Digital Sovereignty and the Open Internet?

Digital Sovereignty: The End of the Open Internet as We Know It? (Part 1)

Published on 03 April 2025 | Updated on 03 April 2025
Author: Marília Maciel

Digital sovereignty is an evolving concept that has recently shifted from the fringes of digital policy discourse to a central point of debate in international relations, technology governance, and cybersecurity. In this first part of our two-part series, we will explore digital sovereignty in the context of political economy and cybersecurity, provide real-world examples, and even dive into technical demonstrations using Bash and Python for scanning and parsing outputs. Whether you are a beginner looking to understand the theory behind digital sovereignty or an advanced practitioner interested in technical applications, this post will provide a comprehensive guide.

Table of Contents:

Introduction
What is Digital Sovereignty?
Historical Context and the Evolution of Sovereignty
Digital Sovereignty in the Political Economy
Cybersecurity and Digital Sovereignty: A Technical Perspective
The Future Trajectory of Digital Sovereignty
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The internet was once celebrated as the ultimate borderless domain—a space free from the limitations of national boundaries, where ideas, commerce, and data moved without interference. However, as governments, non-governmental organizations, and corporations have sought greater control over digital flows, the concept of digital sovereignty has emerged. At its core, digital sovereignty is about the ability of political communities to autonomously determine their own digital policies and steer their digital infrastructures free from extraterritorial pressures. This shift is transforming the architecture of the internet, potentially heralding what some describe as "the end of the open internet as we know it."

In this post, we will unpack the notion of digital sovereignty, discuss its historical and philosophical roots, and explore how the tension between autonomy and global interdependence manifests in today’s digital ecosystem. In addition, we will explore technical aspects, providing code samples for cybersecurity enthusiasts who wish to understand how digital sovereignty plays a role in protecting national digital infrastructures.

What is Digital Sovereignty?

Digital sovereignty is defined as the capacity of a state or a political community to control its digital environment, including data, networks, and technologies that underpin the digital economy. It can be understood along two main dimensions:

Autonomy and Control: The idea that states should be free to develop, regulate, and use digital technologies according to their own needs and values. This dimension emphasizes the ability to choose which technologies to adopt, which data flows to permit, and how to enforce digital regulations.
Security and Resilience: Digital sovereignty also encompasses the protective measures a state takes against external influences that might compromise its digital integrity. This involves robust cybersecurity measures and control over the technological infrastructure that supports critical services.

The debate around digital sovereignty has grown increasingly relevant in a world where geopolitical tensions, cyberattacks, data breaches, and economic competition intersect. There is a growing concern that if digital sovereignty is pursued exclusively through a protectionist lens, it might end up fragmenting the global internet into isolated national or regional spheres.

Key Keywords: digital sovereignty, open internet, cybersecurity, autonomy, digital control, political economy

Historical Context and the Evolution of Sovereignty

Westphalian Roots and Beyond

The concept of state sovereignty originates from the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which emphasized territorial integrity, non-interference, and legal equality among states. Although digital affairs do not adhere to these traditional territorial principles, the legacy of state sovereignty still influences how nations perceive control over the digital realm.

Over time, as technology progressed, the notion of sovereignty has been reimagined in the digital space. One of the seminal definitions, as proposed by scholars like Geenens, suggests that sovereignty is “the perspective from which a political community can consciously understand itself as an autonomous agent.” This definition implies that:

Sovereignty is inherently a political claim that cannot be transferred to non-political actors (e.g., private corporations).
Autonomy involves the capacity to make rational choices regarding policies and actions without merely reacting to external pressures.

From Liberalism to Neo-Mercantilism

In the late 20th century, the liberal model of the internet was championed by several Western governments, particularly the United States. This approach promoted the free flow of information and cross-border data without heavy bureaucratic oversight. Key global forums, such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), emphasized multi-stakeholder approaches, so long as state intervention remained minimal.

However, recent geopolitical shifts—illustrated by changes in U.S. domestic and foreign policy and rising digital protectionism in regions like the European Union and India—have prompted many states to reconsider these principles. What began as a drive towards digital openness now morphs into a struggle for control, as evidenced by initiatives like India Stack and the Euro Stack, which aim to reclaim sovereign control over digital infrastructures.

Key Keywords: Westphalian sovereignty, liberal internet, neo-mercantilism, India Stack, Euro Stack

Digital Sovereignty in the Political Economy

The contemporary discussion on digital sovereignty is deeply intertwined with the global political economy. As states navigate the dual imperatives of maintaining national security and participating in a global digital marketplace, they face a complex balancing act.

The Tension Between Global Interdependence and National Autonomy

On one hand, the digital economy is highly interdependent. Companies, data centers, and cloud infrastructures operate across national boundaries, creating complex interdependencies that foster innovation and growth. On the other hand, national governments demand control over data that traverses their territories, especially data related to critical infrastructure and sensitive information.

This tension has produced a spectrum of policy responses:

Liberal Openness: Some policymakers advocate for minimal interference, emphasizing the benefits of a borderless digital realm that promotes trade and innovation.
Securitization: Others call for stringent digital regulations to protect national interests, leading to laws that could potentially fragment the internet along national or regional lines.
Neo-Mercantilism: A growing number of states are now adopting strategies that are strongly influenced by national economic considerations. In this view, digital sovereignty is not merely about security or cultural identity—it is also a tool for advancing national industrial policies.

Acts in the Political Economy Drama

In our analysis, the evolution of digital sovereignty can be understood as an unfinished play in three acts:

Act I: The Liberal Rejection of Digital Sovereignty
Early on, the dominant narrative was pro-open internet: a belief that digital resources should flow freely across borders. The focus was on creating a secure environment for innovation and trade, particularly during the Clinton Administration’s push for the Information Superhighway.
Act II: The Rise of Securitization and Economic Instrumentalization
As trust in the digital domain eroded due to incidents like widespread cyberattacks and espionage, the narrative slowly shifted towards security. States began to see digital sovereignty as a means to control and mitigate risks emerging from an interdependent digital economy.
Act III: Unsettled Negotiations between Autonomy and Integration
Today’s debate is marked by conflicting pressures—as states and corporations maneuver between the need for autonomy and the benefits of participation in global digital flows. This ongoing tension is testing the resilient, adaptive power structures of the modern internet.

Key Keywords: political economy, interdependence, national autonomy, neo-mercantilism, digital fragmentation

Cybersecurity and Digital Sovereignty: A Technical Perspective

In addition to the political and economic implications, digital sovereignty possesses a significant cybersecurity dimension. Nation-states increasingly adopt sovereign digital policies to protect critical infrastructure from cyberattacks and espionage. Here, we explore some technical aspects of this dimension in detail, from scanning for vulnerabilities to parsing the results for actionable insights.

Real-World Examples

European Cyber Defense Initiatives:
The European Union has made significant investments in cybersecurity to protect its digital sovereignty. Initiatives that support continuous network monitoring, vulnerability penetration tests, and digital forensics are becoming standard practice.
National Cybersecurity Agencies:
Countries like Estonia and Israel have developed robust cybersecurity frameworks that combine traditional defense mechanisms with innovative technologies. Regular network scans, threat intelligence sharing, and the use of advanced analytics help these nations maintain control over their digital environment.
Critical Infrastructure Protection:
Digital sovereignty also extends to devices and systems that support critical infrastructure, such as energy grids, financial systems, and transportation networks. Cybersecurity teams employ regular vulnerability assessments to preempt and remediate potential threats before they can be exploited.

Scanning Commands in Bash

Scanning networks for vulnerabilities is a common technical task in cybersecurity. National security agencies and private security teams alike use tools like Nmap to identify open ports, running services, and potential vulnerabilities. Below is an example of a basic Nmap scan command in Bash:

#!/bin/bash
# Basic Nmap scan to identify open ports on a target host.
TARGET="192.168.1.1"

echo "Scanning target: $TARGET"
nmap -sV $TARGET

This script performs a simple version detection scan on the designated target (in this case, the IP address 192.168.1.1). The -sV flag instructs Nmap to probe open ports to determine the service version information. Such scans are often the precursor to a more detailed network audit that feeds into a digital sovereignty strategy: ensuring that state-controlled networks are free of vulnerabilities that could be exploited by foreign or malicious actors.

For more advanced usage, consider running a scan that outputs results in XML format. This can be particularly useful when you want to parse and analyze the data programmatically.

#!/bin/bash
# Advanced Nmap scan that outputs to an XML file for later parsing.
TARGET="192.168.1.1"
OUTPUT="scan_results.xml"

echo "Performing advanced scan on: $TARGET"
nmap -sV -oX $OUTPUT $TARGET
echo "Scan results saved to $OUTPUT"

Explanation of the command:

-sV: Version detection.
-oX $OUTPUT: Save the output in XML format to a file named scan_results.xml.

Parsing Scanner Output with Python

Once you have scanning results in XML format, you may want to automate the analysis using Python. Python’s ElementTree library makes it easy to parse XML documents and extract relevant information. Below is a sample Python script that reads the Nmap XML output and prints a summary of open ports and detected services.

import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET

def parse_nmap_xml(file_path):
    tree = ET.parse(file_path)
    root = tree.getroot()
    
    # Namespace trick - sometimes necessary if the XML uses namespaces
    ns = {'nmap': 'http://www.nmap.org/schema/scan/xsd'}
    
    for host in root.findall('host'):
        addresses = host.find('address')
        ip_address = addresses.get('addr') if addresses is not None else 'Unknown'
        print(f"\nHost: {ip_address}")
        
        for port in host.find('ports').findall('port'):
            port_id = port.get('portid')
            protocol = port.get('protocol')
            service = port.find('service').get('name')
            print(f"Port: {port_id}/{protocol}, Service: {service}")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    file_path = "scan_results.xml"
    print("Parsing Nmap XML scan results...")
    parse_nmap_xml(file_path)

Explanation of the code:

The script uses Python’s built-in xml.etree.ElementTree for parsing the XML file.
The parse_nmap_xml function navigates through the XML tree to extract the IP address of each host and details about each open port.
This automated process is an example of how cybersecurity professionals can integrate digital sovereignty measures by regularly scanning and monitoring network infrastructures.

Integrating Cybersecurity into Digital Sovereignty Strategies

Digital sovereignty initiatives require robust tools and automated methods to maintain control over national digital infrastructures. Below are some ways in which technical implementations assist in this process:

Continuous Monitoring:
Automated scanning and monitoring using scripts and specialized software help detect deviations from normal network behavior, hinting at potential cyber intrusions or vulnerabilities.
Data Analytics:
Leveraging data analytics tools to parse the vast amounts of data generated by network scans enables decision-makers to prioritize remediation efforts in alignment with national cybersecurity strategies.
Incident Response:
When vulnerabilities are identified, coordinated responses—often automated via Python scripts or integrated dashboards—allow for rapid remediation, minimizing potential damage.
Transparency and Reporting:
Regularly scheduled scans and detailed reports enhance transparency and accountability in digital infrastructure management. They also serve as evidence in international dialogues on digital sovereignty and cybersecurity cooperation.

Key Keywords: cybersecurity, Nmap, Python XML parsing, vulnerability scan, digital infrastructure, automated monitoring

The Future Trajectory of Digital Sovereignty

Balancing Autonomy and Global Integration

The future of digital sovereignty will be determined by how well states can balance the need for autonomy with the undeniable benefits of participating in a global digital ecosystem. As digital policies become more assertive, we are likely to see:

Compartmentalized Internet Territories:
National or regional digital ecosystems that operate under distinct regulatory frameworks while still interfacing with a global network.
Technological Standardization vs. Customization:
While interoperability remains essential for global trade, customization and localized control will be paramount for addressing national security concerns.
Collaboration and Conflict:
Digital sovereignty may create avenues for both international collaboration (e.g., shared cybersecurity frameworks) and conflict (e.g., disputes over cross-border data transfers).

Implications for Cybersecurity

From a cybersecurity perspective, the movement towards digital sovereignty should result in:

Increased Investment in National Security Capabilities:
Expect more resources allocated to state-sponsored cybersecurity research, development, and deployment.
Enhanced Resilience of Critical Infrastructure:
With better-defined boundaries and periodic screenings, critical infrastructure can be better protected from external threats.
Standardized Protocols for Incident Reporting:
As data becomes a national asset, standardized protocols will ensure that threat intelligence sharing remains both efficient and secure.

Challenges and Opportunities Ahead

The transformation of the open internet into a series of sovereign digital spaces is not without its challenges:

Fragmentation vs. Innovation:
Too much fragmentation might stifle the innovation that has historically fueled the digital revolution.
International Tensions:
The reassertion of national boundaries in cyberspace could lead to increased geopolitical friction.
Market Dynamics:
Economic competition will shape the ways in which states balance security with the free flow of digital data.

However, these challenges also open up opportunities for developing new cybersecurity tools, forging international cooperation in threat intelligence, and creating technical frameworks that can work across regulatory borders.

Key Keywords: future of digital sovereignty, cybersecurity challenges, digital fragmentation, sovereign digital spaces

Conclusion

Digital sovereignty represents a seismic shift in how we understand and govern our digital futures. As states move away from the liberal doctrine of the open internet towards a more guarded approach marked by digital autonomy and control, the intersection of political economy and technology governance becomes increasingly complex. In this post, we explored the origins and evolution of digital sovereignty, its implications in the global political economy, and its technical ramifications in cybersecurity.

We also demonstrated practical applications by providing real-world scanning commands in Bash and parsing those outputs with Python. These technical examples underscore how cybersecurity practices are integrated into broader efforts to protect and control digital infrastructures.

While the open internet has long been a symbol of freedom and global connectivity, the rise of digital sovereignty challenges this paradigm, possibly ushering in a future where the boundaries between national and digital space blur. As we look forward to Part 2, where we will delve deeper into the relationship between digital sovereignty and the open internet, the need for a balanced approach that fosters both security and innovation remains more urgent than ever.

Digital sovereignty is not simply a policy issue—it is a technical, economic, and geopolitical challenge that will define the future of how nations interact in the digital realm.

References

Stay tuned for Part 2, where we connect digital sovereignty with openness, examining how policy choices affect the global digital ecosystem and what that means for the future of the internet.

With this comprehensive exploration, we hope you have gained valuable insights into digital sovereignty, both from a policy-making perspective and from a technical cybersecurity angle. Whether you are a policymaker, a cybersecurity professional, or a curious learner, understanding these paradigms is essential in navigating the future of an interconnected yet increasingly guarded digital world.

Happy coding, and stay secure!

Digital Sovereignty and the Open Internet?

Take Your Cybersecurity Career to the Next Level