Digital sovereignty, Digital Infrastructure and Indian Aadhar

system

 Digital sovereignty

What is digital sovereignty and how can we accommodate it

Given the popularity of this subject in the current days, digital sovereignty seems to
be quite relevant. Real. It is true. But it also sounds like a technological issue, which only
involves experts. Wrong. - Wrong. Digital sovereignty, and the battle for it, affect all,
including those who do not have a cell phone or have never used an online service. In the
area of privacy, digital ownership is a big concern. The European General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR), which sets main requirements for processing data relating to European
individuals or companies, is a widely cited example of the principle of digital sovereignty.
The GDPR enables foreign dealers to align themselves with the European data and the data
sovereignty principle world-wide.

Digital sovereignty, at the individual level, has to do with the ownership and control
of citizens. Person user information is too often obtained by corporations and marketed for
profit by infringing on corporate digital businesses.

Like the concepts behind technology also change, the architecture of the Internet is
evolving. While the word "ideology" can be negative, it has a neutral meaning in the sense of
ideas and principles that direct internet policy making.  On the other side, the improvement in
the expansion of government power is the sovereign control of network operations. The risk
of expansion of sovereign power is not 'balkanization' or technological fragmentation, not a
few separate Internet networks, but rather a fragmentation of the concept of governance,
where technical protocols underpin global communication, but this communication is
overlaid by many uncoordinated and frequent dissonant data, confidentiality and security
rules that are guided by varying and conflicting political interests on which individual rights
should be given

The Internet was promoted soon after the Cold War. Commercialization took place in
the sense of economic deregulation, especially in telecommunications, when the US
Government renounced its status as the creator and controller of the so-called system domain
and a broad belief that governance would abide by the rules of the markets' democracies and
the role of government in a world that did not need the old 'muddy giants of flesh and steel.'

The ideals of the American Open Market and freedom of expression (common to
many countries but not all) have shaped Internet governance from the outset and have guided
technology developers. Powerful winner-taking effects of the platform economy will destroy
the medium-sized business sector and the competitive market model unless efficient
instruments are placed in place. European autonomy also includes the decentralization of the
economic and social advantages of the Internet. Instead of ending up with a few digital
oligopolies, we want to maintain a broad, medium-sized business market across Europe. It
also ensures that data storage and processing in (moving) consumer devices is decentralized,
ideally on the 'back' of the internet. Privacy and safety issues will also be minimized

These points of view are easy to dismiss, but they were highly prominent not long
ago, and they were part of the greater millennial utopianism of many foreign policy analysts
and technocrats. They shaped policies on encryption, data protection and identity
authentication, mostly against sovereign authority, and continue to shape them. With the
expansion of autonomy, there are massive strains of new technologies—artificial intelligence
and data analytics, with large quantities of data and cloud networks that spread data and
services across continents.

It is absurd and worth remembering the notion that cyberspace is unbounded because
some people still believe it. The speed of internet access is an illusion that there are no limits,
and this has been compounded by the dominant philosophy. Cyberspace, however, is
completely under the sovereign control of the state and relies on its physical structure. The
dilemma before us is not how an illusionary common is preserved, but how State measures
can be formulated to extend control in ways that minimize harm to global communication and
understand that the interests of all nations are inevitably overlapping.

Shift is inevitable in the face of tension. Indeed, the internet theory that underlies its
governance and architecture is being redefined. There is little consensus on this, but the
contours of the notion of digital autonomy are gradually changing if an alternative is found.
This redefinition must begin with a less romantic view of cyberspace. While the long-term
objective of most States is to ensure the protection of personal privacy, security and rights in
this new region, the immediate objective is to resolve the concerns of States with regard to
the protection of their people without sacrificing fundamental freedoms.
 Digital sovereignty is the core concept for a new theory of the Internet. The right of
the State to regulate its network in order to serve its national interests, the most significant of
which is security, privacy, and trade, is digital sovereignty. States enact national laws and
legislation on the removal of risks and opportunities for nationals and services and reduce
political risk in contentious regimes. The problem with this national strategy is the global
design and activity of the Internet and its underlying architecture. What we call cyberspace is
based on a dynamic network of business relationships and technical dependencies. It is a
system that represents the logic of networking and the economy, not of politics, but of the
aggregate of national networks. It has not been designed or built to respect borders. Sovereign
control must be extended through the geographical borders of the state and must be
extraterritorial in order to be effective. However, extraterritorial action with other nations is
never popular and there is no precedent for extraterritorial control of online content and
networking and negotiating an agreement on common rules.

General Data Protection Legislation is the most critical effort to extend digital
sovereignty (GDPR). The European Commission has set global goals for the GDPR. In Brazil
and California, GDPR was common and had an effect on similar laws. As a result of the
GDPR, the European Union (EU) is now adopting a global privacy policy, and the GDPR is
the first in a series of steps including inquiries into anti-competitive conduct and tax policy
for non-European service providers.

While the European Commission is very respectful of the Internet governance model
with multiple stakeholders, it is also moving towards the establishment of a regulatory
framework for companies operating across Europe, while they are not physically located in
Europe. The "app" economy is driven by a new extraterritorial model in which services are
produced in a single country, distributed worldwide, and consumed in third countries. These
third countries need to find ways to expand their powers to these facilities.

Sovereign response to cross-border connectivity is to locate data—government

measures that compel businesses to store their digital data locally within their jurisdiction. In
that way, the internet would not be 'breaked.' Nearly 80 (including the EU) countries have
adopted legislation limiting the movement of data across borders. Personal data is the most
common data medium forbidden by countries following financial and accounting
information, government (including some public records, security data) and tax information
from escaping their borders (especially VAT-related). The regulation varies from country to
country in terms of implementation. The regulation varies from country to country in terms of
implementation. The location of the data does not have to lead to the Balkanisation, but it
complicates business models, and which slow down overall growth. Data localization costs
are met primarily by multinational companies. New or smaller companies can lose
opportunities to serve the global market in the long run.

It is difficult to balkanize because it is costly. Many countries will be deprived of the

costs of communication harm and of the business interests resulting from the actual
Balkanisation. As introduced by China, and if adopted by a number of nations, this would
only "broke" the global internet at serious economic costs, a country that will potentially
deprive it of recognition unless it is compelled to adopt new technical standards or protocols
for network connectivity.

Greater sovereign power ensures that countries cannot take full economic advantage
of digital connectivity if it is poorly planned. Revenue would outperform other goals
(security, privacy, sovereignty). Countries will decide to reconcile the economic costs of
regulation with the benefits of privacy and security, but no one will decide on the measures
leading to significant fractures. China is a precedent for this. Chinese users are denied access
to valuable information and have a strange understanding of events that misrepresent the
Communist Party in order to satisfy its interests. (The Chinese scientists are moaning about
this.) However, this does not stop Chinese companies from doing so.

Data localization regulations requiring the saving or processing of citizens' personal

data or accounts within the country after 2010. However, most laws limiting transfers of
foreign data allow transfers of data if certain requirements are met. Examples include
requiring express consent from the data subject or limiting exports to countries with
'appropriate data security' legislation. Data location regulation may be an obstacle to
international business presence, and sometimes certain businesses lack the personnel,
financial and legal capital needed to develop compliance strategies. However, many
governments see trade as a reasonable compromise for a potential improvement in the
defence of sovereignty.

I would like to conclude that in its initial ideology, the Internet had a core principle of
personal freedom, making it the final child of the Enlightenment with an emphasis on the
rights of the individual. The alternative that we have before us is not to prevent balkanisation,
but to manage to defend the Internet collectively, in speech, in data and in imagination.
 Digital Infrastructure

What Is Digital Infrastructure?

Digital infrastructure refers to digital technologies that form the basis for an
organization's IT and operations. Examples of digital infrastructure include

 Internet backbone, broadband

 Mobile telecom and digital communication suites, including apps
 Data centres and networks
 Enterprise portals, platforms, systems, and software
 Cloud services and software
 Operational security, user identity and data encryption
 APIs and integrations

What is integration planning and why is digital infrastructure important to

your business overall?

Integration preparation is initiated as all aspects of the organization (such as customer

service, HR, information technology, sales, administration, etc.) come together to review the
processes in place and the data produced in its day-to-day operation (including the legacy and
obsolete systems). They then decide on a way to connect their data, break down information
silos and share their knowledge in order to be wise. Customer, employee, business partner
and all stakeholder experience can be improved by integration training.

Long-term integration planning ensures that all efforts are made for the owner and the goals.
The company can create coherent service delivery models through the integration of systems
and tools, generate enhanced experience and standardize its management processes.

Examples of Digital Infrastructure:

Digital infrastructure is a key service that is essential for a nation, region, city, or
organization's information technology capability. In addition to the economy and quality of
life of a modern nation, digital infrastructure is also significant. Below are the usual examples
of digital infrastructure
1. Internet Backbone
Key data paths connecting continents, nations, and regions to the internet. This could
include cables and equipment used for underwater communications across Tier 1
interconnection networks.

2. Broadband fixed
Fixed wired broadband Internet networks connecting regions and towns. This includes
links to houses from the last mile, Enterprises, data centres, services, and infrastructure.

3. Mobile Telecommunications
Mobile cell phone networks offering cellular Internet broadband and networking
facilities.

4. Communications Satellite
Satellites providing network or information networks.

5. Network Infrastructure
Other network infrastructure, including Wi-Fi access.

6. Data Centres
Computing, data storage and network service management services.

7. Cloud Computing
Platforms delivering on-demand computing, data storage and network services.

8. Platforms
For the development, deployment, and operation of software. The cloud is based on a
daily basis.

9. Systems
Not to be a consumer tool for applications that rely primarily on automation.
10. Applications
Software that is intended mainly for use as a bypeople for tools, including mobile
applications.

11. APIs & Integration

Services that allow different technologies, systems, and applications to work together
and share knowledge. In certain situations, the API is so commonly used that it becomes
vital to the daily functioning of the economy.

12. User Devices

End-user systems such as mobile phones and laptops

13. IoTRobots
Computers, sensors, installations, supplies, products, vehicles, and environments
operated by means of an internet connection

I would like to conclude by saying that digital infrastructure can be a technical term for IT
professionals in the near future, knowing the relationship between digital technology and
infrastructure is becoming an obsolete idea. Emerging technologies are rapidly incorporated
into many fields of life, making it increasingly difficult to differentiate them conceptually
from other activities, bordering on different forms of infrastructure. This trend continues to
increase only as major digital technology investment ventures continue to appear worldwide
with keywords such as AI, robotics, or smart cities.

 Indian Aadhar System

India’s Aadhaar program is the world’s largest biometric ID system. When the
program was launched in 2009, India set out for the first time in the world to provide
each individual with a precise, biometrically verifiable identification number. These
biometrics (iris scans and fingerprint records) would be correlated with the Aadhar
number of the individual, which, in turn, would be used in all transactions with the
state – minimizing fraud, enhancing tax efficiency and potential savings, the
administration said. Countries across the globe were looking to see how it succeeded.
Nowadays, there are 1,2 trillion Indians—including more than 99 percent of adults.

However, the scheme was eventually imposed on the private lives of the public,
although seemingly on a voluntary basis. In India, it was almost impossible to
purchase a mobile contract or open a bank account without, for example, having a
number of Aadhaar

What is Aadhaar?

Aadhaar is a 12-digit identification that relates to fingerprints and iris scanning

in Hindi and means "foundation." The card with this number is sent to each user and
can be referenced in a database using bio-metric data.

The Aadhaar card is neither a proof of citizenship nor must it be issued by

residents in order to have access to social services and health care. The idea behind
Aadhaar was to create a completely centralized system.

The idea was to establish a standardized system in India as a whole that would
rely on a recognizable identity rather than on the old system of fragmented birth
certificates and ration cards that were vulnerable to loss and harm and left
marginalized people – particularly rural poor people – struggling to access public
services.

Does it work?

The intention was to establish a centred Indian system as a whole that was not based
on a fragmented birth certificate and ration card system but on a recognizable identity,
vulnerable to loss and damage, and that excluded rural poor people from access to public
services.

Migrants and rural children, in particular, have not been able to prove their identity by
registering the Aadhaar card and have never earned their birth certificates by being exempted
from their school registration. Other reports of leprosy sufferers did not have their fingers or
eyes cancelled because fingerprints and iris scans are mandatory.

Other questions were posed by the privacy advocates. More questions, please. In
January 2018, the Indian newspaper Tribune announced that one of its reporters had been
able to access personal information leaked from the Aadhaar broker's database for just 500
rupees ($7).

What kind of effect does the Indian Aadhaar system has on the world?

However, other states have flirted with the idea that identical technologies are now
less expensive and more common than biometrics. Countries routinely include fingerprints
and iris scans in passports, but no one, like India, has tried to make it the cornerstone of
citizenship touch. In the future, that could change.

In certain ways the centralist state treats its large and diverse population equally, this specific 
type of centralized identity system is unique to India.
In certain ways the centralist state treats its large and diverse population equally, this s
pecific type of centralized identity system is unique to India.

India's ruling indicates that integration of state ID systems with the market, at least in
democracies, will also raise questions about privacy and security, which, in turn, could lead
to limits on privacy in ID systems. More authoritarian countries like China, however, will not
have to overcome this hurdle.

i would like to conclude by saying that the potential for good and loss is present in digital
identity systems. A well-developed and safeguarded system would boost political
empowerment and integration and unlock enormous economic value. However, problems of
privacy, user consent, biometrics and inclusion are still under consideration in the countries
considering the implementation of such systems.

A common theme connecting Aadhaar issues is that digital identity users must be central to
the design of the platform, i.e. the digital identification of individuals, not the empowerment
of governments to be effective. Solutions can only be introduced within a wider structural
framework that gives priority to user rights over other considerations.

I would like to conclude by saying that the potential for good and loss is present in
digital identity systems. A well-developed and safeguarded system would boost political
empowerment and integration and unlock enormous economic value. However, problems of
privacy, user consent, biometrics and inclusion are still under consideration in the countries
considering the implementation of such systems. A common theme connecting Aadhaar
issues is that digital identity users must be central to the design of the platform, i.e., the
digital identification of individuals, not the empowerment of governments to be effective.
Solutions can only be introduced within a wider structural framework that gives priority to
user rights over other considerations.

 European digital infrastructure and data sovereignty

Europe is called upon to create the right policy instruments for a sovereign digital reality
in Europe through innovation and regulations that respect EU values and rights, while at the
same time creating equal economic opportunities for all players through concerted action
between the European Commission and EU Member States.

The need for European autonomy in dealing with emerging infrastructures and data
processing is further complemented by recent discussions in 5G and COVID-19. This study
provides a description of the motivations, trends, tools, and functions of the various players
creating digital reality. A scenario-based policy decision-making mechanism that promotes
the assessment of these scenarios with regard to policy priorities is being developed to
promote policies that will lead to the strengthening of European sovereignty over digital
infrastructures and data processing.
 The complementary and combinable form of digital infrastructure control and data
regulation must be recognized. The scheme therefore contains four distinct scenarios that
result from a combination of opposite approaches to infrastructure management and data
control. The scenarios are then evaluated in order to determine their effect on growth,
fairness, capacity for innovation, trust, and quality of play. Effect assessment is a high-level
guide to practical policy implementation and a vital method for improving emerging
technology and data policy tools.

European Digital sovereignty - conclusions

As reported in the European Campaign for COVID-19 Contact Monitoring Apps, the
importance of European digital sovereignty has once again been seen. In order to develop a
policy strategy to achieve this autonomy, the purpose of this study is to create a succinct
scenario-based framework, along with an impact evaluation. In view of the current situation
and the varied perspectives on the complex position of policy-making with many
stakeholders and many different interests, it is urgently necessary to bring together the key
components in an orderly and concise environment.

Very few (non-EU) companies currently have oligo-political access to valuable user data. It is
a violent cycle. The more knowledge they access, the easier it is for their algorithms to
develop, resulting in value-added goods from these data, the more their entry into world
markets and the more valuable new data they produce for the cycle. This cycle is an obstacle
to European innovation and growth, a major threat to European sovereignty, and new, agile
regulatory instruments should be slowed down and eventually disrupted.

The analysis shows that, in situations where the needs of the various players are balanced and
the rights of people and businesses are protected through a combination of regulation and a
dynamic relationship between stakeholders, long-term steady growth is best achieved.
Infrastructure management is either hands-off or carried out by legislation, not ownership.
Data ownership and access control have been implemented by privately-owned and industrial
data governance policies.

Europe is called upon to exploit this platform to effectively connect producers (industry) and
shapes (authorities and citizens) to build a sovereign digital reality in Europe with
technologies and regulations that respect European values and rights, while at the same time
creating equal economic opportunities for all actors by coordinating actions between the
European Commission and EU Member States. A dynamic, balanced, and proportionate
regulatory approach is needed to ensure optimum conditions for innovation with equitable
access to economic opportunities in a trustworthy digital environment. Such an approach is to
create a fairer environment that enables new industrial players (including Europeans) to
become more dependent on oligopolistic industry players and to reduce their dependency on
citizens and governments.

 References:

1. Floridi, L. The Fight for Digital Sovereignty: What It Is, and Why It Matters,
Especially for the EU. Philos. Technol. 33, 369–378 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00423-6
2. Pohle, J. and Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review,[online]
9(4). Available at: https://policyreview.info/concepts/digital-sovereignty [Accessed:
25 February. 2021].
3. Lewis, J., 2020. Digital Sovereignty in a Time of Conflict | ORF. [online] ORF.
Available at: <https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/digital-sovereignty-in-a-time-
of-conflict/> [Accessed 25 February 2021].
4. Nemitz, P. and Pfeffer, M., 2020. Digital Sovereignty Requires Autonomy and
Decentralisation. [online] Fes.de. Available at: <https://www.fes.de/en/themenportal-
bildung-arbeit-digitalisierung/article-page-flight-migration-integration/digital-
sovereignty-requires-autonomy-and-decentralisation> [Accessed 27 February 2021].
5. Base22, Digital Transformation Consulting. n.d. Digital Infrastructure and
Integration Planning | Base22. [online] Available at: <https://base22.com/what-we-
do/plan/the-importance-of-digital-infrastructure-and-integration-
planning/#:~:text=Digital%20infrastructure%20refers%20to%20the,Data%20centers
%20and%20networks> [Accessed 28 February 2021].
6. Spacey, J., n.d. 13 Examples of Digital Infrastructure. [online] Simplicable. Available
at: <https://simplicable.com/new/digital-infrastructure> [Accessed 1 March 2021].
7. Renaud, C., 2019. What is digital infrastructure?. [online] https://www.quora.com/.
Available at: <https://www.quora.com/What-is-digital-infrastructure> [Accessed 1
March 2021].
8. Larsson, A., 2019. Conclusion: The digital transformation of labor – where do we go
from here?. [online] https://www.researchgate.net/. Available at:
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337205749_Conclusion_The_digital_trans
formation_of_labor_-_where_do_we_go_from_here/citations> [Accessed 2 March
2021].
9. Perrigo, B., 2018. India Is Collecting a Vast Database of Eye Scans and Fingerprint
Records. [online] Time. Available at: <https://time.com/5409604/india-aadhaar-
supreme-court/> [Accessed 3 March 2021].
10. Sen, S., 2019. A Decade of Aadhaar: Lessons in implementing a foundational ID
system | ORF. [online] ORF. Available at: <https://www.orfonline.org/research/a-
decade-of-aadhaar-lessons-in-implementing-a-foundational-id-system-50464/>
[Accessed 3 March 2021].
11. O’Callahan, T., 2020. What Happens When a Billion Identities Are Digitized?.
[online] Yale Insights. Available at: <https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-
happens-when-billion-identities-are-digitized#gref> [Accessed 3 March 2021].
12. European Institute of Innovation & Technology (EIT). 2020. New report on
European digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. [online] Available at:
<https://eit.europa.eu/news-events/news/new-report-european-digital-infrastructure-
and-data-sovereignty> [Accessed 3 March 2021].