Subscribe to GEN
Login to GEN
Add a Comment
Imagine you arrive tomorrow and your primary technology provider denies access. Not because you did anything wrong, but because an automated system flags you, a policy changes, or a dispute escalates.
Could you still trade? Can you still take orders, answer customers, access contracts, ship goods, invoice, collect payment, and recover your data, without waiting in a support queue?
That is the practical heart of data sovereignty. It is not ideology. It is continuity.
This is not an argument against modern platforms. It is a reminder that outsourcing operations also outsources control. The risk is manageable, but only if it is acknowledged and designed for.
Data sovereignty means you retain meaningful control over your organisation's information: where it lives, who can access it, how it can be used, and how you can move it if circumstances change.
It is often confused with two related ideas:
You can have EU-hosted data and still have low sovereignty if your access is mediated by a single vendor's identity system, licensing, and terms. The location of a database does not guarantee control.
In practice, sovereignty is about control under stress: when something goes wrong, who decides what happens next, your business or a third party?
Vendor dependence rarely arrives as a board decision that says "let's make ourselves reliant on one provider". It grows quietly, usually through convenience.
This is why sovereignty is a business risk topic: the dependency is not always visible until something breaks.
It also explains why large overseas providers (often US-headquartered) can have so much leverage globally. When a market becomes structurally dependent on a single vendor or a small handful of vendors, you do not need a formal monopoly for the effect to feel similar. Exit costs become the control mechanism, and pricing and policy changes become something you absorb rather than choose.
Moving systems online can reduce some risks (for example, you no longer maintain hardware), but it can increase others. Two stand out for business leaders: loss of access and loss of confidentiality.
Online services are governed by terms, policies, automated enforcement, and external pressure. In many models there is no warranty that access must be restored within a particular timeframe.
Put bluntly: if a critical service is online only, it can be taken away without notice, and often without the kind of warranty business owners assume applies to essential infrastructure.
The "what if" scenario matters because it does not require malice. It can be triggered by:
The uncomfortable "what if" is also political. If a regulator escalates threats, or if relationships between governments and large overseas providers deteriorate, access restrictions can become an instrument of leverage. You do not need to predict this to manage it. You just need a plan that assumes it could happen.
For UK businesses, this is not a far-fetched category of risk. Public disputes, for example around online safety regulation and enforcement, can become heated quickly. Whether or not a regulator such as Ofcom can enforce a threat is not the point. The point is that escalation can change vendor behaviour, change platform policy, or trigger defensive automation, and your business can get caught in the blast radius.
The business question is simple: if access is denied tomorrow, what continues to work?
Data breaches are not rare edge cases. In some ecosystems they are reported daily, sometimes hourly, across the economy. Most organisations only understand the true impact after it happens.
When your email and documents are exposed, you do not just lose files. You lose trust:
A particularly underappreciated risk is espionage by inbox: access to mailboxes and shared drives becomes a window into contracts, product plans, staff issues, and financial position. Even if nothing is ransomed, the damage is real.
It is also worth being explicit about motives. Criminals do not compromise accounts for entertainment: they do it to make money. That usually means payment redirection (changing bank details on invoices), taking over finance workflows, blackmail, or packaging your internal data for resale, sometimes to competitors.
The uncomfortable truth is: if your data is on someone else's computer, you are trusting their engineering, their staffing, their processes, their third parties, and their incident response. Some providers do this well. Others have poor track records. Either way, the risk is yours.
Many businesses treat card payments as a utility: always available, always neutral. In practice, dominant payment rails create concentration risk.
If you are effectively excluded from mainstream card processing (via dominant card networks such as Visa and Mastercard), you can be "alive" as a company yet unable to trade normally: fewer conversions, failed subscriptions, delayed cashflow, and supplier friction.
That is the risk: if a payment provider decides you are no longer acceptable, whether fairly or unfairly, commerce can stop. Resilience means having a plan for alternative payment paths, not assuming the default rail will always be available.
This is one reason public institutions explore alternatives (for example, proposals for a future EU digital currency are often discussed in resilience terms). The strategic theme is not technology. It is optional pathways for commerce.
A quiet shift has happened in sales and support: "pick up the phone" has been replaced by "book a call". Meetings, messaging, and voice are increasingly routed through hosted collaboration platforms.
The immediate cost is friction. "Book a meeting" sounds organised, but it often turns simple interactions into a scheduling exercise. In many businesses, direct calling is faster, clearer, and more resilient, especially when a customer is waiting and the clock is running.
That can be convenient, until it becomes fragile. If your primary platform (Teams, Zoom, Webex or similar) is unavailable for 24 hours, sales slows. If it is unavailable for a week, customer experience and cashflow can be hit. A dependency that looks like "productivity software" becomes a continuity risk.
A useful way to think about this is: have you built a business culture that can still make and receive calls when the collaboration layer is unavailable? Or have you accidentally made "the app" the only way work happens?
The operational test is straightforward:
Practical mitigations are often low drama:
Governments have legitimate reasons to pursue lawful access: serious crime, terrorism, and national security. The policy debate is complex.
The engineering reality is simpler: once an exceptional access mechanism exists, it becomes an attack surface. It can be exploited by criminals, hostile states, insiders, or misconfiguration. History contains many examples of tools built for "the right people" being repurposed by the wrong ones.
For businesses, the risk is not abstract. Exceptional access increases the chance that confidential communications (customer data, legal strategy, mergers, negotiations) can be exposed.
Centralised messaging platforms can be easy to adopt, but they create a single control point: one provider, one policy layer, one identity system. That is efficient, until it is not.
Federation is a different model. In a Matrix style approach, organisations can run their own server (or choose a trusted host) while still communicating with others. The key shift is: you can keep your identity, your history, and your policies while remaining interoperable.
This contrasts with many other common messaging apps, where the provider and their policies remain a single control point. Federation does not eliminate risk, but it changes the dependency profile.
If you are assessing secure messaging for your business, look for:
Sovereignty is not a single project. It is a posture. A simple framework keeps it business-led.
One visible sign of sovereignty concerns is the pushback against forced platform changes. The Windows 11 cycle has created pressure: hardware requirements, upgrade timelines, and the bundling of features some organisations do not want.
This is where Linux is strategically interesting: it is genuinely free in the sense that no single vendor can take it away, force an upgrade, or require new hardware simply because a support policy changed. You can keep perfectly good machines in service, standardise on a stable environment, and avoid surprise platform direction changes (including being pushed into AI assistants such as Copilot if you do not want them).
For business leaders, the point is not that everyone should switch tomorrow. The point is option value: the ability to choose, to delay forced migrations, and to keep core tools working on your terms.
Data sovereignty is the business ability to retain control of information and remain operational if a vendor becomes unavailable, unaffordable, or unwilling. Ecosystems and online-only tooling can create stealth dependencies where identity, communications, documents, and payments become single points of failure. Breaches and inbox exposure are not theoretical. They are routine and can be reputation destroying. The mitigation is not to reject modern platforms, but to reduce fragility: own portable identifiers (domains and numbers), build export and recovery paths, and prove through testing that the business can still trade when a critical provider is down.
--- This content is not legal or financial advice & Solely the opinions of the author ---
