The Fight for Digital Sovereignty

The Fight for Digital Sovereignty was written by Sunil Abraham and published in the Economic & Political Weekly (Vol. XLVIII No. 42, 19 October 2013). The article argues that India must incorporate the principles of free and open source software into its governance and technology policies to protect privacy and maintain autonomy in the digital domain. Drawing from the global debate that followed Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass surveillance, Abraham explores how transparency in code, infrastructure, and standards can strengthen both freedom and security.

Publication Details
Abstract
Context and Background
Key Themes or Findings
Full Text
Citation

Publication Details

👤 Author:: Sunil Abraham
🏛️ Published in:: Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. XLVIII No. 42
📅 Date:: 19 October 2013
📘 Type:: Article
📄 Access:: No public PDF available

Abstract

The article argues that digital sovereignty depends on transparency, privacy, and technological independence. It contends that governments must rely on free and open source software (FOSS) to secure critical systems and to protect citizens from state and corporate surveillance. In light of the Snowden disclosures, Abraham proposes a policy framework for India that favours open technologies, independent audits, and indigenous research as the basis for privacy-respecting governance.

Context and Background

Following Edward Snowden’s revelations about the US National Security Agency’s surveillance programmes, global attention turned to questions of control, trust, and autonomy in cyberspace. Abraham situates this debate within the larger free software movement, which guarantees four freedoms through copyright licences — the rights to use, study, modify, and distribute software.

He notes that while proprietary systems obscure their inner workings, free software ensures transparency and auditability — both crucial for privacy and security. For India, adopting these principles is not only a technical necessity but a political act that reinforces democratic control over digital infrastructure.

Key Themes or Findings

Free Software and Privacy: Free and open source software provides the foundation for a transparent and accountable digital environment. The ability to inspect and modify code ensures that systems remain free of hidden surveillance.
Government Procurement and Policy: The author advocates mandating the use of free software in government and public infrastructure wherever feasible. Where proprietary software must be used, mechanisms like code escrow and independent audits can introduce transparency.
Hardware and National Security: Unlike countries that can ban foreign equipment, India should invest in reverse-engineering and analysis of imported hardware to detect potential security vulnerabilities.
Cloud Services and Cryptography: To safeguard communications, the state must prohibit public officials from using corporate email services for official purposes and encourage encryption across all sensitive communications.
Building Domestic Capability: Preferring open standards and free software in procurement can nurture domestic expertise in cybersecurity, server management, and privacy-enhancing technologies.
Sovereignty and Human Rights: Digital sovereignty is not absolute; it must coexist with human rights principles. Abraham notes that regulation may sometimes restrict technological freedom — for instance, requiring visible or audible alerts in recording devices to prevent misuse.

Full Text

The free and open source software movement (often collectively labelled as FOSS or sometimes FLOSS, with the “l” standing for “libre”) guarantees four freedoms through a copyright licence – the freedom to use for any purpose, the freedom to study the code, the freedom to modify it and the freedom to distribute the modified code gratis or for a fee. Free software principles have spread globally in movements advocating open standards, open content, open access and open data. Of these, the freedom to study the code is the most vital in an open society. Privacy, security and integrity are best achieved through the transparency guaranteed by free software rather than the opacity of proprietary software.

Free software is directly useful in deciding on the software required for device operating systems and applications. NSA’s surveillance programme covered operating system vendors like Microsoft and Apple, and application vendors like Skype. Concerns raised by such surveillance are best addressed by shifting to free software. This transition is increasingly feasible with the availability of Android derivatives that exclude Google’s data collection and through GNU/Linux distributions such as Ubuntu. Ideally, this should be mandated in government and public infrastructure wherever viable alternatives exist. Two complementary policy tools — code escrow and independent audits — can help where proprietary systems remain. Firms willing to share code with the government should be preferred in procurement, creating pressure on others to follow suit. Code escrow also strengthens the quality of audit.

Open hardware, though still marginal in market share, reflects similar principles. India cannot easily impose bans on foreign hardware as some Western nations have done, but it can support domestic research to reverse-engineer and verify both imported and indigenous products for security risks. For example, government-funded initiatives could test whether devices manufactured abroad transmit data covertly over Indian networks.

Cloud and online service dependence introduces further risks to privacy and security. These can be mitigated through the use of free software and open standards. Abraham recommends that government officials avoid corporate email platforms and adopt strong encryption for all sensitive communications. Rather than relying exclusively on a single national infrastructure like that of the National Informatics Centre, the state should support multiple, interoperable, open-source systems to prevent single points of failure. This approach would also strengthen domestic competence in cybersecurity and network management.

Ultimately, digital sovereignty means control over software, hardware, cloud and network infrastructure. Yet, as Abraham notes, sovereignty is not absolute. Law enforcement and national security may necessitate limited surveillance, and human rights protections may require certain technological constraints. The example of South Korea’s legal requirement for visible or audible alerts on recording devices illustrates how privacy and technology can coexist through thoughtful regulation. However, when software or hardware design itself becomes a means of resisting or enforcing law, technology turns into a site of struggle — a battleground for sovereignty between the free software developer and the state.

Citation

If you wish to reference or cite this article, you may use one of the following formats.

APA style:

Abraham, S. (2013).
The Fight for Digital Sovereignty.
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. XLVIII No. 42, 19 October 2013.
https://sunilabraham.in/publications/the-fight-for-digital-sovereignty/

BibTeX style

@article{abraham2013sovereignty,
  author = {Abraham, Sunil},
  title = {The Fight for Digital Sovereignty},
  journal = {Economic & Political Weekly},
  year = {2013},
  volume = {XLVIII},
  number = {42},
  month = {October},
  url = {https://sunilabraham.in/publications/the-fight-for-digital-sovereignty/}
}

MLA style

Abraham, Sunil. "The Fight for Digital Sovereignty."
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. XLVIII No. 42, 19 Oct. 2013.
https://sunilabraham.in/publications/the-fight-for-digital-sovereignty/