Even those who have railed against the historical effectiveness of the Magna Carta at the time of its signing must concede that it introduced into society a principle which holds true and powerful till today. That ‘no free man shall be seized or imprisoned...except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land,’ has made this document an ‘emblem of  the long struggle of people everywhere against the excesses of an arbitrary ruler’ in the 800 years of its existence. The Magna Carta, incidentally, was signed under duress. In 1215, England’s King John had to sign a peace treaty with rebellious barons who had marched against him, a situation made dire by the threat of French invasion from across the sea.

Twenty-five years since the internet, and there can be no doubt that at least 3 billion of the world’s 7 billion population have seen their lives changed drastically because of connectivity. Agenda setting for shaping this digital society is at a feverish pitch, as processes, conferences, stakeholders and consensus-documents dot the line of the Global Internet Governance system. The Digital Bill of Rights flagged in the BBC play are not simple concepts. Weaponization of space by both state and non-state actors is rampant, with parallel processes running out of the UN, Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the ‘London Process’ to develop norms of State Behaviour in Cyberspace. Ultimately, these documents might serve to guide responsible behavior, but a complete – formal -- ban on weaponization of cyberspace seems unlikely. Consider that the closest the world has come to genuinely ridding itself of nuclear weapons is when Superman collected all nukes from around the world and threw them into the Sun in a movie in 1987!

Similarly, the idea that the internet could be governed by one broad law – and clearly an ideal law that would protect freedoms, privacy and citizens from unnecessary surveillance -- is also unlikely in the near future. Today, the internet is governed by the individual laws of nations, with serious questions being asked about which laws apply in a transnational incident, often criminal in nature, when different parties are scattered in different geographies, made further complicated by the fluid nature of data in cyberspace. Given that commerce fuels much of the growth of the internet, a move to harmonize laws across like-minded countries seems a plausible way forward, however, even business cannot account for cultural and economic peculiarities of different regions.

The final demand set forth in the play is that users be guaranteed rights of access. What might sound reasonable given that buzzwords like ‘right to internet’, ‘public utility’ and ‘digital citizenship’ dot the media, however, the ideas might not be as universal as one might imagine. After all, imbibed in the idea of guaranteed access is that free expression is a fundamental right; one not particularly backed by authoritarian countries. Even democratic countries cite law and order problems as a reason to ‘switch off’ access to the internet. In fact, a ‘right’ could be said to be borne out an understanding of what the internet means to society. Does this right to broadband pre-suppose that the internet is key to enjoy the fundamental right to free expression? Or, is it a commercial network, one of many avenues of expression, that should reach citizen-consumers through the market?

These aren’t the only clauses that might make to a ‘Digital Magna Carta’ were it to be drafted today. A project in the UK called ‘My Digital Rights’ also threw open this question to the public. Around 3000 people aged 10-18 submitted around 5000 clauses. The top clause is “The Web we want will not let companies pay to control it, and not let governments restrict our right to information,” while the 10^th clause is “the Web we want will not sell our personal information and preferences for money, and will make it clearer if the company/Website intends to do so.” These might change as the project is still open.