The UDHR is not a treaty, so it does not create any direct legal bindings. The article you quote may have been excluded, overwritten or rephrased in your jurisdiction.
Comment on Has ethernet become illegitimate? A librarian flipped out after spotting me using ethernet
coffeeClean@infosec.pub 7 months agoThat “right” is exclusively available to people who:
- have a mobile phone
- who carry it with them
- who have working wifi hardware
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no such limitation on Article 21.
Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
coffeeClean@infosec.pub 7 months ago
The UDHR is not a treaty, so it does not create any direct legal bindings.
Sure, but where are you going with this? Legal binding only matters in situations of legal action and orthogonal to its application in a discussion in a forum. Human rights violations are rampant and they rarely go to The Hague (though that frequency is increasing). Human rights law is symbolic and carries weight in the court of public opinion. Human rights law and violations thereof get penalized simply by widespread condemnation by the public. So of course it’s useful to spotlight HR violations in a pubic forum.
The article you quote may have been excluded, overwritten or rephrased in your jurisdiction.
I doubt it. It’s been a while since I read the exemptions of the various rights but I do not recall any mods to Article 21. The modifications do not generally wholly exclude an article. They typically make some slight modification, such as limiting free assembly (Art.20 IIRC) to /safe/ gatherings so unsafe gatherings can be broken up.
Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
You are still citing the UDHR as it was law. It is not, so nobody needs to modify Article 21 to violate it as long as established law doesn’t recognize it.
If you really want to argue about general guidelines, the UDHR is inadequate because it’s just a draft. What you want is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is its main successor, and is at least a treaty and also ratified by most countries in the world.
Still, ratifying a treaty still doesn’t make it established law, it’s just an obligation to implement the treaty as best as is possible into your domestic jurisdiction. Failure to do so will be met with finger-waggling at the next UN meeting, so it’s more of an apparatus of peer pressure than anything else.
coffeeClean@infosec.pub 7 months ago
I have to say I didn’t downvote you as you’ve been civil and informative so far. But I’m not sure how to cite/quote from the UDHR as though it’s not law. For me it doesn’t matter. From where I sit, many nations signed the UDHR because it has principles worthy of being held in high regard. When the principles are violated outside the context of an enforcement body, the relevance of legal actionability is a separate matter. We are in a forum where we can say: here is a great idea for how to treat human beings with dignity and equality, and here that principle is being violated. There is no court in the loop. Finger wagging manifests from public support and that energy can make corrections in countless ways.
I guess I’m not grasping your thesis. Are you saying that if a solid national law was not breached, then it’s not worthwhile to spotlight acts that undermine the UDHR principles we hold in high regard?
Cort@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I see a lot of downvotes on your comments on this thread and I wonder if it’s due to differences in nationality/geography/jurisdiction. In the USA I know we give free smartphones with working Wi-Fi to people with low incomes as a part of the lifeline program. Some of the libraries I’ve been to even have staff on hand to help low income people find out about these sorts of benefits, and even help them sign up. Maybe they don’t have this sort of program where you’re from?
And I know most people DO carry their phones with them wherever they go these days assuming they haven’t forgotten it somewhere.
Am I missing something? To me, in my area, these limitations would be a choice the user has made.
coffeeClean@infosec.pub 7 months ago
I see that the relevant websites (FCC and lifelinesupport.org) both block Tor so you can’t be poor in need of the Lifeline and simultaneously care about privacy. Many parts of the US have extremely expensive telecom costs. I think I heard an avg figure of like $300/month (for all info svcs [internet,phone,TV]), which I struggle to believe but I know it’s quite costly nonetheless. One source says $300/month is the high end figure, not an avg. Anyway, a national avg of $144/month just for a mobile phone plan is absurdly extortionate.
About Lifeline:
Lifeline provides subscribers a discount on qualifying monthly telephone service, broadband Internet service, or bundled voice-broadband packages purchased from participating wireline or wireless providers. The discount helps ensure that low-income consumers can afford 21st century connectivity services and the access they provide to jobs, healthcare, and educational resources.
So they get a discount. But you say free? Does the discount become free if income is below a threshold? In any case, I’m sure the program gets more phones into more needy hands, which would shrink the population of marginalized people. That’s a double edged sword. Shrinking the size of a marginalized group without completely eliminating it means fewer people are harmed. But those in that group are further disempowered by their smaller numbers, easier to oppress, and less able to correct the core of the problem: not having a right to be analog and be unplugged.
This topic could be a whole Lemmy community, not just a thread. In the US, you have only three carriers: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. I’ve seen enough wrongdoing by all 3 to boycott all 3. I would not finance any them no matter how much money I have. T-Mobile is the lesser of evils but it’s wrong to be forced to feed any of the three as an arbitrary needless precondition to using the library’s public wifi.
US govs do not (AFAIK) yet impose tech on people. I think every gov service in the US has an analog option, including cash payment options. That’s not the case in many regions outside the US. There are already govs that now absolutely force you to complete some government transactions online, along with electronic payments which imposes bank patronisation, even if you boycott the banks for investing in fossil fuels and private prisons. And if you don’t like being forced to use their Google CAPTCHA (which supports Google, the surveillance advertiser who participates in fossil fuel extraction), that’s tough. Poor people are forced to use a PC (thus the library) to do public sector transactions with the gov, as are a segment of elderly people who struggle to use the technology. There is also a segment of tech people who rightfully object, precisely because they know enough about how info traverses information systems to see how privacy is undermined largely due to loss of control (control being in the wrong hands).
So the pro-privacy tech activists are united with the low-tech elderly and the poor together fighting this oppression (called “digital transformation”) which effectively takes away our boycott power and right to choose who we do business with in the private sector. A divide and conquer approach is being used. Giving the poor cheaper tech and giving assistance to the elderly is a good thing but the side effect is enabling the oppression to go unabated. When really the right answer in the end is to not impose shitty options in the first place. It’s like the corp swindle of forced bundling (you can only get X if you also take Y). You should be able to get public wifi without a mobile phone subscription.
The UDHR prohibits discrimination on the basis of what property you have. The intent is to protect the poor, but the protection is actually rightfully bigger in scope because people who willfully opt not to have property are also in the protected class.
It’s all quite parallel to Snowden’s take. The masses don’t care about privacy due to not really understanding it.
“Ultimately, arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” ― Edward Snowden
The idea that activists need both free speech and privacy in order to fight for everyone’s rights is lost on people making the /selfish/ choice to disregard privacy. All those mobile phone users who don’t give a shit about mobile phones being imposed on everyone are missing this concept. The choice to have a mobile phone is dying. It’s gradually and quietly becoming an unwritten mandate.
coffeeClean@infosec.pub 7 months ago
I see a lot of downvotes on your comments on this thread and I wonder if it’s due to differences in nationality/geography/jurisdiction.
Guess I should answer this. The enormous class of people with mobile phones (likely 100% of those in this channel) are happy to be in the included group and any chatter about expanding the included group to include those without a phone (a segment they do not care about), they think: “that extra degree of egalitarian policy to support a more diverse group will cost more and yield nothing extra to me.”
Which is true. But the ignorance is failure to realise that as mobile phones become effectively a basic requirement for everyone, the suppliers will have even less incentive to win your business. The duopolies and triopolies can and will increase prices more and reduce service quality as a consequence of that stranglehold. Most people are too naïve to realise the hold-out non-mobile phone customers are benefiting them even from the selfish standpoint of the mobile phone customers.
catloaf@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Bruh it’s library Internet access, not a human rights violation
coffeeClean@infosec.pub 7 months ago
You need to read Article 21. And as you read it, keep in mind it’s a public library.
GammaGames@beehaw.org 7 months ago
Libraries usually have computers available for use.