Is Internet access a fundamental human right?


Should Internet access be seen as a fundamental human right, in the same category as the right to free speech or clean drinking water? The United Nations says it should, but in a New York Times (s nyt) op-ed, one of the fathers of the Internet argues it shouldn’t. Vint Cerf is the co-creator of the TCP/IP standard the global computer network is built on, so when he says something about the impact of the Internet, it’s probably worth paying attention to. But is he right? And what are the implications if he’s wrong?

Cerf’s position is somewhat surprising because, as even he acknowledges in his piece for the NYT, the events of the “Arab Spring” in 2011 reinforced just how powerful internet access can be when it comes to enabling dissidents in places like Egypt and Tunisia to co-ordinate their efforts and bring down authoritarian governments — despite attempts by dictators in those countries to shut down their access. Cerf is also the “chief Internet evangelist” at Google (s goog), so it seems a little odd he would be downplaying the need for widespread internet access and the benefits that it brings to society.

Cerf: Access is not a right, but it enables other rights

In a nutshell, Cerf’s argument seems to be that if we define Internet access itself as a right, we are placing the focus on the wrong thing. The ‘Net, he says, is just a technological tool that enables us to exercise other fundamental rights, such as the right to free speech or access to information — and rights should not be awarded to tools, but to the ends that they enable us to reach. As he puts it:

[T]echnology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things.

In the past, says Cerf, we might have seen access to a horse as being a fundamental right in some way, since horses were a requirement for making a living. But the important thing to protect in that equation would be the right to make a living, he says, not necessarily the right to own a horse. Later in his essay, Cerf says a case could be made for seeing access to the Internet as a civil right — that is, a right awarded to us by governments, rather than one that exists inherently in us as human beings — but he shies away from arguing that this should be protected by governments.

One of the arguments against seeing Internet access as a fundamental right is that doing this places all kinds of potential burdens on society — including the potential costs of delivering access to millions or potentially billions of people. Although Cerf doesn’t raise this point, author and former Cato Institute director Adam Thierer makes that case in a post at the Technology Liberation Front, saying anyone who supports Internet access as a right has to answer two important questions: “Who or what pays the bill for classifying the Internet or broadband as a birthright entitlement? [and] what are the potential downsides for competition and innovation from such a move?”

What does seeing access as a right mean?

Thierer argues that not only could ensuring that kind of fundamental right bankrupt governments or societies if followed to its logical conclusion (and should it be just simple access, or is high-speed a right as well?) but that areas where things are determined to be “essential” services often suffer from a lack of competition. In other words, Thierer says, by promoting Internet access for all as a right, governments could actually wind up retarding progress by making it difficult for new entrants to compete:

[C]ompetition often doesn’t develop — or is sometimes prohibited outright — in sectors or for networks that are declared “essential” facilities or technological entitlements. That’s not because they are natural monopolies, rather, it’s because the policies that lawmakers and regulators put in place to ensure universal service ultimately have the counter-productive impact of retarding new entry.

But whether we define Internet access as a fundamental human right or simply a civil right, aren’t we taking a risk by not calling it a right at all? I think we are — and the risk is that it makes it easier for governments to place restrictions on access or even shut it down entirely (a point the United Nations made in its recent report). As JD Rucker notes in a blog post, seeing Internet access as a right is no different from seeing access to medical treatment or clean drinking water as a right. Cars may not be a right, but the ability to move about freely certainly is — and the internet is more like the highway system than it is a car or a horse.

That’s not to say governments have to bankrupt themselves to ensure that everyone has fiber to the curb by their house, only that protections and principles need to be in place that make it available wherever possible — just as we try to make housing and food available to all, not necessarily mansions and high-end restaurants. The Internet is a fundamental method of communication and connection, and is becoming more fundamental all the time, as we’ve seen in the Middle East and elsewhere. Seeing it as a right is an important step towards making it available to as many people as possible.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Ryan Franklin and Ray Dehler



Several people have made a VERY important distinction: The thing that should be a right is to have no government interference with one’s access to the Internet.
Similarly, in the USA, the First Amendment to our Constitution provides “freedom of the press” (literally, the right to create and distribute speech in printed form using a printing press). It does not create a right to be provided with a newspaper subscription, or even government-subsidized printing presses. Get it?

So, the correct way to understand a “right to Internet access” should be that it is something the government cannot take away from citizens.

With that definition, it should be obvious to freedom-loving people everywhere that such a right is clear. In fact, one could argue that U.S. law already supports such a right, since the First Amendment freedom of speech (and the press) has been understood to cover speech in many different forms.


In my part of the world we tell young ones that access is a privilege never a right as it relates to how one react or behaves when they are online


Why don’t we have a RIGHT TO KNOWLEDGE and have every country create a National Recommended Reading List. The Internet and a library are similar in that the important information may be there but most of it is crap or watered down. If the RIGHT books were just listed more then 90% of them could be eliminated. A really great book list would be worth more than the Internet.

I know there are lots of book lists on the net. I’ve seen one with over 3,000 books, alphabetical by author. No mention of subject.

How about: The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase
It is about linguistics and thought and lots of people spewing out BS. Computers and the Internet enable more BS production and distribution.


Some are arguing that people don’t need it to survive. Well, I beg to differ. Perhaps in America it’s not vital to everyone’s survival, but the internet saves lives in Mexico and the Middle East. In Mexico, for example, the drug cartels have forced the media to keep silent about their actions. Several reporters have died already because they reported “too much” information. Citizens depend on the media to tell them what’s happening, but that invaluable information is blocked by drug cartels.

Consequently, they resort to using internet applications such as Twiiter to inform friends and family about shootings and deaths. The internet is a powerful medium that informs the public and protects people’s civil rights and liberties.

China’s government is another example of oppression; they control the dissemmination of information everywhere, on the internet, the news, advertisements, movies, etc. The internet connects people, offers awareness, and inspires change.

I’ve traveled much of the world, and I can vouch that the internet should be considered both a human and civil right.


Human rights have been the same since the first humans. Even Creationists would say that is a very long time. Something that was invented 5 seconds ago (relatively) is not a human right. The Net is simply a means.

Chris Rossini

Since “the Internet” is a product of human labor, access to it cannot be a “right.”

Person A cannot have the “right” to Person B’s labor (or the product of his/her labor). Such a situation turns Person B into a type of serf.

After all, in years passed, slaveowners claimed the right to all of the labor of their slaves. Was this a natural part of nature, or artificial? We all know the answer.

We can never have a *natural* right to another person’s labor or production. Since “the Internet” is not superabundant for all (like oxygen), but a product of human labor, other humans cannot naturally have a “right” to procuring it for themselves. The only right they have is to *voluntary* make a transaction with the provider(s).

Ross Stapleton-Gray

If access to clean drinking water is a fundamental human right, then we as humans are failing many, many millions of people.

Richard Bennett

The United Nations has not declared Internet access a human right, representations by Kravets not withstanding. One “special rapporteur” offered that opinion to the UN, but he was hired to provide them with provocative opinions. There hasn’t been a motion or a vote by the actual body of the UN to make such an assertion.

Technology companies are not going to back the “human rights” meme because it will inevitably subject them and the Internet economy as a whole to more regulation and scrutiny. See my blog post at High Tech Forum,

The most interesting part – and the most dangerous one – in Cerf’s essay is his exhortation for technologists to weigh in on tech policy issues from a political perspective rather than a technical one. That’s a recipe for disaster.

Mathew Ingram

Thanks, Richard — and I agree that one of the reasons why technologists and tech companies might want to avoid the issue is because they are concerned about government control and regulation. Appreciate the comment.

Richard Bennett

I should add that UN “Special Rapporteurs” are unpaid volunteers.

Kathy E Gill

A couple more: Finland made access to broadband a legal right in 2009:

Ditto Spain:

How is this different from universal service with telephony? Are we splitting hairs? The argument reminds me of driver’s license as “right” or “privilege”. If we consider “rights” those embodied in the Constitution (amendments are part of the Constitution) then we know that “regulation” is possible, think about the “shouting fire in crowded theatre” example of speech rights.

Jose P Isern Comas

Every human being should have an opportunity to use information society services, ultimate goal “within arm’s reach”. Yes, Internet is more than just technology.

Kathy E Gill

I came straight here after I saw Vint’s column in the NYT today because I felt pretty sure you’d help me clarify my own thinking and that you might reflect my “you’re wrong” knee-jerk reaction. I have to think about this some more, no time right now, though; thanks for this. You might also look at this by Robert David Graham (@ErrataRob):

Walter Abbott

If internet access is a civil right because it distributes information that enables citizens to be informed, how come a newspaper subscription never was also a civil right?

At one time, that format was the most comprehensive information distribution system available.

Could it be that newspaper publishers recognized that ANY government guarantee of access would infringe upon their independence from government interference? Which is what will happen once decrees universal access to the internet a “right.”

Jessica Alison Nazar

If Internet access is a right then does it necessarily have to be provided by civil governments?

Internet access is not a right in the sense that it should be provided, but it is absolutely a right in the sense that it must be protected. Civil governments should not have the power to restrict access but also shouldn’t be responsible for ensuring it.

Mathew Ingram

That’s a great way of describing it, Jessica — I think you are correct, in that it needs to be seen as a right so that it can be protected, but not a right that governments have to necessarily provide. Thanks for the comment.


I agree with Cerf. Universal access to the net is not a right. Does that mean I think not everyone should have access to the net? Absolutely not but as the article suggests, by making it a right there is a burden placed on society to provide connectivity. In the workplace, productivity losses can not be fought because an employee can argue that their human rights are being violated.

Mathew Ingram

Thanks for the comment, Paul, but I don’t think just because something is a right it means the government has to pay for it. The right to a free press doesn’t mean everyone gets a press, only that the government ensures that the right to publish and to engage in free speech is not curtailed unnecessarily.

Jessie Nelson

Great article. I feel like there are so many software options to choose from every day. Right now I can’t get through a day without: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Skype and Bizodo (form builder, project management and CRM in one; I know there are other ones too that are great but sometimes I feel like software overload!

MikeCap (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Maybe the right that needs to be defined is the right to unfettered information. The Internet is a disruptive, decentralized, democratizing set of technologies, but at their core all that they accomplish is distributing information. Regimes want to censor and stifle the flow of information; I think then the essential human right to consider is “freedom of information”.

Mathew Ingram

Good point, Mike — thanks for the comment. I agree that what we need to protect is more what the internet allows rather than the internet itself, I’m just not sure how to accomplish that.

Roberto D. Olivares

Absolutely. My first thought was Internet is not a “fundamental human right”, freedom is, thus, freedom of information is a fundamental human right.

Comments are closed.