Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

Footer About

Footer About

Labels

Showing posts with label data sovereignty. Show all posts

Geopolitical Conflict Is Increasing the Risk of Cyber Disruption




Cybersecurity is increasingly shaped by global politics. Armed conflicts, economic sanctions, trade restrictions, and competition over advanced technologies are pushing countries to use digital operations as tools of state power. Cyber activity allows governments to disrupt rivals quietly, without deploying traditional military force, making it an attractive option during periods of heightened tension.

This development has raised serious concerns about infrastructure safety. A large share of technology leaders fear that advanced cyber capabilities developed by governments could escalate into wider cyber conflict. If that happens, systems that support everyday life, such as electricity, water supply, and transport networks, are expected to face the greatest exposure.

Recent events have shown how damaging infrastructure failures can be. A widespread power outage across parts of the Iberian Peninsula was not caused by a cyber incident, but it demonstrated how quickly modern societies are affected when essential services fail. Similar disruptions caused deliberately through cyber means could have even more severe consequences.

There have also been rare public references to cyber tools being used during political or military operations. In one instance, U.S. leadership suggested that cyber capabilities were involved in disrupting electricity in Caracas during an operation targeting Venezuela’s leadership. Such actions raise concerns because disabling utilities affects civilians as much as strategic targets.

Across Europe, multiple incidents have reinforced these fears. Security agencies have reported attempts to interfere with energy infrastructure, including dams and national power grids. In one case, unauthorized control of a water facility allowed water to flow unchecked for several hours before detection. In another, a country narrowly avoided a major blackout after suspicious activity targeted its electricity network. Analysts often view these incidents against the backdrop of Europe’s political and military support for Ukraine, which has been followed by increased tension with Moscow and a rise in hybrid tactics, including cyber activity and disinformation.

Experts remain uncertain about the readiness of smart infrastructure to withstand complex cyber operations. Past attacks on power grids, particularly in Eastern Europe, are frequently cited as warnings. Those incidents showed how coordinated intrusions could interrupt electricity for millions of people within a short period.

Beyond physical systems, the information space has also become a battleground. Disinformation campaigns are evolving rapidly, with artificial intelligence enabling the fast creation of convincing false images and videos. During politically sensitive moments, misleading content can spread online within hours, shaping public perception before facts are confirmed.

Such tactics are used by states, political groups, and other actors to influence opinion, create confusion, and deepen social divisions. From Eastern Europe to East Asia, information manipulation has become a routine feature of modern conflict.

In Iran, ongoing protests have been accompanied by tighter control over internet access. Authorities have restricted connectivity and filtered traffic, limiting access to independent information. While official channels remain active, these measures create conditions where manipulated narratives can circulate more easily. Reports of satellite internet shutdowns were later contradicted by evidence that some services remained available.

Different countries engage in cyber activity in distinct ways. Russia is frequently associated with ransomware ecosystems, though direct state involvement is difficult to prove. Iran has used cyber operations alongside political pressure, targeting institutions and infrastructure. North Korea combines cyber espionage with financially motivated attacks, including cryptocurrency theft. China is most often linked to long-term intelligence gathering and access to sensitive data rather than immediate disruption.

As these threats manifest into serious matters of concern, cybersecurity is increasingly viewed as an issue of national control. Governments and organizations are reassessing reliance on foreign technology and cloud services due to legal, data protection, and supply chain concerns. This shift is already influencing infrastructure decisions and is expected to play a central role in security planning as global instability continues into 2026.

Airbus Signals Shift Toward European Sovereign Cloud to Reduce Reliance on US Tech Giants

 

Airbus, the aerospace manufacturer in Europe is getting ready to depend less on big American technology companies like Google and Microsoft. The company wants to rethink how and where it does its important digital work. 

Airbus is going to put out a request for companies to help it move its most critical systems to a European cloud that is controlled by Europeans. This is a change in how Airbus handles its digital infrastructure. Airbus is doing this to have control over its digital work. The company wants to use a cloud, for its mission-critical systems. Airbus uses a lot of services from Google and Microsoft. The company has a setup that includes big data centers and tools like Google Workspace that help people work together. 

Airbus also uses software from Microsoft to handle money matters.. When it comes to very secret and military documents these are not allowed to be stored in public cloud environments. This is because Airbus wants to be in control of its data and does not want to worry about rules and regulations. Airbus has had these concerns for a time. 

The company wants to make sure it can keep its information safe. Airbus is careful, about where it stores its documents, especially the ones that are related to the military. The company is now looking at moving its applications from its own premises to the cloud. This includes things like systems for planning and managing the business platforms for running the factories tools for managing customer relationships and software for managing the life cycle of products which's where the designs for the aircraft are kept. 

These systems are really important to Airbus because they hold a lot of information and are used to run the business. So it is very important to think about where they are hosted. The people in charge have said that the information, in these systems is a matter of European security, which means the systems need to be kept in Europe. Airbus needs to make sure that the cloud infrastructure it uses is controlled by companies. The company wants to keep its aircraft design data safe and secure which is why it is looking for a solution that meets European security standards. 

European companies are getting really worried about being in control of their digital stuff. This is a deal for them especially now that people are talking about how different the rules are in Europe and the United States. Some big American companies like Microsoft, Google and Amazon Web Services are trying to make European companies feel better by offering services that deal with these worries.. European companies are still not sure if they can really trust these American companies. 

The main reason they are worried is because of a law in the United States called the US CLOUD Act. This law lets American authorities ask companies for access to data even if that data is stored in other countries. European companies do not like this because they think it means American authorities have much power over their digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty is a concern for European companies and they want to make sure they have control, over their own digital stuff. 

For organizations that deal with sensitive information related to industry, defense or the government this set of laws is a big problem. Digital sovereignty is about a country or region being in charge of its digital systems the way it handles data and who gets to access that data. This means that the laws of that country decide how information is taken care of and protected. The way Airbus is doing things shows that Europe, as a whole is trying to make sure its cloud operations follow the laws and priorities of the region. European organizations and Europe are working on sovereignty and cloud operations to keep their information safe. 

People are worried about the CLOUD Act. This is because of things that happened in court before. Microsoft said in a court in France that it cannot promise to keep people from the United States government getting their data. This is true even if the data is stored in Europe. Microsoft said it has not had to give the United States government any data from customers yet.. The company admitted that it does have to follow the law. 

This shows that companies, like Microsoft that are based in the United States and provide cloud services have to deal with some legal problems. The CLOUD Act is a part of these problems. Airbus’ reported move toward a sovereign European cloud underscores a growing shift among major enterprises that view digital infrastructure not just as a technical choice, but as a matter of strategic autonomy. 

As geopolitical tensions and regulatory scrutiny increase, decisions about where data lives and who ultimately controls access to it are becoming central to corporate risk management and long-term resilience.

CLOUD Act Extends US Jurisdiction Over Global Cloud Data Across Microsoft, Google, and Amazon

 

That Frankfurt data center storing your business files or the Singapore server holding your personal photos may not be as secure from U.S. oversight as you think. If the provider is Microsoft, Amazon, Google, or another U.S.-based tech giant, physical geography does little to shield information once American authorities seek access. The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act, enacted in March 2018, gives U.S. law enforcement broad authority to demand data from American companies no matter where that information is located. Many organizations and individuals who once assumed that hosting data in Europe or Asia provided protection from U.S. jurisdiction now face an overlooked vulnerability.  

The law applies to every major cloud provider headquartered in the United States, including Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple, Meta, and Salesforce. This means data hosted in Microsoft’s European facilities, Google’s Asian networks, or Amazon’s servers in regions worldwide can be accessed through proper legal orders. An organization running Office 365 in London or an individual storing iCloud photos in Berlin could have their data obtained by U.S. investigators with little visibility into the process. Even companies promoting themselves as “foreign hosted” may not be immune if they have American subsidiaries or offices. Jurisdiction extends to entities connected to the United States, meaning that promises of sovereignty can be undercut by corporate structure. 

The framework obligates companies to comply quickly with data requests, leaving limited room for delay. Providers may challenge orders if they conflict with local privacy protections, but the proceedings typically occur without the knowledge of the customer whose data is involved. As a result, users may never know their information has been disclosed, since notification is not required. This dynamic has raised significant concerns about transparency, privacy, and the balance of international legal obligations. 

There are alternatives for those seeking stronger guarantees of independence. Providers such as Hetzner in Germany, OVHcloud in France, and Proton in Switzerland operate strictly under European laws and maintain distance from U.S. corporate ties. These companies cannot be compelled to share data with American authorities unless they enter into agreements that extend jurisdiction. However, relying on such providers can involve trade-offs, such as limited integration with mainstream platforms or reduced global reach. Some U.S. firms have responded by offering “sovereign cloud regions” managed locally, but questions remain about whether ultimate control still rests with the parent corporation and therefore remains vulnerable to U.S. legal demands. 

The implications are clear: the choice of cloud provider is not only a technical or financial decision but a geopolitical one. In a world where information represents both power and liability, each upload is effectively a decision about which country’s laws govern your digital life. For businesses and individuals alike, data location may matter less than corporate origin, and the CLOUD Act ensures that U.S. jurisdiction extends far beyond its borders.

Data Sovereignty in the Age of Geopolitical Uncertainty

 

From the ongoing war in Ukraine, to instability in the Middle East, and rising tensions in the South China Sea, global conflicts are proving that digital systems are deeply exposed to geopolitical risks. Speaking at London Tech Week, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer highlighted how warfare has evolved, noting that it “has changed profoundly,” and emphasizing that technology and AI are now “hard wired” into national defense. His remarks underscored a critical point—IT infrastructure and data management must be approached with security at the forefront.

But achieving this is no easy task. New research from Civo reveals that 83% of UK IT leaders believe geopolitical pressures threaten their ability to control data, while 61% identify sovereignty as a strategic priority. Yet, only 35% know exactly where their data is located. This isn’t just a compliance concern—it signals a disconnect between infrastructure, policy, and long-term strategy.

Once seen as a policy or legal issue, data sovereignty is now a live operational necessity. With regulatory fragmentation, mounting cyber threats, and increasingly complex data ecosystems, organizations must actively manage sovereignty. Whether it’s controlling access to AI training data or meeting residency rules in healthcare, sovereignty dictates what businesses can and cannot do.

Legislative frameworks such as the EU Data Act, the UK’s evolving stance post-Brexit, and stricter critical infrastructure policies are shaping enterprise resilience. As Lord Ricketts stated in the House of Lords, “the safe and effective exchange of data underpins our trade and economic links with the EU and co-operation between our law-enforcement bodies.” Building trust now depends on robust and enforceable data governance.

Public cloud adoption has given many businesses the illusion of flexibility, but moving quickly isn’t the same as moving securely. Data localization, jurisdictional controls, and aligned security policies must be central to enterprise strategy. This demands a shift: design IT systems for agility with control, or risk disruption when regulations inevitably change.

Sovereignty-aware infrastructure is not about isolation, but about visibility, governance, and adaptability. Organizations must know where data is stored, who can access it, how it travels, and which policies apply at each stage. A hybrid multicloud approach offers the flexibility to scale, while keeping sovereignty and governance intact. For instance, financial firms may need to keep sensitive transaction data within the UK but still run analytics in the cloud—an architecture that enables agility without sacrificing compliance.

Generative AI further complicates sovereignty. Training models with private datasets, deploying inference at the edge, or simply exchanging prompts across jurisdictions introduces new risks. Many businesses have embraced AI without aligning deployments with residency or compliance requirements. Sovereignty now extends beyond storage—it covers compute, access patterns, and third-party model interactions.

Building sovereignty into design requires collaboration between IT, legal, and compliance teams, as well as infrastructure that supports location-aware policies from day one. Research from Nutanix shows the urgency: 94% of public sector bodies are using generative AI tools, yet 92% admit their security isn’t sufficient, and 81% say their infrastructure falls short of sovereignty needs.

Customers and partners are increasingly demanding transparency—knowing where data resides, how it is used, and whether governance is enforced. Regulators are also raising expectations beyond “checkbox compliance.” In sectors like healthcare, education, finance, and government, sovereignty is now synonymous with trust and continuity.

The path forward starts with clarity. Organizations must know where their data lives, what laws apply, and whether their infrastructure can support hybrid deployment, location controls, and detailed audits. They must also plan for generative AI workloads with sovereignty in mind, ensuring scale does not come at the expense of compliance.

Ultimately, sovereignty should be treated not as a restriction, but as a design principle. Businesses that do this will not only remain compliant but will also build resilience, transparency, and long-term trust. In an environment where data moves faster than regulation, maintaining control is no longer optional—it is fundamental to good governance and sound business strategy.

Stop! Don’t Let That AI App Spy on Your Inbox, Photos, and Calls

 



Artificial intelligence is now part of almost everything we use — from the apps on your phone to voice assistants and even touchscreen menus at restaurants. What once felt futuristic is quickly becoming everyday reality. But as AI gets more involved in our lives, it’s also starting to ask for more access to our private information, and that should raise concerns.

Many AI-powered tools today request broad permissions, sometimes more than they truly need to function. These requests often include access to your email, contacts, calendar, messages, or even files and photos stored on your device. While the goal may be to help you save time, the trade-off could be your privacy.

This situation is similar to how people once questioned why simple mobile apps like flashlight or calculator apps — needed access to personal data such as location or contact lists. The reason? That information could be sold or used for profit. Now, some AI tools are taking the same route, asking for access to highly personal data to improve their systems or provide services.

One example is a new web browser powered by AI. It allows users to search, summarize emails, and manage calendars. But in exchange, it asks for a wide range of permissions like sending emails on your behalf, viewing your saved contacts, reading your calendar events, and sometimes even seeing employee directories at workplaces. While companies claim this data is stored locally and not misused, giving such broad access still carries serious risks.

Other AI apps promise to take notes during calls or schedule appointments. But to do this, they often request live access to your phone conversations, calendar, contacts, and browsing history. Some even go as far as reading photos on your device that haven’t been uploaded yet. That’s a lot of personal information for one assistant to manage.

Experts warn that these apps are capable of acting independently on your behalf, which means you must trust them not just to store your data safely but also to use it responsibly. The issue is, AI can make mistakes and when that happens, real humans at these companies might look through your private information to figure out what went wrong.

So before granting an AI app permission to access your digital life, ask yourself: is the convenience really worth it? Giving these tools full access is like handing over a digital copy of your entire personal history, and once it’s done, there’s no taking it back.

Always read permission requests carefully. If an app asks for more than it needs, it’s okay to say no.