K were polled out of the +6.8 billion population. Sure, you have a right to have it, but that doesn't mean I am going to pay for you to have it.
Its all about priorities.
@(Unverified)
No, the headline is correct. In journalism, it's okay to extrapolate poll data, assuming the poll isn't extremely skewed.
For example, the article "Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage" (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx), there was no poll that asked all ~305 million Americans. They polled about 1,000 Americans. News organizations do headlines like this all the time.
Also, the poll was about web access, not free or government-supplied web access.
@25i
Where did I say that the government should pay for it? I said the government can't f*ck with it without due process. It's up to each individual to pay for their service.
I pay for newspaper subscription. The government can't come on my porch and pick up my newspaper in the morning.
Internet is a fundamental right just like gas stations! We could live with out them we just couldn't go very far. Its a technology, it grows and develops over time. We should be allowed to use it, but its not a right that we where denied, ever. . . So its just a tool.
Give me liberty (porn) or give me death.
I sent it in too! They keep ignoring my posts!
79% of adults and 99 if not 100% of teenagers.
I think most people here are mixing up the right to web access with the right to free web access. This has nothing to do with "getting off your butt" and working for anything.
Maybe I'm mixed up, but I believe they're saying that it may (or may not) be okay to charge $400 a month for 56kbps Internet access where certain illegal websites are blocked, but it's not okay for the govt to block ISPs from giving access to anyone in the state of South Carolina because they're worried about kids seeing Internet pr0n. I tend to agree with that sentiment, as the Internet has become a crucial part of business, news media, government services and human culture.
Interesting thread. Perhaps I misinterpreted the article, but I got the impression that it was about access to the internet, not *free* access to the internet in the form of government subsidized service.
As an American, you can't have inalienable rights if you allow the government putting up roadblocks to those rights.
For example, the Supreme Court rules last year that we have a right to self defense, and overturned DC's gun ban. Your right to happiness doesn't mean squat if you can't protect yourself. Also, you can't make the argument that since knives are legal, you don't need a gun. The SC clearly put the onus on the government to prove why a particular means of self protection shouldn't be allowed.
The internet is an important communication medium. At this point, I'd say it's more important than physical media. As one or two others posted, in some locals you have to conduct government business through their website. So, how can we have the right to assemble, and speak freely if the government is allowed the power to interfere with our web access? Isn't that like placing a police roadblock in front of the public square? Sure, you can speak freely, just not over here, here, and here. I don't buy it.
The government is not allowed to intercept our phone conversations without a warrant. This falls under the fourth amendment. What power is given to the government that would allow them to interfere with our internet communication with probable cause?
So, be careful about declaring web access a need, and not a right. Millions have died at the hands of tyrants because the government decided that the sheeple didn't need to protect themselves, as the government would do it for them. Millions have been slaughtered because the government decided that religion A was the only allowed religion, and you either like it or it's off with your head.
the only threat to filipinos are northern asians who consider them as pacific islanders.
79 percent? How about health care? GHLGHAUGHAULGHALUGAHL
A fundamental right? Really!??! Somehow we've gotten from "Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as our fundamental rights, to 'anything that I really really want'.
@kitsune
Yeah, I had no idea that existed until a friend tricked me into googling it... :((
I do think everyone in the world at this point should have access to, at this point, mundane technologies such as the internet and home phone service. Do I think the profiteering governments of the world would ever allow such a universally good thing to happen? Not a chance. They have way too much to lose by allowing so many people to see other points of view and philosophies. Not to mention the provider companies that make billions, maybe even trillions, by overcharging anyone who feels the need to have such services.