Tina Gallico

Key debates of digital sovereignty and what can be done in cities.

Insights

1/ Digital sovereignty is defined by the independence of, or control over, digital infrastructures, technologies and contents. Digital sovereignty can bolster or detriment democracy, human rights, innovation and economic prosperity. I conceptualise digital sovereignty across three spheres: national digital sovereignty — a nation’s digital sovereignty in relation to other countries; domestic digital sovereignty — the extent of digital sovereignty in a country’s internal affairs; and human digital sovereignty — the digital sovereignty of individual people or groups.

2/ There are three main aspects of digital sovereignty: software, data and servers. Ways digital sovereignty can be pursued include developing or using open source software, using a diverse range of software providers, funding local startups and cultivating startup ecosystems, upholding data governance rights and responsibilities, and diversifying and where possible localising tech infrastructure.

3/ A vast majority of the world’s software, data and servers are controlled by US and Chinese corporations. Companies in the United States have been the predominant supplier of software and servers, and consequently the recipient of most of the world’s data, leading to large digital trade imbalances. China has positioned itself better than the rest of the world, having been pursuing localisation of technological innovation for some time with size on its side.

4/ Geopolitical conflict is arising as a result of territorial control of data, underscoring the importance of national digital strategies that address digital sovereignty. Countries are recognising digital sovereignty as part of national strategy and the EU now sees digital sovereignty as an essential part of economic strategy and political values.

5/ Digital sovereignty efforts should establish greater balance, accountability and human centric values in the design, proliferation and management of technology products, services and infrastructures. However, if pursued by authoritarian regimes, domestic policies for digital sovereignty can detriment individual freedoms and autonomy.

6/ Individuals seeking to take control of their own digital sovereignty is a growing international trend. Increasing public awareness of how data collected is being used to influence human behaviour is driving demand for alternatives to mainstream digital products, platforms and infrastructure.

7/ There is much potential in the activities of democratically elected city and local authorities to pursue and support digital sovereignty in line with public good. A starting point would be the use of free and open source software in public administrations. In Germany, for example, 96% of government computers use Microsoft proprietary software, which the government has acknowledged as an issue. Hamburg and Munich city governments have recently decided to move towards open source software.

8/ For an exemplar of digital sovereignty being driven by a city authority, look to Barcelona. Key underlying conditions of Barcelona’s global leadership in human centric digital sovereignty include the Catalan independence movement, Barcelona’s position as a leading European tech startup hub, and its critical mass in population and healthier, more diverse economy. Key policy benchmarks include the Barcelona Digital City plan and the Ethical Digital Standards Policy Toolkit.

9/ The Digital City Alliance Berlin exemplifies a grassroots initiative pursuing digital sovereignty goals for the city, established by academic and independent research groups alongside citizens to ensure people, nature and the common good are central to the city’s digital strategy development.

10/ Also worth noting is the Cities Coalition for Digital Rights, established by Barcelona, New York City and Amsterdam city governments and now with over 45 signatory cities endorsing its principles around individual empowerment and agency being inherent to the digitisation of city governance.

Interview with Elizabeth Calderón Lüning, Associate Researcher, Weizenbaum Institute; co-initiator of the Digital City Alliance Berlin

tg: What were some key ingredients that enabled the creation of the Digital City Alliance in Berlin?

ECL: We had been a small group of people that had not originally met because of technology but around our work with city policy issues — a mix of people from research, activists and a parliamentarian. We had a common concern in public interest, trust with each other due to past experience, and some kind of institutional backing. The first event attracted around 50-60 people from civil society, city activists, academia, tech practitioners from the open source community, social entrepreneurship advocates and intermediary institutions. We held it in the parliament, which was good to open up that democratic space for the public.

tg: Is there anything you would recommend to others seeking to establish something similar in their own city?

ECL: The key is to build alliances. When we speak of digital cities, we are talking about so many aspects of cities and we should definitely not stop at just engaging technologists. It is about building alliances with others working on civil liberties, housing rights, environmental justice, alternative economies etc.

tg: What could help enable the cultural shift needed in government organisations to be more proactive in digital sovereignty?

ECL: First of all, it is to see and understand the moment in time that we are in. We should revisit basic human rights and make them an issue when we discuss digital technologies. We must get government to understand their role. Then we need digital policy making to be a key component in government but also in constant contact and realignment with other policy objectives.

WATCH — The Digital Humanism initiative of Technical University Vienna hosted a panel debate on digital sovereignty: “Digital Sovereignty — Navigating Between Scylla and Charybdis.”

READ — We have been harmonised. Life in China’s Surveillance State by Kai Strittmatter (2019); The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff (2019).