Internet Access: Is it a human right?

June 6, 2011 by

I read with interest a report on Mashable about a new UN declaration that states Internet Access is a human right, and disconnecting people from the Net is against International Law. The main reason I think it’s interesting is that, not too long ago, Internet access was seen more as a luxury than a necessity.

It’s fascinating to see how that view has changed now, with Internet access being seen as much more than a mere luxury item.

Reading through the UN report (yes, I have read it) also makes for very interesting reading if you can handle the necessarily formal tone of the writing. I particularly liked this quote from the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report:

“Unlike any other medium, the Internet enables individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders. By vastly expanding the capacity of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is an “enabler” of other human rights, the Internet boosts economic, social and political development, and contributes to the progress of humankind as a whole.”

Wow – and I thought it was just for playing games and tweeting! Seriously, though, think back to those days when the Net was populated solely by bespectacled geeks writing in AOL chat rooms. Not that there’s a problem with being a geek, obviously, but there was a definite nerdy perception of Internet users. Now we see the Internet described as an enabler of human rights which contributes to the progress of humankind as a whole.

With this in mind, the UN recommends against restricting people’s Internet access unless there is a clear legal reason for doing so and an understanding that Internet blocks are the least restrictive course of action in any given case. The Special Rapporteur also expresses concern that legitimate online expression is being criminalised in contravention of States’ international human rights obligations, for example shutting off the Internet to prevent messages spreading that the government would prefer to censor.

It seems to me that the core “human right” here is the right to express an opinion and the right to access information rather than the right to have an Internet connection itself. It’s just that the Internet is such a powerful and all-pervasive tool for these ends, the two are starting to become almost inseparable.

I’d be very interested to know what you think about this. Is the UN right to say that removing someone’s Internet access could count as a breach of human rights? Is the Internet really a great tool contributing to the progress of humankind? Do you have something else you want to say about this issue? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.

Filed Under: Tech Tagged With: , , ,

Games allowing gamers to commit war crimes

November 25, 2009 by

The debate about whether violence in video games has a real-world effect is an old one. I can certainly remember the consternation over the original Doom game, and I’d be willing to bet that wasn’t the first time someone had wondered whether games were having a detrimental effect on society.

Two Swiss human rights organisations, Trial and Pro Juventute, have compiled a detailed report on whether twenty popular games allow (or in some cases encourage) players to violate International Human Rights Legislation during the course of play. The tests included whether the player is required to commit a prohibited action, whether non-player characters (NPCs) do, or whether the player is permitted to act illegally without sanction. Prohibited actions include shooting injured soldiers, firing on a protected building (e.g. church or mosque), torture, and firing on non-combatants.

The outcome of the report is summarised on Trial’s introductory page:

The report thus recommends that game developers avoid creating scenarios that easily lead to violations of the rules regulating armed conflicts. More generally, the report underlines that, as certain games illustrate, there are means of incorporating rules that encourage the gamer to respect human rights and international humanitarian law. Such an approach should be further developed, in order to create players with a more accurate perspective of what is lawful and what is not in real armed conflict situations or law enforcement operations.

War is supposed to be fought according to certain rules, and any simulation of war should include those rules if it hopes to be accurate. But therein lies the problem for me, games aren’t necessarily supposed to be simulations, or educational tools, but entertainment. The main thrust of games development isn’t adherence to the law, but entertaining the player… and that’s a difficult tension to resolve.

Is there a moral obligation on games designers to ensure that human rights are upheld in their games? That’s a big debate, and there’s no doubt that some of the actions in games are wrong from a moral standpoint (attacking civillians in an airport, for instance) but then games aren’t meant to be moral teachers any more than movies or novels are.

In the end, this is a debate that’s going to rumble on for a long, long time. I can see the point of the report, and agree with some of it… I’m just not sure that games will ever reach the stage Trial and Pro Juventute want them to because, at a basic level, that’s not what games are for.

I do want to end on a light note, though… One of the reasons a character might commit human rights violations is so that we know how evil they are! It gives the story purpose if your mission is to “stop the bad man”. But are there better ways to distinguish the “goodies” from the “baddies”? Enjoy this clip from Mitchell and Webb about that very subject :)

What do you think of the report? Should games allow players to take morally dubious actions? Should they portray such actions in NPCs? Do you have another point to make? Let us know in the comments!

Filed Under: Fun, Media, News Tagged With: , , , , ,