After reading both “Long Live The Web” by Tim Berners-Lee and “The Strange Geopolitics of the International Cloud” by Ingrid Burrington, I found a striking similarity. Whilst we often praise the internets structured existence (in terms of connection points, paths, and information storage) there still exists so much ambiguity within the realm of the internet. This ambiguity mainly stems from an issue that should be at the forefront of our endeavors – internet law. Both articles presented so many issues that pertain to security, encryption, hacking, identity theft, and the profiting of personal information (in the case of social media platforms). Whilst we have internet protocols, we are missing legal protocols that offer individuals protection every time they make use of the internet. 

The issue of legislating the internet becomes very difficult as it falls into international law. International Law as a branch of law doesn’t have an excellent track record of achieving much. Establishing and maintaining clear legal protocols and enforceable sanctions across International jurisdictions is negatively impeded by notions of state sovereignty. In the articles this was referenced as “data sovereignty” and when you have the competing perspectives of individuals, nation states, and companies all vying for the rights to personal data, legalities get very complicated, very quickly. 

It made me reflect upon how grand of a scale the internet is. Data centers are strewn all over the world, deep sea water cables connect continents, and the improvement of national wifi provides connectivity to literally billions of people. Yet, with all these advancements have we become slightly blind sighted to the Pandora’s Box the internet has inadvertently opened? It seems that we are focusing more on the newest IOS update rather than enacting laws to control the ability for corporations to profit of the personal information of individuals. 

Burrington especially in her article presents more pessimism on this topic as she explores the current legal battles of Microsoft in establishing ownership and accessibility of information in foreign data centers. These areas of grey in the law do permeate a sense of fear and anxiety for internet users who are not completely aware of their rights, or if they have rights at all. 

We should be making a conscious effort to progress both our operating systems but also our legislation in regards to protecting the rights of individuals online. In order to achieve, universality, net-neutralism and accessibility, we must also have law and order as a regulator. 

The age of this piece is only apparent in the historical references used when talking about the civilization that lived before the one featured in the story. However, the story is still quite futuristic, and relevant. Our civilization today, although more advanced, is still closer to the ancient one in the story than it is to the futuristic one. We have yet to completely eliminate human interaction or manage to have our civilization run and monitored by a single machine. Nonetheless, technology is only becoming more and more advanced – bringing us closer than ever, virtually, but also alienating us more than ever in the physical world (reality). In the story, the hum of the machine was a sound the people were oblivious to, they had been born hearing the hum so they knew no difference. That “hum” in today’s society is the subliminal messages we all constantly receive from the different forms of media we engage with – and for kids today, they are born hearing that hum. Likewise, in the story’s conclusion, it was realized the importance of keeping not only the soul happy but also the body. Although in our society today, our bodies are not just sitting in a room while our mind goes on simulated adventures, our world is only becoming more simulated. Video messaging/ calling, VR gaming and other experiences, online relationships, etc. are all ways in which we choose to entertain ourselves that are slowly contributing to distancing use from each other and “reality”.