With Halloween fast approaching, this seems like an opportune time to revisit the issue of European digital sovereignty which is becoming increasingly fraught, especially at this moment in time given the present occupant of the White House. Strangely, nation states are becoming more and more reluctant to place their trust in US technology companies when the integrity and security of their data, digital infrastructure and services could be at the mercy of the capricious whims of Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States.
Unsurprisingly, US technology companies have mounted a counter attack. Not against the dangers represented by Trump to European digital independence, I hasten to add, but to Europe for daring to consider reducing its reliance on US technology to power its digital infrastructure.
This month saw the publication of a study which has a title so long that it would take up half the article to reproduce it, by the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), that looks at the real-world impact of CADA (the Cloud and AI Development Act).
According to ECIPE, the aim of CADA is to “create a common EU framework for deciding when public authorities, and potentially private organisations in essential sectors, must use cloud services that meet progressively stronger sovereignty requirements”. The study, commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) which counts Meta, Amazon and Google among its members, claimed the estimated economic exposure between 2027 and 2036, dependent on how CADA is implemented, ranges from €35.6 billion to €115 billion to €233 billion. The study calculates this equates to a cost per person in Ireland ranging from €335 to €856 to €1,457.
The disparity in estimates is mainly down to potential private sector exposure and the report admits the most costly scenario is based on the assumption that a larger share of private organisations in ‘high-criticality’ sectors will need to meet higher assurance levels.
Price versus value
The massive increase in costs attributed to that assumption is not countered by potential benefits. The study notes in a short sentence, almost an aside, that the report “does not monetise potential security, resilience or strategic-autonomy benefits and should therefore not be interpreted as a complete social cost-benefit assessment”.
I may be missing something here, but in the context of digital sovereignty, this seems like quite a significant omission, especially as the report has taken the trouble to monetise the potential negative effects of efforts to achieve those three benefits. I don’t know about you but when I see the words ‘digital’ and ‘sovereignty’, I assume that the desired outcome of any policy to try and make them a reality is ‘strategic-autonomy’ and greater control over ‘security’ and ‘resilience’.
Perhaps the study ignored those issues because it has complete confidence that US technology companies will preserve our security, resilience and strategic-autonomy. When push comes to shove, we Europeans can rest easy knowing that US technology companies will fight tooth and nail against the US government to preserve our digital independence and integrity.
Why shouldn’t we have complete confidence that the US boards of companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta and others will resist all threats from the government of the country where they are located to protect the interests of people far, far away? In any case, would the Trump administration really try to weaponise the EU’s reliance on US technology and service providers against it?
I think we all know the answer to that question. So if we opt against digital sovereignty in favour of ever increasing numbers of US-owned AI and cloud data centres in Europe hosting European data, aren’t we right to worry that the US administration might, at some point, attempt to exert sovereignty over those facilities by taking legal action against a US-based company through an increasingly partisan and weaponised Department of Justice?
Is it really worth the risk for the sake of a mythical €1,457? If you’re still wavering, think on this: according to Bloomberg, big AI is pouring millions into the mid-term elections in the US with unprecedented amounts being spent to shape the future of federal regulation.
And if you’re still inclined to believe that US technology companies will stand up to Trump to protect European countries and customers, here’s something else to reflect on. According to a recent leak to the Washington Post, cited in the Daily Beast, among the companies which donated to Trump’s infamous ballroom project are Apple and Nvidia ($25 million), Google ($22 million), Microsoft ($10 million), Palantir ($10 million), Meta, Amazon, Cisco and ServiceNow (all $5 million), HP Inc ($2.5 million), Micron ($2.5 million) and Salesforce ($2 million).
If you’re of the view that all those companies stumped up the cash for purely aesthetic reasons, it’s worth repeating that the East Wing of the White House was demolished to make way for the proposed ballroom, a ballroom which has been criticised for its funding, design, permitting process and destruction of historic architectural and landscape features.
It’s also worth noting that Trump said he was building it as “a monument to myself”. And let’s not forget that when the original architect resigned after warning Trump’s preferred design would not meet fire and safety codes, Trump replied: “I am the code.”
Now imagine there’s a future dispute over the digital sovereignty of data, services and infrastructure provided by US technology companies to European states and organisations. I don’t think it’s too much of a leap of imagination to picture Trump responding with the words: “I am the sovereignty.” The bigger leap is imagining the tech companies replying: “No, you’re not.”
Is €335, €856 or €1,457 really too much of a price to pay to avoid that scenario?
Ltd
