102 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. The thing is, software is not an asset, it's a liability. The capabilities that running software delivers – automation, production, analysis and administration – those are assets. But the software itself? That's a liability. Brittle, fragile, forever breaking down as the software upstream of it, downstream of it, and adjacent to it is updated or swapped out, revealing defects and deficiencies in systems that may have performed well for years.

      software is a liability. Dutch equiv of this phrase? The assets are its impact : automation, production, analysis, admin

    2. But there's one post-American system that's easy to imagine. The project to rip out all the cloud connected, backdoored, untrustworthy black boxes that power our institutions, our medical implants, our vehicles and our tractors; and replace it with collectively maintained, open, free, trustworthy, auditable code. This project is the only one that benefits from economies of scale, rather than being paralyzed by exponential crises of scale. That's because any open, free tool adopted by any public institution – like the Eurostack services – can be audited, localized, pen-tested, debugged and improved by institutions in every other country.

      digital transition is possible because it scales through spreading. You don't have to solve exponential scale first.

    3. Any serious attempt at digital sovereignty needs migration tools that work without the cooperation of the Big Tech companies. Otherwise, this is like building housing for East Germans and locating it in West Berlin. It doesn't matter how great the housing is, your intended audience is going to really struggle to move in unless you tear down the wall.

      Building alternatives only useful if you have a guaranteed path of migration. Bigtech will not provide it.

    1. For Europe, the question is no longer whether it should pursue digital sovereignty, but whether it has the collective will to stop talking, start building, and, most importantly, distinguish real autonomy from clever marketing.

      again confusing sovereignty with autonomy. Action does not have collective will as prerequisite, although it helps mobilising more resources.

    2. They prove that alternatives exist and that the benefits extend beyond mere compliance. Yet, the case of Solvinity in the Netherlands serves as a stark warning that procurement alone is not enough;

      This repeated after a number of examples that concern a) open source projects b) central government internal developments, makes no sense. Solvinity was about a different class of core government services.

    3. For these individual successes to scale into a continent-wide shift, however, structural barriers must be addressed. The path to digital sovereignty is not a single, grand gesture but a series of deliberate, often difficult, choices. The examples from Austria, France, and the ICC show that the journey begins with a single, courageous step, often prompted by the mundane reality of a data protection assessment.

      It's not about scaling, it's about spreading. Not the same thing. No scaler involved. Which is said in the second sentence: 'not a single grand gesture but a series'

    4. exposing a critical flaw in Europe's strategy that cannot be solved by procurement alone.

      first part another non-sequitur, while the latter part is true.

      If Europe's strategy was only determine sovereignty at the point of procurement, yes. Not otherwise, if you know this will happen and design for it.

    5. Even when organizations make deliberate choices in favour of European providers, those decisions can be undone by market forces. A recent acquisition in the Netherlands illustrates this risk. In November 2025, the American IT services giant Kyndryl announced its intention to acquire Solvinity, a Dutch managed cloud provider.

      yes, maintaining sovereignty is not a one-off thing. So you need dissolving clauses in procurement too by default too.

    6. American hyperscalers have recognized the market demand for sovereignty and now aggressively market 'sovereign cloud' solutions, typically by placing datacenters on European soil or partnering with local operators. Critics call this ‘sovereignty washing’. Caffarra warns that this does not resolve the fundamental problem. "A company subject to the extraterritorial laws of the United States cannot be considered sovereign for Europe," she says. "That simply doesn't work." Because, as long as the parent company is American, it remains subject to the CLOUD Act.

      Indeed, any US involvement is a disqualification bc of the Cloud Act

    7. For Caffarra, this trend is dangerously reminiscent of Gaia-X, a previous flagship initiative for a federated European cloud. "The intention behind Gaia-X was good," she says. "The problem was that American companies lobbied to be included. Once Microsoft, Google, and AWS were inside Gaia-X, the initiative lost its purpose.". In her opinion: "That is why it failed."

      not sure that is solely why it failed, but it did make the entire thing moot that is for sure.

    8. from talking to building, from regulating to investing, and from passivity to action. Europe cannot rely on Brussels to deliver this transformation. The market must build it, but governments must create the conditions, through procurement preferences and initial funding, that make it viable.

      yes.

    9. The goal, she emphasizes, is not autarky or protectionism, but resilience. Europe does not need to achieve complete independence from American technology, but it does need to reclaim a meaningful share of its own market. "Can we please have 30 to 40 percent for ourselves?"

      30-40% is still a minimal step imo. Yes, resilience. But for the public sector I cannot see how any public sector body can use US or Chinese digital tech bc all of it is in non-compliance w EU regs. Make the compliance a kick-out req in procurement.

    10. If a major American cloud provider were to restrict European access or cease operations, the consequences would be immediate and severe. This fragility has created a market opportunity that American hyperscalers are now exploiting.

      That is the reason to want change, not to not do it. How is the existing dependence an opportunity 'now' for those Europe is dependent on?

    11. A recent analysis by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute found that of 64 crucial technologies, China leads in 57 and the United States in the remaining seven. Europe leads in none.

      Another non sequitur. While a useful analysis, you don't need to 'lead' anything to do things differently than others. Doing it differently may mean you become a leader. You can't sit around waiting to be leading first and then change your practice.

    12. Its use is strictly limited to external communication with parties that still rely on it, such as the European Commission. Even then, strict rules apply: no sensitive information may be discussed on Teams, and usage is kept to an absolute minimum. This hybrid approach reflects a pragmatic recognition that complete independence is not always immediately possible when external partners remain locked into US platforms.

      yes, it is a pragmatic choice. Similar to us, we don't use any GAFAM but still use Teams because clients do.

    13. "You don't achieve digital sovereignty overnight," Ollrom tells The Register. "You have to do this in many steps, but you have to start with the first step. Don't just talk about it, but execute it."

      agreed, a first step to break status quo is important.

    14. Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) before deploying any new technology that is "likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons." When conducted for US hyperscaler services, these DPIAs invariably flag the CLOUD Act as a significant, often unacceptable, risk. This legal obligation is increasingly becoming the primary driver of public bodies to seek alternatives.

      DPIAs are a key reason US hyperscaler services become red flagged in procurement processes.

    15. The core of the problem lies in a direct and irreconcilable legal conflict. The US CLOUD Act of 2018 allows American authorities to compel US-based technology companies to provide requested data, regardless of where that data is stored globally

      yes, finally a clear formulation what the issue is.

    16. urope’s quest for digital sovereignty is hampered by a 90 per cent dependency on US cloud infrastructure, claims Cristina Caffarra, a competition expert and a driving force behind the Eurostack initiative.

      Odd opening. The 'quest' is not hampered by the 90% US cloud infra, reducing the 90% is the quest. claim: 90% of cloud infra in Europe is GAFAM cloud.

      Cristina Caffarra is Eurostack's founder.

  2. Jan 2026
    1. Cloudbeleid aanscherpen: veilige opslag van overheidsdata onder Europees recht.

      De toevoeging van 'onder Europees recht' is hier belangrijk, tenminste als het betekent 'en niet ook onder anderlands recht'. Zorgelijk dat het alleen om data gaat, want het gebruik van iedere VS tool is voor de overheid een attack surface. Dan valt het altijd onder VS recht, ook buiten de Cloud Act om. Het gaat om de uitknop ook.

    2. Cloudbeleid aanscherpen: veilige opslag van overheidsdata onder Europees recht. IT-inkoop bundelen: als 1 overheid betere voorwaarden afdwingen bij leveranciers. Open standaarden en open source stimuleren om lock-ins te voorkomen. Versnellen van modernisering van verouderde systemen om risico’s te verkleinen. Investeren in digitaal vakmanschap om onze kennis en capaciteit te vergroten. Binnen Europa samenwerken aan het bouwen aan veilige, betrouwbare Europese alternatieven.

      6 strategic elements

    1. Het is volstrekt onbegrijpelijk en onverantwoordelijk dat X het de facto communicatiekanaal van onze overheid lijkt te zijn. Wie bijvoorbeeld de berichten van minister David van Weel over Venezuela wil lezen, kan daarover niets lezen op de officiële website van Buitenlandse Zaken, maar wel op X

      This is a key issue. Gebruik is niet meer uit te leggen. Vgl [[Een goed gesprek over digitale soevereiniteit in de gemeente]] Amersfoort

    1. k zei tegen hen: vraag al je bedrijven om een kopie van hun data op een Europese cloud te bewaren, voor de zekerheid. Dat is minimale beveiliging. Je kunt nog steeds met AWS werken als je wilt, maar zorg dat je een kopie hebt onder Europese jurisdictie.’

      good example here of suggesting a single easy step to break the status quo by [[Henri Verdier p]]: ensure copies of all your data are available on a European cloud too. See it as a minimal safety precaution (that can become the first step to fully moving away from US clouds)

    1. We are aware that AWS, as the largest player, cannot be exactly matched, but we are confident that we do not have to compromise on security and availability with a European counterpart.

      this is the sticking point, and true. You cannot expect a plug and play replacement. Analyse the components, make a new necklace of the different pieces.

    2. Peter Vergote, legal advisor at DNS Belgium: "Our data and processes at AWS are located on European soil, spread across multiple data centres. This is perfectly in line with European legislation such as GDPR and NIS2 .

      That is technically true, but not in practice. The 2018 Cloud Act makes all EU reg moot points from the US perspective. That makes any American involvement in your stack by def a breach of NIS2, GDPR and other digital and data related regs.

    3. The migration away from AWS is still in its early stages. The market is currently being surveyed. The transition will begin in 2027 and is expected to be completed in the second half of 2027.

      The decision is made, but transition still in early planning phases. To be completed 2027. Market survey ongoing, meaning there's no new contractor in sight as yet.

    4. At the same time, DNS Belgium wants to inspire other organisations in Belgium and Europe with its AWS exit. Technological dependence on, or possible access and influence by non-European players, is a growing concern among Belgian companies.

      DNS Belgium wants to set an example. It is also responding to concerns of their customers.

    1. If you buy the potential of AI, then you might worry about the corgi-fication of humanity by way of biological weapons. This hope also helps to explain the semiconductor controls unveiled by the Biden administration in 2022. If the policymakers believe that DSA is within reach, then it makes sense to throw almost everything into grasping it while blocking the adversary from the same. And it barely matters if these controls stimulate Chinese companies to invent alternatives to American technologies, because the competition will be won in years, not decades.

      While the Biden admin controls are useful in their own context too (vgl stack sovereignty) they also stimulate alternative paths. The length of those paths is not an issue if you think you'll get AGI 'soon'.

  3. Dec 2025
    1. Digital sovereignty: definition, origin and history Digital sovereignty is loosely defined as the ability of a governing body, such as a national government, to control the tech stacks and data flows within its boundaries. For instance, in a digitally sovereign state, any data centres within its physical boundaries and locally hosted software are beholden only to the laws of that country.

      This seems a confused definition.

    1. Aanvankelijk was de EuroStack-oproep vooral „Buy European” (gericht aan overheden), daarna ook „Sell European” (aan de bedrijven) en nu is het „Fund European”. Dat laatste gaat lukken, gelooft Caffarra. Ze noemt nieuwe Europese techfondsen, onder meer van het (Amerikaanse) Sequoia Capital en het in Zwitserland gevestigde investeringsfonds Lakestar. En hint telefonisch op fondsen waarvan ze de naam nog niet wil noemen, onder meer van rijke Europese families die zouden willen investeren in Europese tech, maar zeggen daarbij advies van EuroStack te willen gebruiken.

      buy / sell / fund European. At least more, and not by default bigtech. But the mention of the American Sequoia fund here is a red flag, preempting public sector digital sovereignty.

    2. De stichting moet helpen bij de stap van ‘praten naar actie’, staat in de verklaring. En dat het tijd is om te gaan ‘bouwen’ aan het Europese aanbod. Wat dit concreet betekent, is niet gelijk duidelijk. Het is vooral geen brancheorganisatie, zegt Caffarra telefonisch. Daarvan lopen er in Brussel al genoeg rond.

      Foundation wants to move from talk to walk, but unclear how. This is where the groundswell comes in right, the smaller providers joining forces a la Nextcloud, the NLnet stuff EU funding.

    3. In november, dezelfde week als de Europese top in Berlijn plaatsvindt, registreren Caffarra en Karlitschek EuroStack als stichting in de Duitse hoofdstad. Caffarra wordt voorzitter, Karlitschek een van de bestuursleden. Anderen zijn bijvoorbeeld de ceo van Proton, de Zwitserse aanbieder van beveiligde mail en cloud, en een aantal Franse en Duitse techondernemers en investeerders.

      Missed this last month, odd. Eurostack is now a foundation based in Berlin. Caffarra is chair, Karlitschek is board member, and Proton. - [ ] find out all boardmembers Eurostack wrt SC landscape

    4. Daarin gaat het nadrukkelijk over autonomie en keuzevrijheid, niet over soevereiniteit, want iedereen weet dat volledige ontkoppeling een illusie is en niemand wil de regering Trump onnodig tegen de haren instrijken.

      n:: Odd sentence, 'sovereignty' doesn't mean fully disconnect either. Public sector needs sovereignty as sine-qua-non bc if someone else holds the off-switch that you don't control, you are the colony that Caffarra mentioned at top. Only autonomy is sovereignty washing itself

    5. Cristina Caffarra houdt vrijwel dagelijks ergens haar peptalk. Als het jaar vordert steeds vaker via videoverbinding, want het is allemaal niet meer te bereizen. Ze lanceert in juli haar eigen podcast, Escape Forward. En blijft fanatiek en uitgesproken op LinkedIn. Uit haar posts spreekt wel steeds meer frustratie. „Europese elites vernielen Europa zelf”, schrijft ze bijvoorbeeld als Europeanen begin december geschokt reageren op de Amerikaanse nationale veiligheidsstrategie, die uitgesproken anti-EU is. „Ze praten maar over hun waarden en de geweldige Europese manier van leven, maar hebben niet de minste interesse in het bouwen van een eigen digitale infrastructuur”, schrijft ze.

      Caffarra has a podcast, and actively posts on LinkedIn, described here as getting increasingly frustrated. Again, in part I think bc she aims for the big changes at political / econ level, where that can only happen if there's enough groundswell, like the work Karlitschek has been doing for well over a decade.

    6. Microsoft biedt een soevereine cloud-oplossing, Amazon ook, Google ook. De bedrijven beloven bijvoorbeeld datacenters in Europa te gebruiken. Of brengen een extra – Europese – bestuurslaag aan in hun bedrijf. Krijgen Europeanen daarmee de verlangde onafhankelijkheid? De uiteindelijke eigenaren blijven Amerikaans. Sovereignty washing noemt de groep rond Caffarra het, analoog aan ‘green washing’, de ingeburgerde term voor bedrijven die net doen alsof ze duurzaam zijn.

      Missed opportunity to state why this is not enough: US regs

    7. Caffarra wil dat de Europese industrie zich uitspreekt voor Europees aanbesteden en spreekt haar contacten in het bedrijfsleven hierover aan. Het resulteert half maart in een gezamenlijke brief van Europese ceo’s aan de voorzitter van de Europese Commissie en de Eurocommissaris van digitale zaken. „Je kunt jezelf niet uit de positie van achterblijver reguleren”, staat er onder meer. De lange lijst namen eronder illustreert vooral hoe onbekend de meeste Europese techbedrijven zijn. Er staan ook grotere spelers onder, zoals de topman van Airbus

      March 2025 public letter to EC Virkkunen by European tech ceo's. Go through list of signatories, for SC landscape input.

    8. Wat die bedrijven voor hun klanten zo aantrekkelijk maakt, is dat achter één loket een hele wereld schuilgaat. Wie in Europa iets vergelijkbaars wil kopen, moet zakendoen met allerlei kleine en middelgrote bedrijven. En rekening houden met de kans dat die technische ‘oplossingen’ (ict-jargon) nét niet lekker op elkaar aansluiten.

      Excactly this. It is described here as the issue, but it really also is the only solution. You're escaping monopolists. That always adds friction. And the real question is, what was attractive first, is it really still now, and its cost explainable?

    9. In februari zegt Vance tijdens een speech op de jaarlijkse veiligheidsconferentie in München onder meer dat Europa zichzelf van binnenuit uitholt. De democratie in de EU zou niet meer functioneren, wat onder meer zou komen door de Europese regels voor de digitale wereld – die in de praktijk vooral de grote Amerikaanse sociale mediabedrijven als Meta en X treffen.

      The Feb 2025 security conf in M another turning point where US admin turns on EU digital regs as threat to democracy. US admin coopted by bigtech becomes more clear

    10. Frank Karlitschek voelt verantwoordelijkheid, hij wil de Europese ‘techstack’ helpen bouwen. De Duitse softwarebouwer en ondernemer biedt met zijn bedrijf NextCloud kantoorsoftware aan à la Microsoft,

      [[Frank Karlitschek p]] has been doing this for over decade already, and that needs mentioning. I talked to him [[Berlin 2014]] at re:publica about this, in the light of the steps E and I were taking in our personal digitisation, and when I moved my company to nextcloud.

    11. Hoe week je Europa los uit de Amerikaanse digitale greep. En hoe verkoop je iets wat er nog niet is?

      This is similar to individual siloquits. In reality it is doable, by recognising the diff parts (here of the stack). Hyperscalers are the toughest nut bc they combine several stack layers in themselves, and you'd need a full alternative for them, but not another hyperscaler. That is the route.

    12. In het stuk gebruikt Chamber of Progress de term digital curtain. De suggestie is dat Europeanen zichzelf achter een digitaal gordijn zetten als ze proberen alle technologie zelf in elkaar te knutselen – een verwijzing naar het leven achter het IJzeren Gordijn tijdens de Koude oorlog.

      'digital curtain' a term used for splinternet by us bigtech to try and prevent EU be more assertive in their own digital market.

    13. de Chamber of Progress, heeft laten uitrekenen wat het de EU zou kosten als het de diensten van de huidige Amerikaanse techbedrijven in Europa wil vervangen door spullen van eigen makelij. De uitkomst: ten minste 25 keer de hele EU-begroting. De berekening is naar medium Politico gelekt

      US bigtech lobby published a report in Sept 2024 stating creating a Eurostack would be too costly. Report linked.

    14. Samen met een andere gedreven Italiaanse econoom, Francesca Bria, en met de baas van berichtendienst Signal, Meredith Wittaker, organiseert Caffarra in september 2024 een bijeenkomst in het Europarlement getiteld ‘Toward European Digital Independence’. De ondertitel is ‘Building the EuroStack’

      Eurostack was the subtitle of a Sept 2024 meeting in European Parliament. Organised by Caffarra, Meredith Wittaker of Signal, and [[Francesca Bria c]]

    15. Caffarra heeft van binnenuit gezien hoe de macht van de grote Amerikaanse techbedrijven groeide. Europese bedrijven werden overgenomen en konden niet concurreren met de Amerikanen. Getalenteerde Europeanen emigreerden. Ondernemers die kapitaal nodig hebben wijken nu uit naar de VS. En de EU is in hoog tempo veranderd in wat Caffarra een ‘digitale kolonie van Amerika’ noemt. Het frustreert haar en ze wil dat die ontwikkeling stopt. Maar hoe krijg je in 27 lidstaten zowel de ondernemers als de politici en toezichthouders in beweging?

      Caffarra mentions four elements leading to digital colonisation of EU from USA. Buy-outs, inability to compete, brain drain, capital. I think adopting the US framing of what success / growth is plays a factor too. In a scheme set by someone you will never succeed other than playing by that someone's rules.

    16. De van oorsprong Italiaanse econoom en mededingingsexpert Cristina Caffarra is een van de drijvende krachten achter die groep. Deze gebruikt de hashtag ‘EuroStack’ bij haar pogingen Europese overheden op te poken. Meestal spreken de ondernemers, academici, techjuristen en politici uit verschillende landen elkaar online en via Signal. Het sjieke diner in Museum Bellevue in Brussel is een kans om elkaar beter te leren kennen. Gastvrouw Caffarra heeft goed verdiend met klussen voor grote Amerikaanse techbedrijven zoals Apple en Amazon en de Europese Commissie (in rechtszaken tegen Google) en kan het zich nu veroorloven te doen wat ze leuk en belangrijk vindt. Ze is goed in netwerken en peptalks geven. En ze neemt geen blad voor de mond, waarbij blijkt dat ze duidelijk meer op heeft met doeners uit het bedrijfsleven dan met politici en denktankers.

      Cristina Caffarra mentioned as driving force behind Eurostack

    1. * "Digital platforms are used for hybrid campaigns."* "EU can't compete with US tech ON THEIR TERMS."* "Post-reality US is what happens when tech is unregulated."* "Ireland is a Trojan Horse for Big Tech."* "The Digital Omnibus is sabotage."

      Quotes van [[Defend Democracy o]] event w DK EU presidency cohosting. All convey an aspect of where work is needed. On each I see one could define [[Handelen 20040327155224]] as [[SC landscape van EU Dataspace]] interventions and broader.

      the last one pertains to the AI / GDPR omnibus, not the data one, I think.

    1. The officer then said that even a swift return of America to its former role won’t matter. Because “we will never fucking trust you again.”The Americans at the table seemed somewhat startled by the heat of that pronouncement. I agreed with it entirely. So, it seemed to me, did most of the non-Americans. This wasn’t the only such moment at the forum this year, but it was, to me, the most interesting. And it was still being talked about the next day. “Thank God,” one allied official said to me. “Someone had to tell them.”

      Whatever happens in the USA in the coming 3 yrs: "We will never trust you again". This has very deep reaching impacts.

    2. There were two fascinating things about that exchange (it starts around the 17-minute mark of that video). The first was the question itself; it alone was a signal of how much things have changed. The second interesting thing is that Zapolsky’s answer was, with respect, bullshit. I can see why he’s a legal officer! He gave an answer that was legally correct — the only way that the U.S. government can officially bar Amazon from providing cloud services for a foreign military, for example, would be by sanctions or some comparable legislation.

      The evasive answer is bs bc it isn't how it would go in reality

    3. What would happen is that someone senior at Amazon, maybe Jeff Bezos himself, would get a call from some golf partner or drinking buddy in the administration, and the message will be simple: “Stop, or you won’t get contracts. We’ll arrange some hearings into your operations. Your little spaceflight company will find itself under way more levels of regulatory review than your Musk-owned competitor. This is what the boss wants. Make it happen.”

      mobster governance. Klept

    4. Tarabay dropped a humdinger of a question on Zapolsky. Here’s the quote (slightly cleaned up for clarity): “We’re in an age where there’s a government that puts pressure on companies [and] people for [Trump’s] own gain. You have been so steadfast in your support for Ukraine. What will Amazon do if your government says ‘Stop’?”Zapolsky replied that the company has contracts with foreign governments and NATO allies and said that Amazon would only change those relationships if it was legally forced to do so via something like a sanction.

      Amazon when asked said they would change relationship if legally forced to via e.g. sanctions. Vgl parallel w the same bland avoidance Dutch Stas gave wrt Cloud Act.

    1. Executive Order 12333 has been regarded by the American intelligence community as a fundamental document authorizing the expansion of data collection activities.[9] The document has been employed by the National Security Agency as legal authorization for its collection of unencrypted information flowing through the data centers of internet communications giants Google and Yahoo!.[9]

      US intelligence see EO12333 as the primary ground for their data collection activities, such as collecting any unencrypted data that flows through bigtech data centers

    2. Part 2.3 permits collection, retention and dissemination of the following types of information along with several others. .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;margin-top:0}@media(min-width:500px){.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{padding-left:1.6em}}(c) Information obtained in the course of lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation ... (i) Incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws[1]

      EO12333 in part 2.3 permits the ability for collection / retention and sharing of any data obtained during lawful intelligence / international law enforcement

      and any other data that may indicate violate a law

    1. Amerikaanse wetgeving zoals de CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act), de Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)5 en Executive Order 12333 komt te vallen?
      • [ ] Naast Cloud Act ook FISA sect 702 en EO 12333 even expliciet opslaan. #digitalsovereignty #geonovumtb
    2. De overeenkomsten tussen de Staat en Solvinity bieden aanknopingspunten om ten minste van Solvinity te verlangen dat er technische en organisatorische maatregelen worden getroffen om te waarborgen dat de gegevens waartoe zij toegang heeft op een wijze worden verwerkt die voldoet aan de in de EU geldende regels, zoals die uit de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming. Welke maatregelen dat zullen zijn vormt onderwerp van de gesprekken tussen de Staat en Solvinity.

      Dit is weer een non-antwoord, 'dat de boel AVG conform gaat'. Het punt hier is niet het niet voldoen aan Europese regels maar dat VS spelers moeten voldoen aan VS wetgeving, ook in Europa.

    3. De drie genoemde wettelijke instrumenten maken het, in ieder geval in theorie, mogelijk dat autoriteiten in de VS onder de in deze wetgeving genoemde voorwaarden toegang kunnen krijgen tot de gegevens waarover een onderneming in de VS beschikt, óók wanneer de gegevens zich bevinden onder een dochtervennootschap en op servers buiten de VS. Als Solvinity wordt overgenomen door een onderneming in de VS brengt dit Solvinity onder de reikwijdte van deze wetgeving. Het gevolg daarvan kan, in ieder geval in theorie, zijn dat autoriteiten in de VS in voorkomend geval toegang krijgen tot de gegevens die door Solvinity in opdracht van de Staat worden verwerkt.

      Stas geeft hier eindelijk toe dat de VS 'in theorie' toegang heeft tot alles wat een uiteindelijk Amerikaans bedrijf aan data heeft. Vgl [[Een goed gesprek over digitale soevereiniteit in de gemeente]] Gebruik dit voor de herh in feb bij Gem Amersfoort

    1. Cory Doctorow's recommendations on laws encouraging "Adversarial Interoperability" are passed. Not long after, the walls around Facebook, Twitter and Tiktok's gardens begin to erode. The platforms do not die a sudden and violent death, bringing down all the creators with them. Instead the metaphor of the web comes back in force, with links between all aspects of the web blossoming.

      Interop as the longest shot prediction. Vgl the realisation at Semic by the people there that interoperability is actually the single way out of hyperscaler lock-in. Vgl [[Francesca Bria]] So perhaps not that far fetched for the coming 5 years. Def the angle I need to look at more. -[ ] build overview of European interoperability efforts on diff levels / sectors #geonovumtb #120mins

    2. This will be helped by increased "re-shoring" efforts of many Western Governments to bring "technological sovereignty" to web infrastructure, reducing our reliance on such a small group of American companies. This results in a whole bunch of small, local web hosting services popping up in each country, offering forum hosting with the servers within the country with technical and legal structures especially tailored for their respective markets.

      Draws parallel between federation / small multiples, and tech sovereignty from silo'd hyperscalers. Vgl my notes on alternatives to Silicon Valley type scaling as only game in town.

    1. On 24 November 2023, the EU and Canada launched a Digital Partnership to reinforce cooperation on digital issues. The partnership reflects a shared vision for a positive and human-centric digital economy and society. The EU and Canada agreed to work together in crucial areas such as AI, secure international connectivity, cyber security, online platforms, digital identity and digital skills. This Digital Partnership and its importance were highlighted in the New EU-Canada Strategic Partnership of the Future, adopted at the Canada-EU Summit on 23 June 2025.

      Digital Partnership started in 2023. June 2025 incorporated in strategic partnership. Now a first physical meeting at high level.

    2. EU and Canada are committed to working together on secure international connectivity, for example in 5G and subsea cables, and have agreed to explore new cable routes to strengthen global network resilience, including in the Arctic region. The EU and Canada will deepen the collaboration in priority topics such as quantum technologies, semiconductors, and high-performance computing. They also reaffirmed their commitment to resilient semiconductor supply chains and secure and sovereign cloud infrastructure and data centres.

      Covering deeper layers of the stack. So it's a digital sovereignty / autonomy pact.

    1. Minister gaat uit van papieren werkelijkheid ipv daadwerkelijke. - Ook voor geaggregeerde statistieken worden de details wel vastgelegd en doorgegeven aan Google, alleen niet getoond aan de gebruiker van Analytics. - Je kunt Google Analytics ook gewoon uitzetten, ipv zeggen dat verbieden niet kan. - Al is de groep geinteresseerden niet hetzelfde als de groep sollicitanten, is het niettemin een kleinere en dus traceerbare groep dan 'random'

  4. Nov 2025
  5. Aug 2025
  6. Jun 2025
  7. Apr 2025