The term “digital sovereignty” has become ubiquitous in contemporary discourse, invoked by European officials in discussions surrounding **cloud infrastructure**, **AI**, **semiconductors**, and platform regulation. Governments globally leverage the concept to advocate for greater control over data and communications infrastructure, often with an eye toward economic growth. Concurrently, companies market “**sovereign cloud**” products, aiming to assure customers that their data remains under local jurisdiction. Yet, digital sovereignty could represent something more profound: an opportunity to foster resilient, open systems globally, alongside the necessary skills and infrastructure to maintain them. ### Defining Digital Sovereignty: A Shifting Landscape There is no singular, universally accepted definition of digital sovereignty. Despite its rising popularity, the term often remains frustratingly vague, carrying different meanings for policymakers, regulators, and civil society groups. Broadly, it signifies the capacity to control one’s digital destiny, though the implications vary significantly whether applied to an individual or a nation. In Europe and other regions where digital sovereignty is a policy focus, discussions often center on reducing dependency on foreign (particularly American) cloud infrastructure, chips, and platforms. This concern is both economic and geopolitical; if essential infrastructure is controlled by entities in another jurisdiction, a country's control over its digital future is inherently limited. Geopolitical instability, including wars and sanctions, has underscored that the physical infrastructure underpinning digital life is neither neutral nor invulnerable. Against this backdrop, governments and civil society are increasingly considering how digital sovereignty can bolster this critical infrastructure. ### Diverse Interpretations and Global Perspectives A recent **Franco-German joint paper** on digital sovereignty defines it as the “capability and capacity to develop, provide, use, adapt and control digital technologies including hardware in an independent, self-determined and secure manner.” This framework aims to operationalize Europe’s capacity in the digital domain. Initiatives like Germany's **Sovereign Tech Agency** are investing in open-source software components to bolster European competitiveness. Across Europe, organizations like **Open Rights Group** define digital sovereignty as a country's ability to control its digital infrastructure, data, and technology, deeming it critical for economic and national security. The **European Partnership for Democracy** voices concern that a few **Big Tech** corporations dictate collective digital destinies, advocating for alternative ownership models. **EDRi** (European Digital Rights) explicitly states that “Europe’s digital sovereignty starts with open source,” while initiatives like **DI.DAY** view it as a path to freeing users from Big Tech dependencies. Globally, conversations around digital sovereignty take on unique forms: * **Indigenous** communities have engaged in discussions for over a decade, focusing on the inherent right of Native nations to govern their digital ecosystems. * In **Southeast Asia**, the desire for digital sovereignty has fueled growth in the sovereign cloud industry, driven by concerns over data jurisdiction. * **Latin America** often integrates digital public infrastructure into its debates. * **African** leaders seek to transition the continent from technology consumers to architects of their own digital infrastructure. * In the **Middle East and North Africa**, concerns about reliance on U.S. technology companies, especially given their involvement in regional conflicts and censorship, are paramount. **Reem Almasri**, a senior researcher based in Jordan, defines digital sovereignty as “the ability of people and communities to choose, control, and use technology that serves their needs and values.” She highlights the dangers of states leveraging digital sovereignty to increase control over citizens' data and communications, particularly in countries with high internet censorship and surveillance. This inherent risk means that while pushing for greater sovereignty from Big Tech has benefits, it can also lead to states cutting off or splintering internet access, as seen in **Iran** and **Russia**. Critics, such as Iranian professor **Azadeh Akbari**, argue that the current push for digital sovereignty often overlooks its Eurocentric bias. ### Centering User Autonomy For organizations like **EFF**, digital sovereignty is not about creating walled gardens but fostering resilience and developing local industries and skills. In a digitally sovereign world, civil society should be able to communicate freely, privately, and anonymously. Users should easily understand where their data resides, who accesses it, and be able to port it between platforms and services. Governments have a crucial role in crafting digital sovereignty that prioritizes user autonomy, rather than simply replacing one form of digital dependency with another. Supporting and utilizing free and open-source tools and projects built on principles of openness and user control is a key step in this direction.