brother_tempus

he is correct. Internet access is a service and no service ( or good ) can be a right.

If we follow logically that internet acces is a right then so is getting you nails done, or your car repeaired, or your lawn mowed . They must be rights as well.

But they are not .. rights are inalienable to the individual and thus are the actions the individual can demonstrate .. ( speech, silence, defense, etc ...) and come at no cost to the individual or his neighbor.

Services and goods do come at a cost ( in resources and labor ) and thus there must be payment for them and so are not free and therefore not a right

Zen0

Agreed. Internet use is not something that we need, and is incapable of being classified as a right. That said, the right to privacy does exist and is necessarily connected to the Internet given its nature. Therefore any restrictions and regulation put upon Internet services ought to be crafted with the protection of individual privacy rights in mind. To do otherwise would be a direct impediment on our individual and inalienable right to privacy and would be aptly labelled unconstitutional. The key word in all of this is ought ... Unfortunately, the world we find ourselves living in very rarely lives up to the world we ought to be living in.

Although I'm skeptical of the Commissioner's stance and his overall capability of understanding the limitless positive potential of free Internet access, his statement as mentioned above is technically correct.

brother_tempus

That said, the right to privacy does exist and is necessarily connected to the Internet given its nature

The right of privacy is privacy from government intrusion only

When you sign up for internet access or use any web-based service there is an agreement ( usually an EULA ) that states the terms and conditions of your use ... by using that service you have agreed to waive any privacy you may wish to have.