Abstract
The global COVID-19 health crisis has become an additional argument in the debate about data sovereignty. This debate has been brewing following a series of recent economic, political, and social scandals: WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden, Cambridge Analytica, Huawei, and TikTok, for example. Indeed, most of these scandals are related to users’ personal data management by digital giants, which have benefited greatly from this crisis. Not only have their numbers and market values increased drastically, but the data industry has become the most profitable industry of all time. Therefore, data capitalism provides these businesses with powers that they should not possess.
The objective of this research is to understand the impact data sovereignty has on the current geopolitical situation, using a theoretical analytical approach. This approach includes three stakeholders: the citizens, the state, and large firms.
In this vein, the article is organized into three parts: The first part covers data’s growing value, starting with the advent of algorithms while also touching on data capitalism. The second part concerns the economy of mass surveillance and its risks. Finally, the third part examines what data sovereignty means, thereby shedding light on its current issues and how it can be optimally dealt with in the long term.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The study and classification of people according to their attitudes, aspirations, and other psychological criteria, especially in market research (Oxford Languages). Because these techniques are linked to war techniques, they can threaten the national security of a state if they come under military supervision.
References
Bellanger, P. (2015). Les données personnelles: une question de souveraineté. Le Débat, 14–25.
Benhamou, B. (2014). La gouvernance de l’internet après Snowden. Politique étrangère, 15–28.
Brown, G. W., McLean, I., & McMillan, A. (2018). A concise Oxford dictionary of politics and international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, R. (2019). Risks inherent in the digital. Journal of Information Technology, 34, 59–80.
Debbagh, T. (2020). La souveraineté numérique: Utopie ou réalité? L’Economiste.
Epifanova, A. (2020). Deciphering Russia’s “Sovereign Internet Law”: Tightening control and accelerating the Splinternet. Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik e.V.
Federal Trade Commission. (2014). FTC recommends congress require the data broker industry to be more transparent and give consumers greater control over their personal information. Federal Trade Commission. Retrieved octobre 2020. From: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/05/ftc-recommends-congress-require-data-broker-industry-be-more
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51, 56–59.
Laurent, A. (2017). La guerre des intelligences. Paris: Jean-Claude Lattès.
Laurent, A., & Jean-François, C. (2019). L’intelligence artificielle va-t-elle aussi tuer la démocratie? Jean-Claude Lattès.
Lavigne, M. (2020). Strengthening ties: The influence of microtargeting on partisan attitudes and the vote. Party Politics,. 135406882091838, 1–12. https://doi:10.1177/1354068820918387.
Locke, J. (1689). 2d treatise on government: Of civil government. London.
Longuet, G. (2019). Le devoir de souveraineté numérique. au nom de la commission d’enquête.
Mirchandani, M. (2020). Populisme, propagande et politique : les réseaux sociaux au cœur de la stratégie électorale de Narendra Modi. Hérodote, 59–76.
Monero, D. (2019). Artificial intelligence and management. Paris: Editions Fabert.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
Prisque, E. D. (2020). Le système de crédit social chinois: Comment Pékin évalue, récompense et punit sa population. Futuribles, pages 27 à 48.
Sadowski, J. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 2053951718820549.
Seth, F., Sharad, G., & Justin, M. R. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. In Public opinion quarterly (Vol. 80, pp. 298–320). Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.
Simon, C., & Louis-David, B. (2015). Datanomics: Les nouveaux business models des données. Limoges: FYP Editions.
Snowden, E. (2019). Permanent record. Henry Holt & Company. New York.
Spinoza, B. (1677). L’Ethique. Edition de l’éclat.
Varol, A., & Patrick, B. (2000). Editorial: Alan Turing and artificial intelligence. Journal of Logic Language and Information, 391–395.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. London: Profile Books Ltd..
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rafik, M. (2021). Data Sovereignty: New Challenges for Diplomacy. In: Roumate, F. (eds) Artificial Intelligence and Digital Diplomacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68647-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68647-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-68646-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-68647-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)