Genesis
Response
Penultimate
Finale
February 25th, 2021
In its early beginnings, sovereignty was the right of kings to exercise absolute power over their subjects. Over the years, sovereignty shifted towards a more people-centric approach, but, even then, it never lost its minimum requirement for power exercised by a single, central authority.
This idea of centralized power is what makes references to “digital sovereignty” interesting, albeit awkward. The Internet is a network of networks, based on a decentralized architecture, which allows independent networks to collaborate and interoperate. Each of these networks runs a common, open protocol (Border Gateway Protocol or BGP) which facilitates the exchange of routing information amongst them. Each network also makes autonomous decisions on how traffic is to be routed based on its own needs and local requirements. There is no central authority that determines the ‘how’ and ‘where’ these connections are made. This design allows networks to grow organically, driven by local interests.
On the Internet, there is no single point of failure.
For the past few years, the Internet has been facing a significant challenge, relating to attempts by state actors to claim power and control. Regulation has been key for this claim. Some of it is justified; some is not. But, in either case and, at the very minimum, regulation is also used as a tool for control.
Depending on which direction one looks at, this control takes different forms. For Russia, control means its ability to use the Internet as a weapon against its adversaries, mainly the west; for China, it means its ability to ensure the Internet does not cause domestic disruption, while using it externally for commerce; for Europe, it means its ability to regulate and self-determine under its own values; for India, it is about championing national innovation; for the United States, it is about protecting its existing leading role in infrastructure and services.
What are the risks of such control?
One of the obvious risks is the possibility of multiple ways of networking emerging. Simply put, there is a risk of fragmentation. Internet fragmentation is not new but it has seen an increase over the years and this has resulted in a less global Internet. Additionally, we are slowly learning that Internet fragmentation is not only limited to the “free” movement of information and ideas, nor does it only go against the Internet’s distributed design. It also contributes towards a more fragmented world order.
This is an important detail, I think. We should be fully aware that the fragmentation of the Internet, driven by ‘digital sovereignty’, can also produce the fragmentation of governance. And, if this trend continues, I am concerned we may find ourselves in the position where underlying protocols would still support – in theory at least – global connectivity, but instead of the efficiency of the current system, we will have, in its place, a highly bureaucratised one that promotes uncoordinated, conflicting and overlapping rules on data, security and information.
Digital sovereignty could help accelerate the trend towards a more divided world.
0 Comments
Follow Us
