To connect, or disconnect: that is the question
A thought provoking question in LinkedIn by Jake Perez, Editor of LinkedIn News
“Will 'right to disconnect' reach US? Laws that provide a "right to disconnect" from work after hours have gained momentum in European countries and part of Canada, so is it a matter of time before we see a similar legislative push in the U.S?”
Let me say at the outset, I am not saying what other countries are doing is right or wrong, and as a student of law (I am not a practicing lawyer, but do have a law degree from India)??and lover of jurisprudence and as an American citizen, I am looking at this question through the eyes of US Constitution.
I don’t think this “Right to Disconnect” will come to US as a Law, let's explore why it won’t and maybe why it shouldn’t.
Is Right to Disconnect an inalienable (or is it unalienable) ? Inalienable or Unalienable is a good question, although the US Constitution uses unalienable in its final version, did Thomas Jefferson write it as inalienable? (see the banner image)
The idea of an inalienable right is at the heart of US Democracy and the US Constitution, meaning??“A right that people are born with and that can never be taken away and sold”
According to Richard Foltin of the Freedom Forum Institute an inalienable right is?“a right that can’t be restrained or repealed by human laws.”?sometimes called natural rights, inalienable rights “flow from our nature as free people.”
Now there are other important rights held by Americans and other citizens of democracies around the world that are not considered inalienable — such as the right to a trial or due legal process by jury or a judge and even the right to own property. I feel some Americans also feel right to own a gun is an inalienable right.
Is?Right to Disconnect?alienable or inalienable right?
We are talking about the "Right to Disconnect" from work and after work hours.
To understand this right, we need to understand what is alienable in the eyes of law and jurisprudence ????"alienable something?that can be separated and sold,?unalienable or inalienable is something that?cannot?be separated and sold”
领英推荐
Is Human Attention alienable or inalienable ?
?We are living in an attention economy and a hyper connected economy (an unintended consequence of living a flat world)? where all our attention is available for sale to be grabbed and monetized for profit. So the "right to disconnect” can that be even be a right or an individual choice that should be left to me?as a citizen??? After 8 hours of regular work , should any organization seeking my additional attention pay me ???(this organization can be Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Sony PlayStation, Microsoft Xbox or our own organization that we work 9-5 for a living )
I believe human attention is alienable and should be made available to be sold to the highest bidder. So after 6 PM if Netflix want to grab my attention, that is my choice to sell it to them, now if one's organization is willing to compensate more then we will give it to them, why should US Congress be allowed to interfere? Let everybody bid for my attention , The role of US Congress should be to create an environment for private attention marketplaces where buyers and sellers can meet and negotiate , and of course US Constitution gives US Congress the permission to tax it!
Now Europe or democratic other countries may ask, what about society , societal and moral implications if human attention can be bought and sold ?
Are Governments responsible for the morality of society ? Not is US, we are not a socialist country , we are a capitalist country , we believe everything should be on sale to the highest bidder.??Harvard Professor and Philosopher Michael Sandel asks “What should be the role of money and markets in our societies?”
We are a country where we want the Government to understand our wants, our will, and our hopes as the people and help us in our “pursuit of happiness” which is an inalienable right.
You may ask is this morally right and do you agree ???I would ask:??Who is Gopal to judge? If?We the People want to sell our attention to the highest bidder, we should be allowed to. Hence sometime in the near future I hope Facebook, Netflix and YouTube should pay us for our attention by the minute (yes, I will watch personalized, context based advertisements ), just like all our companies are paying for my attention while at work (it’s called salary). Now what is one minute of my attention worth? Artificial Intelligence will figure that out based on if I belong to the Useful class or Useless Class !
Now while distracting us digitally a fair game for the markets, as long as we all get a cut in it, manipulating humans digitally should not be on sale, hmmm or should it be on sale ?
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.
?
Model Manager | Enterprise Architecture & ArchiMate Advocate | Expert in MBSE, PLM, STEP Standards & Ontologies | Open Source Innovator(ArchiCG)
3 年In terms of freedom, I think that no law should forbid us to connect. So inalienable right indeed. If some manipulation occurs and is proven, going against personal or collective interests with some identified and proven risks, a law should prevent it and means to address these risks provided. Monetizing our attention? our body? becoming a product? a thing without dignity? the property of someone else? a slave? loosing our freedom?
Founder, Dolus Advisors | Human Decision-Making + Behavior Expert | NIST Collaborator | Forbes Contributor | Speaker | Editor-in-Chief, The CAI Report
3 年Many fascinating issues compacted into this post, Gopal Padinjaruveetil. Many possible responses. It is of course critical to a fair and equitable democratic republic like the US (at least in theory and functionally for the time being!) that certain rights be formally ordained. But we know that many rights and liberties are not accorded to all in actuality, irrespective of being designated as Inalienable or not. As Judge Theodor Seidel wrote, "Not everything that is legal is right." Conversely, we see that the individual liberty to reject an inalienable right is frequently exercised. Our society loves to valorize ideas like ‘always remember’ ‘never forget’ ‘forever free’ etc, and to fetishize the concept--but not the lived reality--of liberties enshrined on the deprivations, indignities, broken backs and spilled blood of many forebearers. But they’re hollow slogans—denigrated, and dismissed as living precepts. Even if the right to disconnect is granted, what happens when people blindly—though still willingly—demand to reconnect? Or reject being disconnected? It is, broadly stated, a vexing feature of the human condition that there are always those who want to have something only so that it can be demolished, not cherished.
President - The Center for Sympathetic Intelligence
3 年Hi Gopal - perhaps the real question may be how long the response time should be?
CISO Capgemini CIS Spain
3 年Nice thoughts that invite to think. I can see some irony there. Attention is something that can be lost because of a low interest on that you are giving your attention. Attention is also something which warns you on something important and could cause you harm or benefit. so It is not so easy to sell or buy someone's attention. I am thinking that, after all, maybe it could be actually unalienable.
Innovating conversations, one thought at a time.
3 年Gopal Padinjaruveetil having rights are good, but they are also bad as it means that there is a disturbance in the environment that forces an outside influence to be applied to create an artificial balance If we refer to nature it would mean a lack of symbiosis the inability of a natural support of relationships that are mutually beneficial to emerge Thus seen in the realm of an uber hyperconnected digital existence the ease of connecting digitally, with people already connected it has a great impact on the individual's mental health, especially seen in context of poor leadership or specialist unable to create or respect a balance between the relationship to life and work, where they need to apply a control to stay in command of the environment Looking back to essential workers in continuous operations reminds me of the practise of having people on standby. People being paid allowance for performing that duty then when actually called out paid additional compensation at 1.5 or 2x the normal hourly rates Question though is not just physical disconnection, rather the issue of the psychological mental disconnection It needs deeper insight to create a balance a psychological safety focused on the individual