This article comes from Motherboard, VICE's tech site. Read more at Motherboard.tv.
It's the 25thanniversary of the World WideWeb: in 1989, British programmer TimBerners-Lee completed his proposal for what he hesitantly called the World Wide Web. He thought it would be a good way for him and his colleagues at CERN to exchange information, and his boss agreed it was worth pursuing, using the reserved words of approval, "Vague but exciting..."
While the basic technology of the internet has remained much the same to this day, the ways in which we use it have changed rather dramatically. The internet, from a kind of information management system for a specialized community of computer users, has become a universal tool of power and what many consider to be a basic human right.
The continued development of the web is therefore as much about political and social issues as it is about technology. The WorldWideWebFoundation, founded by Berners-Lee in 2009, works to extend the full potential of the web to everyone.
Berner-Lee's proposal for the internet. Image via CERN.
I spoke with AnneJellema, the CEO , about the work they're doing to achieve this goal. One thing is clear: amidst the birthday celebrations and nostalgic lookbacks at the internet's past, there are also questions about its future that need to be answered.
Motherboard: Tell me about the WorldWideWebFoundation—what is your mission?
AnneJellema: The WebFoundation was founded by TimBerners-Lee four years ago to advance his vision of an open and free web that empowers all humanity. So we work to make an open and free web a global public good and a fundamental right, and to ensure that everyone can benefit.
When you say an "open and free web", what exactly do you mean?
We mean an internet that allows everyone to communicate freely, to connect, to collaborate, to exercise their right to freedom of expression and information, to associate freely, and that empowers people to find solutions to the problems they face—and does so in a way that faithfully adheres to the original meaning of Tim, namely decentralized, permissionless, non-exclusive, and neutral.
In your opinion, what are the biggest threats to the internet right now?
So, on the bright side, never in all of human history have we been this close to creating a world where everyone can communicate and access information, create things and express themselves, regardless of income or geography or social barriers. So we're very, very close to something that will truly transform the world, but there are some challenges that could prevent us from achieving that goal.
Anne Jellema. Image via Web Foundation.
The first and most obvious is that three out of five people worldwide have no internet connection at all, and this is largely a matter of affordability. The infrastructure is there, so most people on the planet are covered by a 2Gor 3Gsignal– the rate of available broadband in the developing world has increased dramatically in recent years – but prices are still out of reach for many people.
We're talking about prices ranging from 30 to over 100% of the average monthly income just for basic broadband in many developing countries. So changing this is a clear win and will also contribute to a new wave of innovation and creativity on the internet.
The second is the growing wave of censorship and surveillance that we are seeing around the world. The number of cases of controlled content or online activity in various ways is increasing year by year and we are also seeing a great rush on the part of governments to buy new surveillance technology and implement forms of large-scale free data collection. So censorship and surveillance are very worrying trends that could dramatically undermine the internet as a platform for freedom of expression and freedom of collaboration and that is something we are deeply concerned about.
The third is the increasing centralization of the internet. Today, an ever-increasing proportion of our telecommunications is carried out by just a handful of companies. This is because these companies provide value-added services to consumers, have good service, are incredibly easy to use, and are colorful. However, the unintended consequence of this is the very strong centralization of online data that passes through these companies' servers, as well as the filtering - through the routes we take - of the ways in which we online lives, that is, what we learn and do online.
This is worrying because it could destroy the true magic of the internet, the opportunity to connect to anything from anywhere and discover things we might not have known existed to learn about. It also poses security and privacy risks. This centralisation of data traffic through the servers of a few companies has made it much easier for the NSA and GCHQ to access this data traffic, which we could see happening with other governments. So we don't think that's healthy for the internet and we don't think that's healthy for the rights of users online.
How can we spread the internet to those three out of five people who don't have access?
Well, there are many solutions that lead to universal access. One of them is investing in public access programs. It is very important to create the conditions for real competition in the market at every level of services and infrastructure.
This map shows broadband users per 100 residents. The darker the color, the better connected the country is. Image via Web Foundation.
In many countries, we see a lot of extremely anti-competitive practices in the market, conspiring to keep prices higher than they should be, and that can happen at the international gateway level, it can happen at the domesticbackbone , it can happen at the device level. So we need truly competitive conditions in the markets for Internet services. And then we also need transparency.
To specifically address the problem of building a healthy competitive market for broadband services, the Web Foundation has joined forces with some of the world’s leading technology companies, mobile operators, government agencies, and academic research institutes to form the Alliance forAffordableInternet. The alliance’s goal is to encourage real competition and transparency in broadband markets and bring prices below 5% of average monthly income.
In most developed countries, a broadband package will cost you a percent or two of your income, while in developing countries it will cost over 150% of your income, and that needs to change. The good news is that we believe we can change that relatively easily.
When you think of issues like censorship and restricted internet, countries like China and North Korea come to mind, but obviously conditions aren't perfect in places like the US and the UK either. Whattrendsare you seeing?
Well, we produce an annual report, the WebIndex, that tracks the health of the internet, its contribution to human rights and development in 81 countries around the world. Last year, we found that fewer than 5% of the 81 countries we surveyed had best-practice measures in place for due process and oversight of telecommunications surveillance.
So, in reality, only a handful of countries have created laws and institutions that are adequate to address issues arising from the technological capabilities of online data collection, and this is something that needs to change very quickly.
This map assesses the freedom and transparency of the Web around the world. Norway is at the top. Image via Web Foundation.
Through the WebWeWant , we mobilize internet users around the world to claim online rights and ensure that laws are implemented in every country that guarantee our right to freedom of expression and the protection of our privacy online.
You are absolutely right that the scenario is not always black and white. There are serious problems in countries like China, but there are also quite serious problems in countries like the US and the UK. None of this will change if ordinary people do not demand a say. If we leave it to politicians, security services and computer guys, things may not turn out the way we want them to.
So what is the real solution? If we move towards a country-by-country solution, is there a risk that the internet will become fragmented, which in a way undermines the idea of an open internet?
Yes, it is a challenge. Ultimately, decisions about who can collect data and what they can do with it will always be made at the national level, so it is very important that every country has a robust legal framework to protect our rights online.
But at the same time, it is important that legal frameworks protect our right to freedom on the global internet and not just on the national internet. We need to instill the principle of universality and access to global sources of information and collaboration, not just within national borders.
They call it extraterritoriality, a fancy legal term that means countries must respect the privacy of people living in other countries, not just those living within their own borders. Indeed, it's a very crucial principle for our new networked digital world.
As we have seen in the NSA revelations , even if there are adequate safeguards for American citizens so that no one can intercept their data without a warrant, this will not necessarily apply to citizens in other countrieswho use Google or Microsoft or Facebook or other services based in the US. So the solution to this is to respect the principle of extraterritoriality, so that citizens of any country can have confidence that their privacy is not being violated by another country.
Speaking of Google , Microsoft , and Facebook , I assume they are among the companies you mentioned when you said the internet is becoming increasingly centralized, because of the huge role these companies play in it . What is their responsibility going forward ?
That's a good question, and I think those of us who work with on affordability and online freedom and privacy issues are really asking national governments to shape their laws. They don't want to be the ones who ultimately make decisions about people's privacy and what national security considers permissible. So, number one, at the government level we need laws that have been updated to reflect the realities of the digital age and that provide real democratic accountability and oversight for surveillance.
Second, companies have a responsibility to implement the best encryption possible on their systems. Some have done a very good job, others have not.
Third, of course, is transparency, so they reveal as much as they can- as much as they are legally allowed to - to the people who are the targets of data collection requests. So this goes back to the point of law reform and oversight at the national level, because we can't expect companies to do things that are actually illegal!
But they should be involved in helping to advocate for and promote this reform, and they should also provide the maximum transparency within the limits of what they can do at this time. Again, some people are more proactive than others on the transparency front.
Indeed. What do you hope the internet will look like in the next 25 years?
So, as I said, we hope that the internet will continue to grow so that it reaches its true potential, to connect all people on the planet, giving them the means to make their voices heard, to create and shape the world they live in, without regard to their income or class or geographic location.
And that an open and free internet can support a truly participatory democracy and economy that in turn can help us address the many other challenges we will face in the next 25 years.
