Can data sovereignty become a liability in war? | Computer Weekly

"In conflict, control over data matters less than whether it remains accessible at all. Data sovereignty, on its own, does not guarantee protection. In fact, it can create new vulnerabilities. When critical systems - financial services, healthcare records, government databases - are concentrated within national borders, they may become single points of failure. In a conflict scenario, targeted disruption could disable essential services. Keeping data "at home" may strengthen legal control, but it can also make it easier to disrupt."

"Infrastructure operated by companies such as Amazon or Microsoft offers resilience through distribution, but it places critical data beyond full national control. During crises, access to data stored across jurisdictions may be shaped by foreign laws, corporate decisions, or geopolitical pressures. What appears resilient in technical terms may prove uncertain in political ones."

"Both approaches overlook a more fundamental issue. In conflict, control over data matters less than whether it remains accessible at all. Data sovereignty, on its own, does not guarantee protection. In fact, it can create new vulnerabilities. When critical systems - financial services, healthcare records, government databases - are concentrated within national borders, they may become single points of failure."

"Both models are largely optimised for peacetime. They prioritise efficiency, scale, and control, but not resilience under conditions of disruption."

Modern life depends on continuous access to digital infrastructure that supports banking, hospitals, logistics, and government services. Recent attacks on datacentres show that these systems are both digital and physical, making them vulnerable to conflict. Policy debates often focus on who controls data, with data sovereignty emphasizing storage within national borders and global cloud advocates emphasizing distributed infrastructure for efficiency and redundancy. However, conflict shifts the priority from control to accessibility. Concentrating critical data within borders can create single points of failure, enabling targeted disruption of essential services. Relying on global cloud providers can also introduce political uncertainty, since access may be affected by foreign laws, corporate decisions, or geopolitical pressures. Both approaches are optimized for peacetime rather than disruption resilience.

Read at ComputerWeekly.com