Drawing the Line On Human Rights

by Robert L. Gisel

Contemporary advancements of technology requires the drawing of the lines re Human Rights, newly, to keep abreast of the technological advancements and calls for a broader view of the undeniability of Human Rights.The recent discussions re Internet rights violations was brought to my attention by the public access snippet re Gmail and another on Google Images by Gary North, who links to advice on what to do to increase your protections. Check it out and take the steps to enhance your protections.

The hub-hub is that the Internet communications you store in ISPs are subject to unfettered government perusal of your emails. You can see this in news articles by the web site Threat Levels here, re Gmail and re Google images here. Personally, I hope they enjoyed my letters to President Obama.

In July 2009 I asked Obama's Campaign Manager if the President was on drugs. There was also that sage advice of what to do about the Gulf oil spill, not offensive just no minced words. Still, I don't think he got the memo. Then there was that post with the wry references to Obama and his government pursuing the same old agenda as Bush. The earliest was when Senator Obama was still on the campaign trail and I jumped down his throat for his pro-psychiatric voting record that makes him leader of the pack. These posts notwithstanding in the realm of authors and columnists, a broader view of the meaning of this is warranted.

The 4th Amendment concerning unlawful search and seizure guarantees your rights to your property and effects. That is, except for those government actions that are "above the law", which is why we needed the 4th Amendment in the first place.

Should you ever be so unfortunate as to be deemed a terrorist or somehow a threat to state security, which could be created by any franchised redneck fomenting Homeland Security, you are subject to a suspension of your rights immediately. Being seized and carted of to an unknown location without Miranda protections or a call to your attorney, to be secretly held incommunicado indefinitely, blatantly violates a whole parcel of Rights.

You do not even have to be the person deemed suspect but may only be a relative, friend or acquaintance of someone who has been so unfortunate. You can be completely innocent of any charges and under no reasonable suspicion and could find your emails stored in ISP files under perusal with no court ordered authorization. Of course there is the keyword listen in of electronic phone communications as well. I believe the word for it is police state.

This is a matter of the Right to Life, abrogation of, which is worded as such in the founding papers of the United States but did not get singled out in the Bill of Rights.

Literary directness in the last decade well could have prompted a placement on the scale of dissension by any bureaucrat with more self importance than concern for We The People, where standing up for Human Rights, the Constitution or opposition to oppressive government makes you out be "one them we must keep a watch on".

Proclaiming Free Speech seditious has a long history. In the US it goes back to John Adam's controversial Alien and Sedition Act. So this is an area not without previous concerns.Outspoken instances of freedoms of speech have probably gotten more than a few individuals placed on "the list" in the paranoid wake of the 9/11 fiasco. It also opened precedents for new violations of Human Rights. The advent of new technologies as in the Internet as well as electronic phone communications means a need for defining new legal parameters.

The redefining of Human Rights in these respects is an ongoing battle, which we must win on the side of adequate protections.

It's a Public Service Not a Porn Store

by Robert L Gisel


The issue of offering WiFi service on Airlines and whether to filter off porn is an interesting one and has elicited many diverse comments in a lively discussion. It's good to see the lively debate as this is after all a democracy. The matter of rights is also forwarded in the comments following the article but this actually is not an issue.

Common decency and fair play alone will find the airlines observing the rights of others as they regularly would extend politeness and courtesies to their fares. After all they want your business. Don't be surprised though if they later refuse your business after you have done something unthinkably distasteful like deliberately urinate in the aisle way.

Doing business with someone is a matter of mutual agreements and accord not divine right.

In the article the matter is brought up whether the Airlines offering in flight WiFi should filter porn sites so that passengers next to the porn user are not violated by the openly public porn. This is my response to this article and the ensuing comments.

http://current.newsweek.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-c.cgi

"As Pat says:

'All good comments. The airlines, like all businesses, have the right to limit activities on their premises.'

"While I am an ardent advocate of human rights I also recognize that property is property, it is owned. The airplane belongs to the Airline and you are their guest, albeit a paying guest.

"It is really a question of proprietorship on the part of the airlines and manners on the part of the customers. The Airline transports people but also assumes responsibility for their safety as well as customer satisfaction. If you don't like what happens on the flight say so to the Airline or fly with a different carrier. Or take the train. The Airline doesn't have to sell you a ticket to travel on their airplanes if they feel you put their business at risk. Passengers sharing the space with others must be considerate of others as they would be in any public spaces.

"That said, the Airline would have to use a filter delicately limited to porn and nudity and not one that blocks out U-Tube and other non-offensive sites by overlarded blocking. Also the light and noise may invade others sleep besides the open porn that flaunts one's sensibilities. So why not block off a separate area for those who want to use cell phones and laptops. But bring back the smoking section while you are at it."

RightsFreedomsandRights.blogspot.com

The issue should be very simple if you see it as in this example: you loaned your laptop to a friend you would be of rights to ask your friend not to log on to any porn sites. If he fails to heed your reasonable request you can refuse in the future to lend him your laptop. Furthermore if you want to have porn blocks on your laptop prior to lending the computer you are completely of rights to do so. This is even true if you rent it to your friend for a month or so.

Your friend's 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment Rights have nothing to do with this. The disposition of your property is totally up to you. In this same light a restaurant owner has control over the customers of his restaurant, a cabbie of his fares and of course the airline of what happens inside the plane.

In this wise a proper perspective can be maintained and rights not trammeled on or forced into a situation where inapplicable.