Concerns around digital sovereignty are rapidly becoming one of the most important debates shaping the future of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and government technology infrastructure across Europe and the UK.
The discussion recently gained attention after Chi Onwurah, chair of the UK Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee, criticized Britain’s broader technology strategy and warned about growing dependence on a small group of major US technology companies. Her remarks pointed to reliance on providers such as Microsoft and Amazon Web Services, while also referencing Palantir Technologies because of its involvement in NHS and defence-related contracts. She also raised concerns about foreign-controlled technology supply chains supporting critical public infrastructure.
At the centre of the debate is the meaning of “digital sovereignty,” a term that is increasingly used by governments but often interpreted differently. In practical terms, sovereignty refers to a country maintaining legal authority and control over its citizens’ sensitive data, including where that information is processed, accessed, and governed. Experts argue that sovereign data should only fall under the jurisdiction of the nation to which it belongs, rather than being exposed to foreign legal systems or overseas regulatory reach.
The issue has become especially significant in the era of public cloud computing. Before large-scale cloud adoption, most government and enterprise data was stored and processed inside domestic datacentres, limiting both physical and remote access to national borders. While foreign software vendors occasionally required access for maintenance or support purposes, control over infrastructure largely remained local.
That model changed as governments and businesses increasingly adopted cloud services operated by US-headquartered providers. As organizations shifted toward subscription-based cloud platforms, concerns began emerging over whether sensitive national data could still be considered sovereign if it was processed through globally distributed infrastructure.
Much of the modern sovereignty debate intensified following the Schrems II ruling, a landmark European court decision that challenged how personal data could be transferred outside the EU to countries viewed as having weaker privacy protections. Since then, governments across Europe have pushed for tighter oversight of where data travels and who ultimately controls cloud infrastructure.
Although sovereignty concerns are often framed as a problem tied only to hyperscalers, industry analysts say the challenge is broader. Companies including IBM, Oracle Corporation, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise also face pressure to adapt their cloud and data processing models to meet stricter sovereignty expectations.
The debate has also been intensified by geopolitical tensions. European governments have become increasingly cautious about long-term dependence on foreign-owned digital infrastructure, particularly as cloud computing and artificial intelligence become more deeply connected to defence, healthcare, and public services. Analysts note that data infrastructure is now being viewed similarly to energy or telecommunications infrastructure: strategically important and politically sensitive.
Among the prominent providers, Microsoft was one of the earliest companies to experiment with sovereign cloud initiatives, including a dedicated German version of Microsoft 365. However, that model was eventually discontinued in 2022. Critics argue the company now faces greater difficulties adapting because many of its cloud services operate through highly interconnected global systems spread across more than 100 countries.
Questions around transparency have also created challenges. Reports previously indicated that Microsoft struggled to provide detailed information about certain data flows when requested by the Scottish Police Authority under data protection obligations. Investigative reporting from ProPublica also stated that US authorities encountered similar difficulties while attempting to evaluate Microsoft cloud services under FedRAMP certification requirements for government environments.
Additional scrutiny has emerged around Microsoft’s artificial intelligence infrastructure plans. The company had previously indicated that in-country AI processing capabilities for Copilot services in the UK would arrive by the end of 2025, though timelines have reportedly shifted into 2026. Some European customers are also expected to receive regional AI processing instead of fully sovereign national deployments.
Industry experts increasingly categorize sovereign cloud approaches into multiple levels. One common method involves creating “data boundaries,” where providers attempt to restrict where customer data is stored or processed while still operating under global cloud architectures. Critics argue this model may not fully satisfy stricter interpretations of sovereignty because some operational control can still remain overseas.
A second approach focuses on partnerships with local operators that manage sovereign services regionally. Amazon Web Services has promoted its European Sovereign Cloud initiative using this framework, arguing that the platform aligns with EU regulatory requirements. However, some analysts contend that EU-level governance is not the same as national sovereignty, particularly for non-EU countries such as the UK. Concerns have also been raised over whether US legislation, including the CLOUD Act, could still apply in certain circumstances.
Meanwhile, Google Cloud has attracted attention through its partnership with French defence and technology company Thales Group. Their joint venture, S3NS, is designed around France-specific sovereign infrastructure with air-gapped operations, meaning the systems can function independently without continuously communicating with external global networks for updates or validation checks.
Security specialists consider air-gapped architecture an important benchmark for sovereign cloud environments because it reduces reliance on foreign operational control. Google’s Distributed Cloud Air-Gapped platform is currently viewed by some analysts as one of the more mature sovereign cloud offerings available, despite still lacking some features present in its broader public cloud ecosystem.
The approach has already attracted major defence-related interest. France, NATO members, and the German military have all shown interest in sovereign infrastructure models, while the UK Ministry of Defence recently announced a £400 million contract spanning five years tied to these types of capabilities.
Competing alternatives are still evolving. AWS offers LocalStack-focused options largely aimed at development environments, while Microsoft’s disconnected Azure Local products have faced criticism from some analysts who argue the offerings remain less mature than competing sovereign platforms.
Despite rapid investment, experts say the sovereign cloud market is still in its early stages. Google’s France-based partnership model currently appears to offer one of the clearest examples of locally controlled hyperscale infrastructure, while AWS continues refining its European-focused model and Microsoft works through broader architectural and transparency challenges.
At the same time, the sovereignty movement may create new opportunities for regional cloud providers and domestic technology companies. However, analysts warn that building competitive sovereign infrastructure will require long-term investment, government support, and procurement strategies that allow interoperability between multiple vendors rather than locking public institutions into a single provider.
Many experts believe the future of sovereign technology infrastructure will likely depend on hybrid and partnership-driven models combining hyperscale cloud capabilities with locally managed operations. Supporters of the S3NS approach argue it offers an early blueprint for how global cloud providers and national operators could collaborate while still preserving local control over sensitive data and critical digital systems.
Salesforce has confirmed it will not pay a ransom to an extortion group that claims to have stolen close to one billion records belonging to several of its customers. The company stated that it will not enter negotiations or make payments to any threat actor, reaffirming its policy of non-engagement with cybercriminals.
Extortion Group Claims to Have Breached Dozens of Salesforce Customers
The group behind the alleged theft calls itself “Scattered LAPSUS$ Hunters”, a name that appears to blend identities from three notorious cyber-extortion collectives: Scattered Spider, LAPSUS$, and ShinyHunters. Cybersecurity firm Mandiant, owned by Google, has been tracking this activity under the identifier UNC6040, though analysts say the group’s exact origins and membership remain unconfirmed.
According to Mandiant’s June report, the campaign began in May, when attackers used voice-based social engineering, or “vishing,” to trick employees at several organizations using Salesforce’s platform. Pretending to represent technical support teams, the callers persuaded employees to connect an attacker-controlled application to their company’s Salesforce environment. Once integrated, the app provided unauthorized access to stored customer data.
Security researchers described the tactic as simple but highly effective, since it relies on human trust rather than exploiting software vulnerabilities. Several organizations unknowingly granted the attackers access, enabling them to exfiltrate vast amounts of data.
Earlier this month, the extortionists created a leak site listing approximately 40 affected Salesforce customers, including large global firms. The site claimed that 989.45 million records had been compromised and demanded that Salesforce begin ransom negotiations “or all your customers’ data will be leaked.” The attackers added that if Salesforce agreed to pay, other victim companies would not be required to do so individually.
Salesforce, however, made its position clear. In a statement to media outlets, a company spokesperson said, “Salesforce will not engage, negotiate with, or pay any extortion demand.” The company also informed customers via email that it had received credible intelligence about plans by ShinyHunters to release the stolen data publicly, but it would still not yield to any ransom demand.
Broader Concerns Over Ransomware Economics
The incident adds to a growing global debate over ransom payments. Analysts say extortion and ransomware attacks persist largely because organizations continue to pay. According to Deepstrike Security, global ransom payments in 2024 reached $813 million, a decline from $1.1 billion in 2023 but still a major incentive for criminal groups.
Experts such as independent security researcher Kevin Beaumont have repeatedly criticized the practice of paying ransoms, arguing that it directly funds organized crime and perpetuates the cycle of attacks. Beaumont noted that while law enforcement agencies like the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) publicly discourage payments, some companies still proceed with negotiations, sometimes even with NCA representatives present.
Risks and Lessons for Organizations
Data stolen from cloud-based platforms like Salesforce may include customer identifiers, contact details, transaction histories, and other business records. Even without financial information, such data can be weaponized in phishing, identity theft, or fraud campaigns.
Security professionals advise all organizations using cloud platforms to implement multi-factor authentication, enforce least-privilege access controls, and review all third-party applications connected to their systems. Employees should be trained to verify unexpected support calls or administrative requests through official channels before granting access.
The Salesforce case underscores the growing sophistication of social engineering attacks targeting major enterprise platforms. As digital ecosystems expand, cybercriminals are increasingly exploiting human error rather than software flaws. Salesforce’s refusal to pay marks a firm stance in an era when ransom-driven extortion continues to dominate the threat landscape, sending a strong message to both the cybersecurity community and the attackers themselves.
When people upgrade their phones, laptops, or tablets, the old devices often end up in trade-in programs or at electronic waste collection points. But what happens to the personal information stored on those devices after they leave your hands? The answer is more complicated than many assume.
Resale programs and secure erasure
Companies that refurbish and resell electronics usually follow structured procedures to protect customer data. Devices that are still functional and have resale value are wiped using certified erasure software, designed to make data permanently inaccessible. This process typically produces a digital certificate confirming that the wipe was completed. Devices that cannot be repaired or reused are diverted to recycling instead.
Recycling centres and hidden risks
Collection centres that process large volumes of e-waste follow a different model. Devices are first sorted and stripped of hazardous parts such as batteries, before being fed into shredders that break down the materials for recovery. While this may sound final, experts point out that the chain of custody for individual devices is not always secure. In the past, some recyclers offered on-site data destruction services, but these programs were scaled back due to high operating costs.
Although the risk of someone recovering data from shredded parts is very low, it is not entirely impossible. The cost of reconstructing files often outweighs the potential value of the data, but individuals who store sensitive information may still face exposure if devices are not properly erased before recycling.
Factory reset: not a full solution
Many users believe that deleting files or performing a factory reset provides sufficient protection. However, a reset often only clears visible settings and does not necessarily erase underlying data. Depending on the device, fragments of information such as banking details, personal messages, or login credentials can still be retrieved by someone with technical expertise.
Steps you can take before disposal
Security experts recommend that users take precautions themselves rather than relying solely on resellers or recyclers. Before handing over a device:
1. Back up essential files and remove linked accounts.
2. Take out SIM cards and memory cards.
3. Encrypt the device to make any remaining data unreadable.
4. Use secure-erase software or request an erasure certificate if trading in.
5. For highly sensitive information, consider physically destroying the storage drive instead of recycling.
Not every device poses the same risk. For routine personal use, secure erasure and responsible recycling are usually sufficient. For devices holding highly confidential or financial data, stronger measures are advisable. But experts also warn against avoiding recycling altogether. Keeping outdated electronics at home or in storage carries its own risks, as devices can still be stolen or accessed.
Ultimately, safeguarding personal information before disposal is the responsibility of the user. Taking a few extra steps now can protect your privacy while ensuring devices are recycled responsibly.
"KLM has reported to the Dutch Data Protection Authority; Air France has done this in France at the CNIL. Customers whose data may have been accessed are currently being informed and advised to be extra alert to suspicious emails or phone calls," the group said.
With 78,000 employees and a fleet of 564 aircraft, Air France-KLM offers services for 300 destinations in 90 countries worldwide. The group transported 98 million passengers globally in 2024. The airlines said that they have closed the threat actors’ access to the hacked systems once the breach was discovered. They also claim that the attack didn’t impact their networks.
"Air France and KLM have detected unusual activity on an external platform we use for customer service. This activity resulted in unauthorized access to customer data. Our IT security teams, along with the relevant external party, took immediate action to stop the unauthorized access. Measures have also been implemented to prevent recurrence. Internal Air France and KLM systems were not affected," the group said.
The attackers stole data, including names, email addresses, contact numbers, transaction records, and details of rewards programs. But the group has said that the passengers’ personal and financial data was not compromised. The airlines have informed the concerned authorities in the respective countries of the attack. They have also notified the impacted individuals about the breach.
"KLM has reported the incident to the Dutch Data Protection Authority; Air France has done so in France with the CNIL.” "Customers whose data may have been accessed are currently being informed and advised to be extra vigilant for suspicious emails or phone calls," they said.
A major player in the global fashion jewellery market for many years, Pandora has long been positioned as a dominant force in this field as the world's largest jewellery brand. However, the luxury retailer is now one of a growing number of companies that have been targeted by cybercriminals.
A cyberattack has brought down one of Germany’s largest phone insurance and repair networks, forcing the once-thriving Einhaus Group into insolvency. The company, which at its peak generated around €70 million in annual revenue and partnered with big names such as Deutsche Telekom, Cyberport, and 1&1, has been unable to recover from the financial and operational chaos that followed the attack.
The Day Everything Stopped
In March 2023, founder Wilhelm Einhaus arrived at the company’s offices to an unsettling sight. Every printer had churned out the same note: “We’ve hacked you. All further information can be found on the dark web.” Investigations revealed the work of the hacking group known as “Royal.” They had infiltrated the company’s network, encrypting all of its core systems, the very tools needed to process claims, manage customer data, and run daily operations.
Without these systems, business ground to a halt. The hackers demanded around $230,000 in Bitcoin to unlock the computers. Facing immediate and heavy losses, and with no way to operate manually at the same scale, Einhaus Group reportedly agreed to pay. The financial damage, however, was already severe, estimated in the multi-million-euro range. Police were brought in early, but the payment decision was made to avoid even greater harm.
Desperate Measures to Stay Afloat
Before the attack, the company employed roughly 170 people. Within months, more than 100 positions were cut, leaving only eight employees to handle all ongoing work. With so few staff, much of the processing had to be done by hand, slowing operations dramatically.
To raise funds, the company sold its headquarters and liquidated various investments. These moves bought time but did not restore the business to its former state.
Seized Ransom, But No Relief
In a twist, German authorities later apprehended three suspects believed to be linked to the “Royal” group. They also seized cryptocurrency valued in the high six-figure euro range, suspected to be connected to the ransom payments.
However, Einhaus Group has not received its money back. Prosecutors have refused to release the seized funds until investigations are complete — a process that could take years. Other ransomware victims in Germany are in the same position, with no guarantee they will ever recover the full amount.
Final Stages of the Collapse
Three separate companies tied to the Einhaus Group have now formally entered insolvency proceedings. While liquidation is a strong possibility, founder Wilhelm Einhaus, now 72, insists he has no plans to retire. If the business is dissolved, he says he will start again from scratch.
The Einhaus case is not unique. Just recently, the UK’s 158-year-old transport company Knights of Old collapsed after a ransomware attack by a group known as “Akira,” leaving 700 people jobless. Cyberattacks are increasingly proving fatal to established businesses not just through stolen data, but by dismantling the very infrastructure needed to survive.