Internet perceived as a fundamental right

By David Neal on Mar 9, 2010 7:16 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Global attitudes to online access.

The majority of people think that internet access is a 'fundamental right' for everyone, according to a new report conducted for the BBC World Service.

The survey of 27,000 people showed that four out of five adults across the globe think that they deserve access to the internet.

Around 87 percent of those with internet access said that the web should be 'the fundamental right of all people'. The number was slightly lower for those without internet access at 71 percent.

The belief was even greater in certain geographical areas. Some 96 percent of people in South Korea believe that web access is a right, and 94 percent in Mexico.

Around 78 percent of respondents said that the internet gives them greater freedom, 90 percent said that it is an important educational tool, and 51 percent cited the need to access social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace.

However, almost half of web users are concerned about privacy issues, and 65 percent are worried about expressing their opinions online. This was most often seen in South Korea (70 percent), France (69 percent), Germany (72 percent) and China (55 percent).

Online fraud is also an issue for many people, according to the survey, and just under a third said that this is what worried them most.

The survey was carried out by GlobeScan to support a new range of programming on the BBC World Service.

"Despite worries about privacy and fraud, people around the world see access to the internet as their fundamental right. They think the web is a force for good, and most do not want governments to regulate it," said GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller.

Internet perceived as a fundamental right

10 comments in this discussion

"@Ace - I found it ridiculous that kids at school are allowed to use calculators at all for basic maths. If it was allowed in Maths II, Applied Maths whatever the current fashionable name was at ..."

By legless

Tags

cent, per, access, internet, people, right

UK teen cyber activist bailed without Internet access

BHP Billiton funds fibre for outback town

Telstra plans repair to North Bundaberg

Telstra skirts SEA-ME-WE3 cable limits

Breaking Stories

BigPond emails will be stored overseas

Google shapes as digital dividend dark horse

Oracle buys Taleo for $1.76 billion

Scientists tout super-fast hard drives

Alstom Transport eyes single project system

Comments: 10

FrankJackson Mar 9, 2010 8:53 AM	Indeed it should be a fundamental right to be able to communicate with your peers without hindrance, censorship or fear.
anonymous Mar 9, 2010 10:47 AM	Now all we need to do is convince the comms minister that this fundamental right overrides the opinions of people who think they should have the right to impose secret religious or political censorship on the Net.
ITrant Mar 9, 2010 2:00 PM	Governments and government departments around the world are making the internet their primary means of interacting with citizen's. This makes it more fundamental than post or telephone. On the other hand, other government departments, under pressure of various corporations (including churches), wish to deprive citizens of this particular liberty (look up that word to see what it really means), a criminal sanction - in some cases on allegation alone, or for religious or political purposes. A clear case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, in the most serious sense. On one hand, establishing the internet as a fundamental device of the social contract, and on the other, inept meddling with that device and therefore the social contract itself. What are the odds you and I will vote for these ignoramuses (both sides of politics) at the next election? Let's make it none. Vote independent or Green.
Ace Mar 9, 2010 3:54 PM	Are there any other 'fundamental human rights' you have to pay for? This probably seems inconceivable to some younger people, but not that long ago, I had the right 'communicate with your peers without hindrance, censorship or fear', when there was no www at all! If someone invents a new communication medium, am I automatically allowed to use it 'without hindrance, censorship or fear'? Someone needs to tell facebook/twitter etc these rules. Perhaps even the people who operate this forum (who censored my post when I disagreed with an article)!
umbria Mar 9, 2010 4:33 PM	The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights might have a few things to offer to this discussion: Article 12. * No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 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. Article 26. * (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Article 27. * (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Article 29. * (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. * (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. * (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Food for thought.
FrankJackson Mar 9, 2010 5:00 PM	"Someone needs to tell facebook/twitter etc these rules. Perhaps even the people who operate this forum (who censored my post when I disagreed with an article)!" @Ace: There is a slight difference here. Blanket censorship as done by government is bad. Believe me I know all about it. I am old enough to remember the days before the internet, but I was unfortunately in a country where you could not communicate without fear or censorship. (This is not China, Iran or an Arabic state). U2 was banned and Illegal to own (apparently contained terrorist ideals?!?!?!?!) Twitter, youtube, facebook are all sites that you agree to a policy at the time you sign up. These are not "public owned" areas even though they are mostly publicly accessible. Think about it as the same as visiting your friends house... Its not illegal to swear or burp loudly - but in your friends house its not really OK and they are offended by it. Its their choice to ask you to leave if you don't want to adhere to their rules. The same goes for twitter and facebook. The rules of the sites are governed by their owners and rightfully so. The restrictions we are talking about is when the government decides what you should not see on facebook and twitter - even though the owners of the site may feel its not against their house rules. Its when government starts controlling what we see and hear that things get dangerous. Government imposed restrictions above site restrictions is like them coming into YOUR house and telling you that you should not swear or burp loudly.
Ace Mar 10, 2010 2:06 PM	facebook has some 300 million users (apparently). When dealing with such a large number of people, any censorship could indeed be regarded as 'blanket'. Any sign-up policy will wither under corporate responsibility and government whims. However, I think my point was regarding the 'fundamental human rights' comment, which seemed a bit over the top. My understanding of human rights is that they are there to protect the welfare of people, their survival, education, and a safe and happy existence - regardless of race, creed or religion. They do not include material things, access to technology and the like. As such, I can't see how one could consider internet access a 'fundamental human right' (which presumably would mean a fundamental right to a computer, network, electricity and all the things internet access depends upon).
anonymous Mar 10, 2010 4:52 PM	@Ace, what can be considered fundamental to human rights changes over time as our views change. No one today would seriously propose returning to the workhouses of the seventeenth century, though no doubt they were considered a good idea at the time. It seems the Net has become such a universal comms channel that anyone with no access at all will be disadvantaged for education and other purposes.
Ace Mar 10, 2010 11:31 PM	I was disadvantaged because I didn't have a calculator at school, while some others did (it was the height of technology in the school at the time). However, no-one ever considered it a fundamental human right to have a calculator, then, or any other time after then that I am aware of. There is and will always be people who advantaged or disadvantaged because of their circumstance. Since education is in fact a fundamental human right, we should not allow young people to be disadvantaged by attending Bankstown South when there are far superior private schools they could be attending. Isn't that a far better 'advantage' than internet access? Then looking beyond our shores, I would hazard a guess that there is a very large chunk of the worlds population who would consider internet access an extremely distant 'nice-to-have' over basic human rights.
legless Mar 11, 2010 9:07 AM	@Ace - I found it ridiculous that kids at school are allowed to use calculators at all for basic maths. If it was allowed in Maths II, Applied Maths whatever the current fashionable name was at the time, everyone should have had access to a calculator or no one.