securitas writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports on technological change in Estonia, where an enlightened post-Soviet era government believes the Internet is essential for life in the 21st century and backs that up with legislation declaring Internet access is a human right. Estonia is a country where hot, running water was a luxury a decade ago. It's now a place where farmers have broadband Internet, 80% of the people use online banking, Internet usage and broadband penetration rates are comparable to Western Europe, and the government conducts most business (meetings, votes, document reviews, etc.) virtually through a system of networked computers. Not bad for a country that only 10 years ago was a crumbling, bankrupt mess with a network infrastructure to match." This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. Estonia: Where the Internet is a Human Right Log in/Create an Account | Top | 499 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 499 comments 0: 480 comments 1: 336 comments 2: 208 comments 3: 65 comments 4: 40 comments 5: 33 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. A further comment (Score:5, Interesting) by Raindance (680694) * on Sunday July 06, @02:18PM (#6377988) (Last Journal: Monday June 27, @08:41PM) This story is interesting but I think it's a little vague; it would be much better to ask what *kind* of internet is a basic human right (i.e. democratic, decentralized, or centralized, top-down, corporate, or other models). The Estonians seem to be answering this question correctly but it's hardly something that an article like this should gloss over. Re:A further comment (Score:4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, @02:23PM (#6378026) This story is an example of degrading "human" rights by whores in positions of political power.What is next? The Human right to a car? How about the human right to friday's off every six months? [ ParentRe:A further comment by Surak (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @02:28PMI think I already do... by pb (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @02:35PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:A further comment by miruku (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @02:33PMRe:A further comment by sebmol (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @03:02PM Re:A further comment (Score:5, Insightful) by reemul (1554) on Sunday July 06, @03:29PM (#6378413) "How is this degrading Human Rights exactly?" By listing all sorts of "wouldn't it be nice" ideas and privileges as 'rights'. Rights are the biggies--life, liberty, pursuit of property---not this laundry list crap. Calling it a 'right' is just a cynical ploy to make an entitlement impossible to remove or de-fund at some future date. Deciding whether or not the government should pay for internet access is a normal legislative function, if you don't like it vote for somebody else. Getting rid of a 'right' to free internet access becomes a ridiculously tough struggle, with mindless NGO drones from around the world taking to the streets with the giant puppets, for reasons that are never really clear. Calling that sort of nonsense a 'right' is the same as calling some 12-year-old building a website with FrontPage wizards a programmer. It cheapens the title for those that really deserve it. Don't let those imbeciles working on various European constitutions fool you, a right is something fundamental and undisputable, not something it would be kinda nifty to have that you don't want later unenlightened politicos to be able to take away. That's just childish, an example of one-man-one-vote-one-time that doesn't deserve to be even taken seriously. [ Parent Re:A further comment (Score:4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, @03:39PM (#6378485) You have somewhat of a point, but I think the Internet can be classified as a right just as much as the others can be. If you consider that for all pragmatic purposes to interact with the world freely and to share knowledge a right... then the internet seems to fit the bill. Consider gathering people together to discuss an issue at the library. The majority of the people even interested won't even show up for various reasons. Then discuss that over the internet on a halfway decent web board, such as slashdot(oh, well.. a long time ago it was decent ;) [ ParentNot the internet, but facets thereof by Cappy Red (Score:3)Monday July 07, @03:07AMRe:A further comment by linzeal (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @04:18PM Governments can't give rights. (Score:5, Insightful) by ArsSineArtificio (150115) <<ude.uso> <ta> <42.relkniw>> on Sunday July 06, @04:54PM (#6378914) (http://www.zombo.com/) Looking back aren't new rights given in light of their overwhelming need in an ever-changing world? The point is that rights aren't given by anyone, with the philosophical exception of God. They are merely recognized. Modern governments recognize that people have the right to freely express their opinion, to worship as they choose, to assemble, and so on, because those are intrinsic to being human. The poster's point is that by adding "and you have a right to running water, and a right to a 40-hour work week, and a right to Internet access, and a right to a refrigerator, and a right to 99-cent cheeseburgers with your Super Club card", governments cheapen the idea that these are fundamental human attributes and reduce them to the level of merely benefits bestowed by the government. The American model recognizes certain God-given rights in the first ten amendments to the Constitution not to create them, but to acknowledge them so that they cannot be infringed. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments acknowledge that the list is not all-inclusive of the entire spectrum of human rights - it merely enumerates some that are so important that they are worth mentioning on their own. For good or ill, of course, the judiciary has identified more rights over the years which are not specifically enumerated, like "privacy". But the theory is that "privacy" is still not considered a government-given right, because there can't be any such thing - it is intrinsic, and simply doesn't happen to be mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. ASA [ Parent Re:Governments can't give rights. (Score:5, Insightful) by __past__ (542467) on Sunday July 06, @05:39PM (#6379163) The point is that rights aren't given by anyone, with the philosophical exception of God. They are merely recognized.Bullshit. Something becomes a right if some people think it would be a good idea, and arrange for this view to become dominant in the society they live in. One particular rhetorical strategy in the struggle to make a "right" become accepted is proclaiming that it can somehow be derived from the words of some deity, or a vague notion of "human nature", but in the end that claim has no more truth value than saying that something will help the economy or the war against terrorism.What is a "right" and what's not is completly dependent on the currently accepted ethics of the society in whose context this right is debated, and as this can change radically. There is no single, fixed definition, it all has to be agreed upon and fought for, and is highly variable. This process is otherwise known as "civilization." No God involved, it's all done by mere humans. [ ParentQuite so, by f97tosc (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @07:28PM Re:Governments can't give rights. (Score:5, Insightful) by Yet Another Smith (42377) on Monday July 07, @12:59AM (#6381057) The point is that rights aren't given by anyone, with the philosophical exception of God. They are merely recognized. First off, just to defray side arguments that will generate a bunch of heat, but no appreciable light - we can rephrase this without the use of 'God' and have the statement be just as valid. The point ArsSineArtificio is trying to make is that to call internet access a 'right' muddles the distinction between 'inalienable rights' (to use the phrase from the Declaration of Independence) and 'entitlements'. So the question is why would two things - both enshrined in a constitution as 'human rights' be different? By defining internet access, medical care, living wages, or anything else which costs money and requires human endevour as a 'human right' no different from free speech and due process, governments set themselves up for a fall. Let's start by examining a 'traditional human right', the right to free speech. It costs nothing for the government to not throw someone in jail for saying, for instance, "We should make sure that everyone has access to the internet!" You would be hard pressed to find an example of a situation where a government had to spend money to not throw somebody in jail for speaking his mind. Now let's examine this 'newfangled human right' to have internet access. If internet access is a human right, then Estonia is already in violation of the rights of some two-thirds of its citizens. So through no fault of its own, the government of Estonia is now guilty of human rights abuses, simply because it hasn't shelled out for every citizen to have internet access. What I typically term as a human right is not something which can be directly abridged by natural circumstances. Is Estonia violating its citizens' rights if an EMP knocks out all the switches in the country? Or if a storm destroys too many phone lines? Entitlements are elements of government policy which are subject to the economic realities of the day. It may, under extreme circumstances, not be possible to provide entitlements. Rights, on the other hand, are inviolable, regardless of budget crises. If no one makes a distinction between rights and entitlements, then we're in trouble. First, during economic hardships, the government can't provide internet connectivity. In that case they're violating human rights. However, taking them to court does no good because there simply isn't the money to rebuild the system. So the court might then nullify the 'human right' of internet access. Now some citizens blame the government for screwing things up. The folks in power don't want criticism, so they start locking up their detractors. Now the courts, who have just taken away one right, is asked to defend another right. However, since they've just tossed one out, there's nothing to stop them from tossing the second one except their own judgement. By making the distinction between rights and entitlements at the outset, and preventing entitlements from being enshrined as rights, we make the court's decision much simpler. You can take away entitlements due to economic or technical considerations, but you can't take away rights so easily. Now if they were saying that this service could not be denied to any citizen who had the means to purchase internet access, this is a gift horse of a different color. It would prohibit the government (and thereby lawyers for the RIAA et al) from disconnecting the internet access of its citizens. This would be an enviable right, and one possibly worthy of addition to the pantheon of Western-style 'Fundamental Human Rights'. The article is far from clear on this subject. [ ParentRe:Governments can't give rights. by Yet Another Smith (Score:2)Monday July 07, @01:11AMNot quite so, by Yet Another Smith (Score:2)Monday July 07, @01:23AMTrick question alert! by gughunter (Score:2)Monday July 07, @10:12AMRe:Governments can't give rights. by caseydk (Score:2)Monday July 07, @10:43AMRe:Umm, no. by hesiod (Score:2)Monday July 07, @11:01AMRe:Governments can't give rights. by ChristTrekker (Score:1)Monday July 07, @12:01PMRe:Governments can't give rights. by hawkfish (Score:1)Monday July 07, @12:12PMRe:Governments can't give rights. by hawkfish (Score:1)Monday July 07, @12:20PMwhence absolute standards? by ChristTrekker (Score:1)Monday July 07, @01:56PMRe:Governments can't give rights. by Dirtside (Score:2)Monday July 07, @04:49PMRe:Governments can't give rights. by Dirtside (Score:2)Monday July 07, @04:59PMRe:Governments can't give rights. by Yet Another Smith (Score:2)Monday July 07, @05:24PM6 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:A further comment by Tony-A (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @04:24PMRe:A further comment by Kvasio (Score:1)Monday July 07, @06:44AMRe:A further comment by hesiod (Score:2)Monday July 07, @11:08AMRe:A further comment by Tony-A (Score:2)Monday July 07, @01:08PMRe:A further comment by foonf (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @04:25PMRe:A further comment by squiggleslash (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @04:57PMRe:A further comment by cpt kangarooski (Score:1)Monday July 07, @12:56AMRe:A further comment by hesiod (Score:2)Monday July 07, @11:21AMRe:A further comment by squiggleslash (Score:2)Tuesday July 08, @01:48PMRe:A further comment by hesiod (Score:2)Tuesday July 08, @02:33PMRe:A further comment by squiggleslash (Score:2)Tuesday July 08, @03:16PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Same words, a different time by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @05:03PMRe:Same words, a different time by reemul (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @09:06PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:A further comment by Zebbers (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @05:33PMI put Communication ... by torpor (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @06:33PMThat's a silly argument by tjstork (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @09:29PMRe:A further comment by danila (Score:2)Monday July 07, @02:22AM3 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:A further comment (Score:5, Insightful) by John Zebedee (659358) on Sunday July 06, @03:15PM (#6378338) Depends, I guess, on what you think a "right" might be. I agree completely that the term is far too loosely thrown around these days; any self-identified group with a grievance gets the attention of your political whores by asserting "rights". OTOH, a government willing to assert that, regardless of natural law, citizens in Estonia have the fundamental right of access to information and communication, is a rare example of enlightenment in the political arena. Consider that one of the causes of the downfall of the Soviet regime was access to the Internet, with the consequent free exchange of information and ideas. [ ParentRe:A further comment by John Zebedee (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @05:33PMRe:A further comment by hawkfish (Score:1)Monday July 07, @12:07PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. The Internet & free speech (Score:5, Insightful) by Stephen Samuel (106962) <samuel.bcgreen@com> on Sunday July 06, @04:16PM (#6378724) (http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel | Last Journal: Thursday September 29, @06:16PM) This story is an example of degrading "human" rights by whores in positions of political power. What good is the right to free speech if nobody is allowed to listen to you?This should also be considered in the context of a post-stalinist political sensitivity. Stalin considered typewriters to be weapons of revolution -- he knew that, if the people got together and realized that others had the same idea, the recognition of agreement could cause the people to refuse to act like sheep. In North American we're spoiled. Access to basic telecommunications is so easy and ubiquituos that we consider it to be a right. The fact that we haven't had to fight for it (yet) doesn't make it any less important.Consider this: When the Chinese censors tried to cut off access to google, we thought that something was wrong. They weren't cutting access to the net... just one of it's search engines. Similarly, many people were upset when the government effectively shut off Mitnic from access to computers (effectively including The Internet). Many of us are living like the internet is a basic right, but we just haven't declared it so.How would you feel if, in the midst of 9/11 or some political crisis, the government managed to shut off access to the internet "to prevent panic"? I've been on the inside of political news stories, and I do not trust the news media to report political events in a completely unbiased manner. For me the question is more one of whether or not the bias is in my direction.The right to free speech requires the right to be heard. The interned allows people to be heard by whomever wants to listen to us. In my world, the right to the Internet is a corrolary of the right to free speech. The Estonian government has simply codified this concept. [ ParentRe:The Internet & free speech by jez9999 (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @04:42PMRe:The Internet & free speech by Rysc (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @07:15PMRe:The Internet & free speech by Arandir (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @10:15PMRe:The Internet & free speech by Stephen Samuel (Score:2)Monday July 07, @06:01PMRe:The Internet & free speech by Arandir (Score:2)Monday July 07, @06:32PMRe:The Internet & free speech by Stephen Samuel (Score:2)Monday July 07, @09:35PMRe:The Internet & free speech by Arandir (Score:2)Monday July 07, @11:32PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The Internet & free speech by AME (Score:2)Monday July 07, @03:47AMRe:The Internet & free speech by Stephen Samuel (Score:2)Monday July 07, @06:05PMRe:The Internet & free speech by AME (Score:2)Wednesday July 09, @03:48PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:A further comment by arivanov (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @06:16PMRe:A further comment by Raw Ostrich (Score:1)Monday July 07, @05:24AMFight Oppression by Joester (Score:1)Monday July 07, @05:45AMRe:A further comment by more fool you (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @05:48PMRe:A further comment by treat (Score:2)Tuesday July 08, @07:16PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.3 replies beneath your current threshold.America needs to worry about the basics, first. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @02:33PMRe:America needs to worry about the basics, first. by Red Pointy Tail (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @10:40PM Re:A further comment (Score:5, Interesting) by banzai51 (140396) on Sunday July 06, @02:40PM (#6378124) (Last Journal: Wednesday July 09, @04:13PM) An even more interesting story would be HOW they turned around from a crumbling, ex-soviet Estonia into the successful, wired Estonia. What are the employement levels, per capita income, etc. What turned it around for them? [ ParentRe:A further comment by kantor (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @02:42PMRe:A further comment by banzai51 (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @02:45PMRe:A further comment by kantor (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @02:54PMRe:A further comment by Mod Me God Too (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:03PMRe:A further comment by kantor (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:08PMRe:A further comment by archeopterix (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @04:13PMRe:A further comment by tuoppi (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @03:18PM Re:A further comment (Score:5, Interesting) by Dunkalis (566394) <crichards@NoSPAM.gmx.net> on Sunday July 06, @03:40PM (#6378490) Its pretty interesting to see all these post-Soviet era countries prospering the way they are, while the established "Western World" is facing economic hardships, socialist government agendas, political bickering, etc. Maybe Thomas Jefferson was right, that the Republican form of government only works with smaller nations. These countries have embraced democracy and freedom, and are growing at a tremendous pace. You are probably right about Estonia becoming an economic powerhouse, but I can also see something else: Eastern Europe becoming the economic and technology center of Europe, surpassing the EU in economic and political strength. Too bad many of these countries probably seek admission to the EU, which would chain them to the rest of Europe, which will probably form the constitution to give them more power over the rest of the countries. Sigh...Such a sad world we live in. [ ParentRe:A further comment by Czernobog (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @04:49PMRe:A further comment by ArsSineArtificio (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @04:58PMBelarus, Moldavia, ... prospering? by Jadrano (Score:2)Monday July 07, @01:00AMRe:A further comment by dago (Score:1)Monday July 07, @03:16AMRe:A further comment by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Monday July 07, @08:12AMRe:A further comment by kantor (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @05:53PMRe:A further comment by Czernobog (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @06:04PMRe:A further comment by kantor (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @06:13PMRe:A further comment by Czernobog (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @06:19PMRe:A further comment by ealar dlanvuli (Score:1)Monday July 07, @02:07AMRe:A further comment by hesiod (Score:2)Monday July 07, @11:33AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Finland is a racist, closed-minded country by Quietti (Score:2)Monday July 07, @08:15AM here is what turned it around for them. (Score:5, Informative) by abhisarda (638576) on Sunday July 06, @03:18PM (#6378359) (Last Journal: Friday July 09, @03:18PM) Ok. I saw a programme on DW-TV a few months ago on this subject. Why has Estonia madesuch progress while its neighbours are still languishing in the soviet era?The reason of such a profound change in Estonia is because ofone main reason- change of guard. Young people control the majority of Estonia'spower. Be it politics, architecture, medicine..you name it. The older generation has handed over a lot of the responsibilities.The prime minister himself is 35 years old. All the members of his cabinetare younger to him.What is so special about young people? They carry no baggage. They want more economic progress and they will do whatever is needed to achieve that. Politicans/businesspeople/engineers work towards a common goal i.e economic progress. Nobody cares a damn about communist crap.Here is a quote taken from (DW-TV [dw-world.de]).YOUNG ESTONIAN LEADERSOne of Estonia's youngest politicians was asked this week to be the country'snew prime minister. 35-year old, Juhan Parts - who was 24 when he started inpolitics - was chosen by the victorious Res Publica party after recent electionsin the Baltic state. Described as 'boyish and brainy', Parts belongs to atradition of young leaders in top positions within Estonia's government. Thecountry's first prime minister after independence was Mart Laar who was 32 yearsold when sworn in. Here is a related article aboutyoung people [youropa.dk] in Estonia.Leaders elsewhere in the struggling economies of Europe could learn something from Estonia. [ Parent Re:here is what turned it around for them. (Score:4, Interesting) by Dausha (546002) on Sunday July 06, @03:34PM (#6378445) (http://www.dausha.net/) Please don't forget Americans (and other nationalities) of Estonian decent who either returned to the country to help rebuild, or helped others to do so. I have an uncle who is first-generation US born Czech, and because of his long, successful career in logisitics and economics, spent at least one year of his life working with the Czech government to rebuild its infrastructure.It is good that the government had so many youthful leaders, but there were those on the outside helping out. You can't create that level of change in half a generation without a good deal of fiscal support and training. [ Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:here is what turned it around for them. by Josuah (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @05:14PMRe:here is what turned it around for them. by hesiod (Score:2)Monday July 07, @11:37AMRe:A further comment - Did you even read it? by securitas (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @03:37PMRe:A further comment - Did you even read it? by banzai51 (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @04:43PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:A further comment (Score:4, Insightful) by Ian Bicking (980) <ianb@NOSpAm.colorstudy.com> on Sunday July 06, @04:14PM (#6378713) (http://blog.ianbicking.org/) My impression is that they are doing much like Singapore, which not that long ago was very poor and undereducated, and has no natural resources or any reason to be successful. Singapore seems kind of disturbing, but maybe it shouldn't -- a sort of enlightened, maternal dictatorship, which seems to have actually had the country's best interest in mind. High levels of self-investment, companied with careful protectionism, and careful alignment with the international powers-that-be (allowing but also shaping foreign investment, discouraging speculative investment). I think some of the lesson is that modernization isn't that hard -- it can happen quickly, and democratically (meaning modernization of the masses, not just the elite). Productivity -- even in an underdeveloped nation -- is high enough that a self-investment feedback loop can do incredible things. I think that's even true in the US, if we spent more of our wealth investing in infrastructure, education, society, etc., instead of wasting it on our petty consumerist tendencies, it would be amazing what we could accomplish. Instead we go to great lengths to fritter our wealth away. [ ParentRe:A further comment by Ian Bicking (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @04:59PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:A further comment by ostiguy (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @05:49PMRe:A further comment by Reservoir Penguin (Score:2)Monday July 07, @05:07AMRe:A further comment by Reservoir Penguin (Score:2)Monday July 07, @02:26PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:A further comment by deblau (Score:2)Monday July 07, @10:51AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:A further comment by karikasper (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:48PM Re:What do you expect (Score:5, Informative) by m_chan (95943) on Sunday July 06, @02:58PM (#6378242) (http://news.google.com/) I couldn't decide if you were being funny, trolling, or flaming. Often, good posts are all three. Anyway, I saved my modpoints and replied to you instead. I assume you have not read articles from The Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com]. I would not consider myself a religious person, let alone a Christian. However, I have found this publication to be valuable in its content, mainly because they have their own writers and do not rely as significantly upon wire services.I pulled some info from their about [csmonitor.com] page for you and anyone else not interested in clicking through to read.Consider this quote from _1908_ about the intent of the publication:there was a growing need for a daily newspaper that "will place principle before dividends, and that will be fair, frank and honest with the people on all subjects and under whatever pressure" -- a truly independent voice not controlled by "commercial and political monopolists."Here is another quote to chew on:The Christian Science church doesn't publish news to propagate denominational doctrine; it provides news purely as a public service. Here's why: If the basic theology of that church says that what reaches and affects thought shapes experience, it follows that a newspaper would have significant impact on the lives of those who read it.Try reading some of their articles. I think you will find it a valuable source of information, regardless of the connotation in their banner. [ Parent2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:ooh by bmorton (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @02:59PMRe:ooh by miu (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @05:02PMRe:ooh by bmorton (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @05:22PM3 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:ooh by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:19PMTelling other people what to think by hackwrench (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:31PM4 replies beneath your current threshold. mmm. Estonia FTP's (Score:4, Funny) by YodaToad (164273) on Sunday July 06, @02:19PM (#6377995) (http://www.erikd.org) I always love downloading my ISO's from Estonia mirrors. I always seem to get my max download speed. Good for them!The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by flippah (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @02:19PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by l810c (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @02:23PM Re:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? (Score:5, Informative) by tomatensaft (661701) <tomatensaftNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday July 06, @02:34PM (#6378086) (http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomatensaft | Last Journal: Thursday July 03, @08:21AM) I live in Estonia, in Tallinn... :DWe have some users in bigger towns and even in farms who are using good ADSL Internet access (with, say, 512 Kbit or 1 Mbit/s connection)... In smaller towns people are using shared Internet access, that means "divided Internet".In Tallinn it is almost normal to have a Cable or ADSL Internet access, because it is relativelyy cheap compared to the comfort of use. And almost 66-75% of families (mostly those with kids) have a PC at home with Internet access in Tallinn... [ ParentRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by flippah (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @02:51PM Re:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? (Score:5, Informative) by fazz (122375) on Sunday July 06, @03:29PM (#6378415) (http://pobox.com/~fazz/) as a citizen of Estonia, I can confirm that: a) hot water was NOT a luxury 10 years ago.b) broadband internet is NOT available for most of the territory outside major cities.c) telephone network was in very poor condition 10 year ago, indeed. i started using FidoNet back in 1992 and it was a real mess for next few years.today, it's much better. for me, this is typical overdramatic artice from foreign media. ;-) --fazz [ ParentRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by fazz (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:37PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by MisterMook (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @03:56PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by tomatensaft (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @07:23PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by tomatensaft (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @07:58PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by wfberg (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @08:08PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by MisterMook (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @08:23PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by tomatensaft (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @09:00PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by wfberg (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @09:09PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by tomatensaft (Score:1)Monday July 07, @02:20AMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by The Cydonian (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @09:59PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by securitas (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @10:27PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by http404ee (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @05:02PMcool by ed.han (Score:1)Monday July 07, @12:19PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by Elektroschock (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:13PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by tftp (Score:2)Monday July 07, @12:03AMRussian rhetoric on human rights by martrootamm (Score:2)Tuesday July 08, @10:00PMMistake: Danish > Swedish by martrootamm (Score:1)Thursday July 10, @11:22PMRe:The whole country, or just the Tallinn area? by tftp (Score:2)Monday July 07, @12:34PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. A right? (Score:5, Interesting) by Dashmon (669814) on Sunday July 06, @02:23PM (#6378021) How can something that's only been developed the last few decades become a fundamental human right? Before that, humans were all witheld that right? The creation of the internet was one of the higher goals of mankind? I sure hope not. I don't see why this is necessary, either. I understand the Internet is becomming more and more important for a lot of people, and I'm very much in favour granting as many people as possible access to the net, but only because it is a right to have access to those things you need to survive. If those things are moved to the net, you need to make sure everyone can still access them. That doesn't mean the Net is a right, though - just the things you really need to use it for.Re:A right? by Surak (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @02:31PMRe:A right? by reemul (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @03:38PMRe:A right? by AlterTick (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @05:36PMRe:A right? by Surak (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @06:06PMRe:A right? by AlterTick (Score:1)Wednesday July 09, @05:23AMRe:A right? by Surak (Score:2)Wednesday July 09, @06:05AMRe:A right? by goon america (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @06:08PMRe:A right? by KoalaBear33 (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @02:40PMRIghts change over time by jhines (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @02:43PMRe:A right? by dsanfte (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @02:44PMRe:A right? by Guppy06 (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @03:10PMRe:A right? by canajin56 (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @03:33PMRe:A right? by clearcache (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @02:49PMRe:A right? by 2TecTom (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @02:50PM This is concepticide in action (Score:5, Insightful) by Arker (91948) on Sunday July 06, @03:02PM (#6378270) (http://antiwar.com/) I agree. I'm very happy that Estonia is making such good progress in getting people hooked up. But the issue of the misuse of the word 'right' remains. This is concept-destruction, using concepts in ways that contradict their meaning, and if we let people get away with it people eventually forget what a real right is. They aren't the only ones, of course, but it's still very sad to see. A right is something that you can have without taking away someone elses, that's one of the key qualities of it. Your right to free speech doesn't stop me from talking. Your right to practise the religion of your choice, or not, doesn't stop me from having the same right. But when you're talking about goods and services, such as medical care or internet access, these aren't things that you have as long as no one interferes to take them, rather they are things that someone must work to produce. So, if you claim a 'right' to these things, what you have done is claim a 'right' to someone elses labour, a right to enslave others, essentially. There is no right, there can be no such right, it is contradictory to the core of what rights are. [ ParentRe:This is concepticide in action by Richthofen80 (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @10:10PMRe:This is concepticide in action by Vagary (Score:2)Monday July 07, @02:22PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:A right? (Score:5, Insightful) by martinflack (107386) on Sunday July 06, @03:10PM (#6378308) It's a "gateway right", as are many US rights. For example, there is nothing intrinsically beneficial about being able to carry a firearm; that lump of steal on your belt doesn't feed you, clothe you, make you happy, or help build society. Heck, you're not even allowed to fire it at most people except under special circumstances. But it's a gateway right - it positively aids in the protection of all your other rights, e.g. freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. The government knows that at any given moment a sizeable group of citizens has the ability to bring physical force to bear. We're entering a world where information is more powerful than weaponry. Witness how much work Bush had to do on the political stage before he could invade Iraq, and how much information his army had to continuously feed out in order to keep proper appearances. In days past none of this was necessary for a superpower. The idea that freedom to access and trade information is superior to the freedom to carrying a firearm makes perfect sense to me. Not that I would support a cancellation of the latter right, but I do recognize the shifting priorities. And remember, all "rights" are novel. We call them "basic" or "inherent," but nature plays no part in them. All rights are contrived fictions that people created; and so every "right" has a birthday, so to speak. Today is the birthday of the Right To Internet Access. And her mother is Estonian. What may be interesting (and wonderful) is that we now live in a world where people don't necessarily have to die for the creation and recognition of new human rights. [ ParentRe:A right? by ralphclark (Score:2)Sunday July 06, @08:29PMRe:A right? by ShadyG (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @11:19PMRe:A right? by Mark_MF-WN (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:19PMRe:A right? by Dashmon (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @03:25PMRe:A right? by be-fan (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @03:24PMWhere do "Rights" Come From? by fm6 (Score:3)Sunday July 06, @03:38PMRe:A right? by rikomatic (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @04:34PMRe:A right? by BrainInAJar (Score:1)Sunday July 06, @05:27PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Carefull .... (Score:5, Funny) by bizitch (546406) on Sunday July 06, @02:25PM (#6378029) (http://www.the-sopra...y/s3_tony_logoff.wav) You don't know what those wacky Estonians will do with thier "rights" and their "freedoms" .... They might start a decentralized peer-to-peer network and start trading files or something! Re:Carefull .... (Score:5, Informative)