Is connective technology a right?

[RoseGoesToYale]

For the purposes of this post, I define "connective technology" as any device that:

1. consumes electricity in order to function

2. is capable of connecting to a vast, globally-reaching Internet or a small, locally-reaching network

3. has an interface that is generally understandable/learnable whether the person is familiar with tech or not

4. can be used to share, collect, engage with, or critique existing forms of knowledge; the flow of information is multidirectional

 

PCs, laptops, cellphones, servers, and tablets would all count as connective technology. Radio and television would not count because users generally can't input into them and the flow of information goes only one way.

 

So... do you think connective technology is a right? I ask because I'm trying to come up with ideas for a paper about eliminating the tech gap in US schools. Curriculums have become more and more geared toward connective technology being a necessity to complete lessons. In some subjects, such as computer programming, not having technology would entirely prevent the lessons from being carried out. But schools in lower income areas with students from lower income backgrounds may not be able to afford the technology necessary to carry out high-tech lessons, putting them at a disadvantage with other schools that can afford it. My crazy solution to this is to reorient the curriculum to be less tech reliant, reuse older technologies for the same purposes, and use resources in nature to teach lessons. But now I'm thinking... if I went this way, would I be infringing upon the right of more affluent schools to use tech, and would I be setting up lower income students for failure in college/career by lessening their need to use tech?

 

Is connective technology necessary for citizens to live up to their fullest potential as human beings these days? And to twist it further, is up-to-date connective technology a right?

[Pramana]

Interesting question. Perhaps one day we'll have a GBL (Guaranteed Basic Laptop). Speculative, but maybe people will become so integrated with connective technology that it'll become recognized as necessary to function as a person in society, and then maybe access to this tech really would qualify as a human right. I don't think we've reached that point yet, but there's an argument for the school system to provide at least a minimum level of connective technology because it increases learning efficiency producing an advantage for those who have access. I know some school boards in Canada give all the students a free tablet with Internet connectivity. On that account, the bigger issue might become paying for the WiFi, rather than for the device itself.

[Skycaptain]

Most, if not all secondary (11-18 years) schools in Britain require children to have an email compatible device and Internet access to complete coursework these days. 

Also it's a lot harder to register for income support and other financial assistance if you don't have Internet access. So if the state is going along these lines CT will have to become a right 

[Epitaph]

Well my knee jerk standard response would be to state that we don't necessarily have any rights at all by default. Nothing found in nature or elsewhere particularily gives a fuck what happens to us. But that's counterproductive since it's people that have agreed upon basic universal rights.

 

Looking at technology and some of the hard to ignore pitfalls that come with it, honestly, no, I don't see it necessary to become a right. Here's one angle to it. When it becomes a right it becomes a means of control and manipulation, and(in our current society) a means of income generation for those that provide the technology. Not that income generation is bad, but what's bad is that nobody knows where to draw the line. The upsides of all the tech we have today is undeniable. But so are the downsides.

 

And we see the polarities the most in young developing people. In my opinion, I think the focus in schools should shift backwards to a more hands on approach as you've said, but provide some basic knowledge of computer functions. And not silly stuff either. Actual teaching about the purpose and useful functions of a computer, why it's really there in the first place. I think lately, there's too much of a dependency on computer based technology, and too much of a push to integrate it into our lives.

 

There has to be a balance between old school and new school, so to speak. And I don't think that exists right now.

[Dealing Aces]

I don't believe it is now, but I can envision a time in the near future where functioning effectively in society will require access to the internet.  I believe there will be a time where access to the net will become a right.  How far off in the future that is I do not know.  It has become such a critical part in the lives of the last two generations and the necessity for access will only increase as will dependency. 

[azner]

seeing as "connective technology" just sounds bad and sounds like a computer to me anyways that's what I'm going to call it.

so as a right I don't really know what you mean because as it stands yes just about everyone has a computer of some kind today saying it's a right at this point really has no meaning to it. now if you want to say the right to access the internet that's another story. but E is for E your saying that we need more old school teachings depending on what you mean by that I disagree we don't need old knowledge what we need to be teaching in schools is basic knowledge. and I very much disagree with the less computer part. as someone who is studying to go into the computer field and has somewhat kept up with tech news technology is only going to become more and more prevalent in our lives as the internet of things and fog computing comes in to play. fog computing alone will see a $5 trillion influx into the internet infrastructure in the next 10 years.  and lets not even start on what the IoT will bring to the table. and honestly, I'm kinda excited to see what happens with computers in the next few years fog computing to be specific as that's going to happen. and I would not call it a dependence on computers what I will call it is augmenting the human capability to work efficiently. for example 30 years ago if you wanted to know something you would have to go to the library and find a book they may or may not have, now you just google it (or whatever you happen to use). so to sum things up no owning a computer I don't think is a rite namely because of how easy it is to come by one. or to find a place like a public library that allows free access to computers. but the rite to access the internet that is where I think the rite should be as that's the true "magic" behind a computer that allows you to do just about anything you want to do in one way or another. so yeah not a rite I think to own a computer.