views with multiple maps.»[18] Further, some of these new mappings of the inside of the Internet cloud can also been seen as a new kind of surveillance, revealing connection and interactions that were previously hidden in unused log files and incomprehensible databases. The act of mapping itself may constitute an invasion of privacy. If the appeal of the Internet is its aspatial anonymity, then users may object to it being placed under wider scrutiny, even if individuals are unidentifiable. Here, public analysis may well represent an infringement of personal rights. In some senses, these maps may work to shift the spaces they map from what their users consider semi-private spaces to public spaces, and thus the maps may actually change the nature of Internet itself. Therefore, it is important to consider the ways, and the extent to which, maps of the Internet cloud are ‹responsible artefacts,› that do not destroy what they seek to represent or enhance. Lastly, it should be recognised that mapping is also cultural process of creating, rather merely revealing knowledge. All the sophisticated, interactive maps of network infrastructures have politics just the same as any other form of cartographic text, and we must be

alert to their ideological messages.[19] Maps of the Internet cloud can prove to be very valuable, but at the same time they can never be value-free. There is no one single map or technique that can capture all the complexities of the Internet cloud. Instead, there are a multiplicity of different Internet maps that focus on different components of the infrastructure. Perhaps, even, our knowledge is diminishing as the scale and complexity of infrastructure grows and information about it becomes less open to scrutiny. So as the Internet cloud grows evermore expansive and dense, it is becoming even harder to see the details within.