Declaring Internet access a human right would dilute the rights that matter more, says Internet pioneer Vint Cerf. Photo: Veni Markovski (Wikimedia)

Get real: The Internet isn't a human right.

That's the message from a man often credited with inventing the Internet, Vint Cerf. Writing in The New York Times yesterday, Cerf, who now works for Google, argued that human rights are "things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives":

At one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.

Today's Internet—publicly developed but privately owned and financed—is a key tool in toppling kleptocracies and enriching millions of poor farmers. So Cerf's position is provocative. But it's a reminder that those of us who believe in markets' power to help solve poverty shouldn't cling too tightly to any single "market-based solution."

That wouldn't be market-based at all.

Men in traditional Maasai clothing using their mobile phones. Photo: Mark Kelley (Flickr)

Envy Jared Cohen. At 29, the man has advised two U.S. presidents, shaped relations between countries, and now leads his own think-tank at Google. But his take on technology suggests you could do this, too.

Cohen, at a recent Mercy Corps-sponsored talk in Portland, OR, wowed the audience with personal anecdotes about how technology is changing international affairs. Cohen has seen firsthand the effects of communications technology and understands the potential it holds for the world’s future.

Cohen, a security expert, spent much of his talk describing the effects of communications progress on modern states and their rule of law. He spoke of technological literacy in Iranian youth that was instrumental in coordinating the June, 2009 Green Revolution. He spoke of an unemployed Colombian activist who used social media to coordinate the anti-FARC demonstration, the largest protest against a terrorist group in history.

"The 21st century," Cohen said, "is a really terrible time to be a control freak." But that applies whether you're trying to control peaceful demonstrators in Cairo or violent drug cartels in Mexico. Government control is proving ever more elusive as groups find out just how empowering technology can be.

Jared Cohen.

He painted a picture of exponentially growing networks that are bringing people together from around the globe. This interconnectedness makes it difficult to control and contain groups that are finding ever more ways to use technology that is itself rapidly progressing. These groups tend to be made up of young people, as the empowering effect of these new forms of communication is most potent for those who understand how to use them.

Each of Cohen’s points seemed to return to a basic theme: technology is eroding the barriers to entry to all sorts of games, markets, and movements. And while technology is getting better, people, especially young people, are getting better at using it. Cohen argues that “those who don’t have information technology today will be the most active users tomorrow.” Ten years ago, 361 million people had access to the Internet. Today, that number has increased to 2.1 billion, with the fastest growth in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. “Pakistan, in the year 2000, had 300,000 mobile phones. By 2010, it had over 100 million. That's in a population of 165 million,” Cohen explained. Technological growth will have the biggest empowering effect on those who currently find themselves with the least power.

Cohen’s opinions on this topic have authority because of the life he's led and the movements he's witnessed. He’s travelled the world and met with leaders of insurgencies and counterinsurgencies, democracies and autocracies. His own story is a case in point that technology is empowering those who know how to use it.

Technology, according to Cohen, is driving the changing tide of the times and youth tend to have an inherent advantage in understanding and deftly using these innovations. Cohen rode the wave of technology into the most exclusive circles in Washington. And he says we should all be using technology to find our own wave to ride.

Ben Osborn is a 2011 graduate of Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. Read his other contributions to Global Envision.

Last year's devastating quake in Haiti created a pressing need for new, durable housing structures. Photo: Cassandra Nelson/Mercy Corps.

Part of a Global Envision miniseries about Portland State University's effort to become the "Consumer Reports" of developing-world technology. Read the introduction.

With the specter of Haiti’s hurricane season looming, everyone involved in the 1000 Homes for Haiti project wanted to get the sustainable, earthquake-proof shelters to the island nation as soon as possible.

But there was a catch: when the houses got wet, they leaked.

The story begins with Charles Fox of Portland’s Pacific Green Innovations (PGI), who came up with the idea for the project after a trip to Haiti in 2010, when he recognized the country’s need for low-cost, sustainable and permanent housing, according to the Portland Tribune. “If you give someone a transitional house, it becomes permanent,” he told the paper. As of August, more than 600,000 Haitians were still living in makeshift housing and tent camps, according to The Christian Science Monitor.

PGI bought building panels of resin-soaked recycled paper from a German building-material manufacturer called SwissCell, which PGI's website bills as earthquake-resistant, fire resistant, weather and temperature resistant.

In June 2010, PSU students actually assembled one of PGI's model homes in a campus park. This was partially to demonstrate another of the homes’ aspects that made it seem perfect for Haiti and the developing world in general: the building panels are modular and can be assembled quickly and simply. PGI says all of the houses’ materials can be produced in Haiti by Haitians.

Things went swimmingly until a curious detail caught the eye of a PSU researcher: the home had water damage. If sitting outside in Portland made the house leak, how would it hold up amid Haitian squalls, humidity and hurricanes? To test it, they tossed some of the panels into PSU’s state-of-the-art Thermotron, a device that, according to Senior Fellow Sergio Palleroni of PSU’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions, "can create any environment on earth, any weather condition." They cranked up the heat and humidity to Haitian summertime levels, and let the panels stew for a couple of weeks.

The results confirmed their initial suspicions: Palleroni says that on average, the material lost 60 percent of its structural capacity to resist breakage. In high-wind, high-humidity conditions, the houses could actually fall apart. And for a Caribbean country far more prone to hurricanes than earthquakes—there were four in 2008 alone, according to The Guardian—that’s a big problem.

PGI stands by their product despite Palleroni's criticism. PGI’s manufacturer, Magnum Building Products, wrote in an email to Global Envision that PSU's testing may not have been reliable.

"When installed properly and finished per the guidelines also found on our website, Magnum Board structures will be in use far longer than most any other building product on the market today,” wrote Daniel Armstrong. His full response can be found below, in the comments section.

PSU researchers don’t say the houses have no use, but they don’t think they are a good permanent solution for Haiti. Palleroni pointed out that while the building materials may have passed the manufacturer’s test, they were tested as separate components; the problems showed up when they were fully assembled. PGI disagrees, with its manufacturer arguing that PSU made “no distinction as to what elements of the assembly were the primary contributor(s)" to the homes' failure.” PGI has already implemented their housing program in Haiti.

While there’s no consensus over the houses’ suitability for Haiti’s climate, the fact that there’s a debate at all is unusual. Intensive testing like the kind done at PSU is not often performed on products for the developing world. All too often, potential design problems aren’t identified until after a product is in use. Sending flawed products abroad wastes money and other resources, and in some cases the products might even hurt those that they are intended to help. Improved technologies and testing procedures allow for a longer revision period and result in better products that do more for people in need. And since that’s really the goal of humanitarian design, hopefully intensive product testing will become the norm.

Margo Conner is a senior at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, majoring in international affairs. Read her other contributions to Global Envision.