Re: [lac-discuss-en] Net Neutrality
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Net Neutrality From: fatimacambronero@gmail.com Carlos, On March 1, 2015, 15:04, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> i wrote: Did you know that US headquarters internamercada Derehos commission of Human and Spread the Inter-American Human Rights is the only country that has not signed this convention. A cul convention do you mean? Know about the International Criminal Court and immunity US soldiers can not be judged by ningn act? There is a Law of War, which is a section of International Law Public, and specifically the International Humanitarian Law. There Are rules for war, which is regarded by the law as a means of solution of conflicts (each tendrsus then moral considerations, cies, humanitarian, etc.I am not arguing here). As I ignore these rules, I will not comment on the matter. And I'm going to aquen stop this issue because it exceeds the scope of LACRALO. If ESTs I agree we keep talking this issue privately. Best regards, Fatima Cambronero In short. The reality is more than a theory imposed and impostada Regards Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sguemecveraq On 01.03.2015, at 13:22, Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com> i wrote: Carlos, The original sentence was "abiding states human rights" and states that they are not. I will share examples of those States but scriterios for recognize them. And compliance and respect of those criteria is not "Subjective". A state that respects human rights is one that has recognized (Signed, ratified and deposited) international rights treaties human (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant International on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Optional Protocols, the International convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Nioy their Optional Protocols, the convention against Torture and Other Forms Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading and its Optional Protocol, the International convention on the protection of the rights of all migrants and their families, the main workers. Ace as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which technically is not an international treaty while States in practice the respect of similar to a treaty) manner. In addition the state has recognized or internalized in legislacin domstica, reconocindolos through her consecration in the Constitution National or Political Constitution of the State, and has developed a whole set of laws aimed to respect these human rights (to return operating statements made in their constitutions). This was also sum is then when their national courts solve a case where there is a conflict with a human right particularly applies this set of regulations regarding rights human. In synthesis, if before the vulneracin in a particular case of a right human (privacy, personal data protection, freedom of expression, freedom of association, etc.), legislative and judicial assembly of a pas estdirigido to punish vulneracino afectacina that right Human and try to return things to the previous state it was before that vulneracin to protect the human right violated, ests against a state that respects human rights.Than otherwise, no. Surely some of you encontrarn other criteria and podrn add to this list. Definitely recognize quin is a state that respects rights humans is not subjective. Best regards, Fatima Cambronero On March 1, 2015, 10:06, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> i wrote:
Hay ejemplos de Estados respetuosos y no respetuosos?
Esto es muy subjetivo
Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq
El 28/2/2015, a las 7:54, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> escribió:
Muy interesante tema, especialmente para la región. No se si este es o no el ámbito. Me gustaría al menos estar al tanto de las reflexiones si cambian de ámbito.
Saludos
El 27 de febrero de 2015, 0:25, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> escribió:
Hola Alberto,
Sin duda a primera vista parece positivo. Yo quiero ser más cauteloso y esperar a que salga el texto completo de la resolución para poder analizarlo con detalle y ver que posibles implicaciones puede tener en diversos aspectos.
Por ejemplo me preocupa que al clasificarse como un bien público, el Estado pueda reclamar y ejercer rectoría sobre el mismo. Si es un Estado democrático y con principios, tal vez no sea grave. Si es un régimen autoritario y que no respeta los derechos humanos, cambia la visión.
Una de las preguntas que yo me formularía es ¿Con esta nueva clasificación que se hizo las comunicaciones serán más propensas a espionaje por parte de agencias como la NSA? No lo se. Justo ahí la cautela de no festejar antes de tiempo hasta no tener los detalles del caso.
En el caso de México, por citar un escenario paralelo, el Estado en un momento dado podría tomar control de la infraestructura de telecomunicaciones (por ser pública) y controlar, bajo la justificación de seguridad nacional, las comunicaciones sin que hubiera recurso que protegiera a los ciudadanos en contra de abusos. Nuevamente reflexiono. En un Estado respetuoso de los derechos humanos, el Estado bien puede controlar la infraestructura y el flujo de las comunicaciones sin que la ciudadanía tuviera (mucho) de que preocuparse. Pero en un Estado donde el respeto a los derechos humanos es laxo, por ponerlo de alguna manera, la preocupación debería ser mayúscula.
Creo que el tema dará para mucho análisis, reflexión y discusión en los meses por venir.
Gracias por acercarnos la nota!
Saludos,
León
El 26/02/2015, a las 19:52, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> escribió:
Es una medida que ojalá prospere y sea ejemplo para los gobiernos de nuestra Región:
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
--- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. http://www.avast.com _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
* Fatima Cambronero * Attorney-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter:facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero - * Fatima Cambronero * Attorney-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter:facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/9b24bfc00a.html --]]
participants (1)
-
fatimacambronero＠gmail.com