Law
Based on the article of Cerf (2012), he stated that internet access is not either a civil right or a human right. Internet access is powered by technology and technology is a means to enable rights, but cannot be considered as a right in itself. Cerf (2012) equates human right to one that refers to critical freedom or liberties guaranteed under the Constitution such as the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of access to information among others. Internet access is only a precondition for enjoying a number of human rights. The transformative nature of the internet does not only enable the individuals to exercise their freedom of expression, but to enjoy a range of human rights such as the right to health, right to education and the right to equality of gender among others (Jorgensen, 2013, p.93).
On the other hand, human rights are conferred to the people because they are rights that are intrinsic to them as human beings. This can be differentiated from civil rights which are rights that are conferred to the people by law. The right to internet access is part of the universal service obligation of the state to meet the right of the citizens to access a certain level of communicative infrastructure (Jorgensen, 2013, p.93). The enjoyment of the public over internet access cannot be regarded as a human right by the United Nations system. The reasonable expectation of the internet users is that internet access is the universal service obligation of the state and that once the public is connected to the internet, the state cannot interrupt the user’s ability to access the internet (Jorgensen, 2013, p.93).
In the U. S., the government did not create any policy that makes the use of telephone as a universal “right” or as standard service to be given to all. This can be equated to other public services such as electricity and which is provided in the far flung areas within the country. However, the notion that making internet access as a civil right and to obligate the government to enact a policy that will guarantee internet access should is untenable. The main point of this controversy is that the responsibility of technology creators have also been supportive of the idea the internet access should become part of the human and civil rights. According to Cerf (2012), while it may be true that access to the internet has opened the doors to the opportunity of an egalitarian platform that allows the building, sharing and gathering of data in a global perspective, it does not mean that people are allowed to demand internet as a right. There are other means to exercise human and civil rights given by law but internet access is not one of them.
Internet is just one of the means to improve human existence as it brings families closer even if they live half way across the world. It makes business easier since companies all over the world can conduct teleconferences meetings using Skype. The global businesses are booming since outsourcing becomes more convenient. However, internet access is merely an advantage given to public to make their lives easier. It is a benefit and opportunity that is being enjoyed to enhance human existence. Hence, internet access cannot be considered as a human right because it cannot be demanded from the government since there is no law which recognizes it as part of the universal right. In fact, the government is not duty-bound to provide internet access as a universal service to the public.
Moscaritolo (2012) stated that internet has become an essential tool to activate a range of human rights. Based on the report of the United Nations, although internet is a worthwhile means to an end, internet was not the end on its own. Thus, the public cannot demand or protest for inequality or injustice of internet access was not provided by the government as part of their basic rights. Although majority of the public believe that internet is one of the essential human rights, they are all mistaken since it is merely an indispensable instrument to achieve human rights.
In fact, there are also several legal issues involving internet access such as the security of online users and piracy (Moscaritolo, 2012). Internet is a product of technology to improve the way of life. Hence, it cannot be considered as a human right since a human right refers to that which makes life more healthy and meaningful such as personal liberties and freedom of thought (Cerf, 2012).
Another human rights issue in connection to the online sphere is that of the accelerating the power of private actors within this coverage. The free access to a diversity of information sources has been the outcome of the solid trend towards unifying the global online market (Jorgensen, 2013, p.93). Some of the private actors who work in this sphere are the companies which serve as internet service providers, search engine providers and web portals continued to address the human rights issue. These companies have to ensure that they comply with their corporate social responsibility by being the gatekeeper in the infiltration of information, process and tool in democratic culture (Jorgensen, 2013, p.93).
Internet access gives the opportunity for some people to commit crimes. In the article of Myers (2012), he argued that internet is not a human right because it gives perverts such as the man who filmed a 14-year old girl in the shower to overturn the prevention order which prohibited him to access the internet. Myers (2012) criticized the ruling of the Criminal Appeal Court in London which acknowledged internet access as a right that should be given even to sexual offenders. Myers (2012) stated that the judicial approach is absurd to consider internet access as an integral part of human life. As a result, it gives criminals the opportunity to use the internet as a means in accomplishing their criminal desires. Myers (2012) concluded that the value placed on the internet access should not be highly regarded since it is can be used as a means to achieve criminal designs.
In fact, Eterno (2010, p. 225) stated that cybercrime is a criminal activity that makes use of computers and computer networks become the principal means to commit criminal offenses by without due regard to laws, rules and regulations. This only goes to show that internet access should be regulated and cannot be considered as a human right. Some of the most common modern-age cybercrimes include cyber-theft, cyber-trespass, critical infrastructure attacks, money laundering, identity theft, unauthorized access, cyber stalking, and the most prevalent form is child pornography (Eterno, 2010). One of the effective means to deter the rise of cybercrimes is create a task force that which will identify the cyber threats. In this manner, it will be able to directly address the issue of internet access becoming a human right. Some of the internet experts become the perpetrators themselves of cyber-crime laws. These cyber criminals perform criminal offenses such as “identity theft, credit card fraud, critical infrastructure attacks, sexual harassment, unauthorized access, cyber stalking, cyber bullying, money laundering, video pirating, child pornography and enticement of children to engage in sexual conduct” (Eterno, 2010, p. 225).
This illustration signifies that internet access becomes the means the commit cybercrimes which can be regarded as a transgression of privacy rights for it causes the destruction of the right to life and the right to property of the people. It is obligatory on the part of the government to warrant the utmost protection and care of the people by enacting policies that will regulate the use of internet in the furtherance of crimes. In the article of Myers (2012), it presented the fact that many innocent victims fall prey to sexual predators. Internet access may result to child exploitation if the government fails to enforce laws that will ensure the prohibition of cybercrimes. Aside from this, some innocent victims of internet access are bank account holders who become victims to cyber hackers who lose their hard earned money for giving blanket access to the internet. Such cyber crime can be equivalent to the invasion of a person’s right to property.
Internet users should follow policies that will protect them from scrupulous hackers by taking the necessary precautions in securing their computers against viruses, worms and internet hacking (Eterno, 2010). Some of the victims of cybercrimes are not aware of the dangers and repercussions that they have to contend with as they go online. The most common causes of these perils are the free applications which may appear harmless, but in fact exposes their classified data to experienced hackers. Some of the widespread forms of viruses are spywares, worm and Trojan horse among others. The worm is the kind a harmful virus that disables the computer by corrupting the system. Bowen (2003) stated that some other forms of unsafe viruses include stealth ware, typo site and denial of service attacks which may result to the worst crime of identity theft. Hence, the most effective means to protect unassuming computer users is for the legislature to enact laws to regulate internet usage. On the part of the internet users, they must use difficult passwords to be able to ensure the protection of their computers. As part of the preventive measures, the internet users should install dependable anti-virus system to shield their personal computers against hackers and viruses (Bowen, 2003).
Eterno (2010) argued that cybercrimes have been realized since the public is given unlimited access to the internet. With the vast internet usage, many criminals commit cybercrimes in different jurisdictions. The easiest method to accomplish cybercrimes can be done using the internet. Internet access has resulted to globalization and the accomplishment of transnational crimes. In fact, internet has given terrorists and some trafficking enterprises to pursue their operations and business activities (Eterno, 2010). Another crime is cyber stalking as a means to access personal data which is considered as a violation of a person’s right to privacy. Some of the criminals acquire personal information of their victims inside chat rooms by enticing young girls to become victims of human trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography.
If internet access becomes a human right, the access exposes more victims to dangers committed by pedophiles and sex predators. The usual victims are usually13 or 14 years of age and take nude photos of themselves through cameras and post the pictures in internet websites. Child pornography is classified as child exploitation through internet access by enticing the victims (Goel, 2010, p. 139). Several victims of child trafficking are young girls for lack parental guidance as they go online. The report of the Department of Justice in America revealed that the rate of child trafficking increased over the last decade due to internet access and cyber space which allows the distribution of child pornography articles. Child pornography uses digital imaging devises that record videos of nude images of children which is easily circulated online. Internet access makes copying and distribution of pictures and videos more conveniently.
Shariff (2008) argued that some of the cybercriminals use their own websites to accomplish their criminal designs and perform their hostile behavior with the intention to cause harm on other people. Some of the common cybercrime is credit card fraud. These hackers use malicious web sites to mislead their victims to provide personal information including credit card account numbers and bank account numbers. The criminals perform this task through phishing wherein spam email, web sites and instant messaging are sent to account holders asking them to confirm passwords which are meant to secure their bank accounts. However, these hackers obtain the security codes from the victims and use their accounts to transfer funds and use the credit cards to make online purchases. Some of these expert hackers enter the security system of government agencies, banking institutions, schools, credit card companies and commercial establishments through hacking. Another criminal activity that is benefited by using the internet is the spread of terrorism globally. Most of the terrorists use the internet to send message around the globe which helps them complete the commission of these terror attacks. The cyber technology such as internet, communication and transportation has been played significant roles in committing terrorism. It is through globalization which opened the doors towards the emergence of transnational crimes. It provided opportunities for terrorists and trafficking enterprises to expand their operations and perform vast business activities that will ensure them monetary gain and even exploitation of legitimate business enterprises (Eterno, 2010, p. 225).
In one of the reported incident of hacking of banks systems, data is sold to create fraudulent credit cards which were used by criminal syndicates. The hacking syndicate hired attractive young women to use the credit cards to purchase high-end designer handbags and shoes which are later on sold online for a fraction of the real price. This cybercrime is accomplished through phishing where they use spam, email, web sites and instant messaging by deceiving account holders to confirm a password in order to protect a bank account, but will allow criminals to access the bank accounts of the victim. Some of the cyber criminals break into the computer systems of banks, credit card companies, merchants, government agencies, universities, and other organizations through hacking. The stolen personal and financial data of banks and other companies will be sold to create fraudulent bank or credit cards.
The argument of Cerf (2012) has legal basis since internet access is not either a civil right or a human right. Internet access is merely powered by technology and technology is a means to enable rights, but cannot be considered as a right in itself. A human right is one that refers to critical freedom or liberties guaranteed under the Constitution such as the freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of access to information among others. Thus, internet access is only a precondition for enjoying a number of human rights. Jorgensen (2013, p.93) argued that the transformative nature of the internet does not only enable the individuals to exercise their freedom of expression, but only allows a range of basic human rights including the right to health, right to education and the right to equality of gender among others. In the same line of argument, human rights are given to the people because they are something that is intrinsic to them as human beings. This can be differentiated from civil rights which are rights that are conferred to the people by law. The right to internet access should not form part of the universal service obligation of the state to meet the right of the citizens to access a certain level of communicative infrastructure (Jorgensen, 2013, p.93). The contention of the United Nations is commendable that the enjoyment of the public over internet access cannot be regarded as a human right. The public must be able to understand that that they should not expect that internet access is part of the universal service obligation of the state. In fact, it should only be considered as a privilege since internet usage should be subjected to limitation if it is used as a means to commit crimes. Therefore, the state has the right to interrupt the user’s ability to access the internet if it is used as a means in the accomplishment of crimes which wreaks havoc within the community. Cybercrime is considered a violation of the nation’s privacy rights because it destroys the right to life and the right to property of the nation. Hence, the government has to do its part to provide the utmost protection and care to the public. Many of the innocent victims fall victim to child exploitation since the government failed to enact laws that will ensure the abolishment of cybercrime. For the victims such as the bank account holders, they seek protection from losing their hard earned money to the hackers because it constitutes as invasion of a person’s right to property.
References
Bowen, D. (2003). Viruses, Worms, and Other Nasties: Protecting Yourself Online. Department
of Interdisciplinary Studies. Web. 6 December 2013, from
http://www.is.wayne.edu/DRBOWEN/OnlineLife/ProtectingYourself.htm.
Cerf, V.G. (2012). Internet Access Is Not a Human Right. New York Times.com. Web. Retrieved on 2 December 2012, from <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?_r=1&.
Eterno, J. (2010).Police Practices in Global Perspective. MD, USA: Rowman and Littlefield.
Goel, S. (2010). Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime. New York: Springer.
Jorgensen, R.F. (2013). Framing the Net: The Internet and Human Rights. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Moscaritolo, A. (2012). Vint Cerf: Internet Access Not a Human Right. PcMag.com Web.
2 December 2013, from <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398405,00.asp>.
Myers, R. (2012). Internet Access is not a ‘human right’ for perverts or anyone else. The Telegraph. Web. Retrieved on 2 December 2013, from
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/rupertmyers/100189436/>.
Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom and the
Home. New York: Routledge.
Thierer, A. (2012). Vint Cerf on Why Internet Access Is Not a Human Right (+ A Few More Reasons). Tech Liberation.com. Web. Retrieved on 2 December 2012, from
<http://techliberation.com/2012/01/05/vint-cerf-on-why-internet-access-is-not-a-human-right-a-few-more-reasons/>.
Wagner, A. (2012). Is Internet Access a Human Right? The Guardian.com. Web. 2 December 2012, from <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398405,00.asp>.
