Today, "sovereignty-washing" represents a more sophisticated version of the same tactic: coopting the language of autonomy to entrench dependency.
Again, autonomy and sovereignty are not the same thing. Make that clear and the 'washing' is more difficult too.
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
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
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