We're not respecting existing law on human rights online, why not enforce existing laws and principles rather than reinventing the wheel?
-
-
-
Exactly.
-
1/2 You don't need to "extend the scope" of the Universal Declaration "so that it applies". It applies.
-
1/2 It doesn’t apply. There’s no law anywhere today that considers your phone equivalent to your brain. This is a constitutional aspect.
-
Fundamental elements of existing constitutional & intl. hum. rights law are being flouted now - top priority should be to fix that.
-
Agree. Yet not a linear process. Consider this the seed of something, which, if we don’t plant it today, won’t be ready for when we need it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Extraction or mechanical compromise without consent of (potentially) data containing implants?
-
That’s already covered by laws protecting your biological self. This is so we treat your phone like an organ even if it is not an implant.
-
You feel people are more likely to accept "your phone is like your liver" than "you can't take or break my prosthesis" ?
-
No, people will relate far more to your example & do so intuitively. That’s why we need to an explicit statement when it comes to explants.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Exactly. Unfortunately, today, those parts are not protected under the same laws that protect the rest of you. That’s what this addresses :)
-
Tweet unavailable
-
If you have any suggestions, I’m all ears – best I could find so far :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Feels like right paradigm: personal assist. tech as extension of self. But wrong monicker: pop cultural def of cyborg is not self sovereign
-
Hey Brian, thanks for the feedback. Open to suggestions regarding the moniker. Please pop over any ideas as/when you have them :)
-
Processing...
-
Can't grok a single word... "Human Extent" or "Self Inviolate" best I got. Adjacent & beautiful search: http://orionmagazine.org/article/speaking-of-nature/ …
-
Thanks for sharing; looks like a very interesting article. On my reading list now :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What about the freedom from technology? What if someone wants to be a digital atheist? Being forced to use technology = bad precedent.
-
Nothing in the Declaration compels anyone to use digital technology. It merely describes the nature of the relationship when people do…
-
Defining humans as "cyborgs" assumes that people will use technology de facto. Maybe focus on free and informed consent?
-
There's critical literature in womens' studies & medical ethics on objectification, commodification, & commercialization of human bodies.
-
I understand that you are trying to expand people's human rights in the digital era, but need to address rights of freedom from tech, too.
-
Interesting point: so you mean in terms of not being forced to use a technology… (e.g., see workspace use of Fitbits, etc.)…
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.