On March 27th, around 25 people — with another 10 joining online — gathered at the L200 community center to explore a deceptively simple but increasingly urgent question: “What does Digital Sovereignty mean for civil society?” Together with European experts from academia and civil society, invited to Zurich by the Internet Society Switzerland Chapter (ISOC‑CH), participants set out to unpack a term that is shaping political agendas across the continent. The discussion began with the observation that the term “Digital Sovereignty” lacks a clear or shared definition — and that this ambiguity is precisely why it matters to shed light on it. Its openness allows governments, corporations, and institutions to project their own interests onto it: from differing national interpretations, to “sovereignty washing” by American Big Tech hyperscalers, to political narratives that obscure industrial policy. Depending on who uses the term and in which context, its meaning shifts across several overlapping — and often competing — dimensions. Understanding these tensions is essential for anyone who wants to follow, influence, or challenge the debate. 1. The state perspective focuses on the autonomy of the State and public administration, as well as control over infrastructure. It tends to overemphasize centralized decision‑making power. In its extreme form, this perspective can result in an “Internet with Borders,” as observed in China or Russia. 2. The economic perspective focuses on competitiveness and supply chain risks. If left unchecked — as can currently be observed in the European Union (EU), where neoliberal industrial policy and deregulation are presented as something appealing — it risks undermining individual rights (e.g., privacy rights in the Digital Omnibus proposal of the European Commission) or causing serious detriments to the quality of life for entire neighborhoods. 3. The user perspective focuses on the agency of individuals, data protection, and fundamental rights. Taken out of context, it can lead to the absurd notion of sovereignty as a product or service. Despite significant caveats surrounding the “Digital Sovereignty” term, many participants agreed, civil society cannot simply ignore the ongoing political debate in Europe. This raises several questions: * How can we use the current momentum to make our positions heard? – How can we outline a compelling vision that resists state or corporate control over our digital lives? * Can we imagine a future in which sovereignty is understood as collective self‑determination by diverse communities? * How can societies achieve a balance between privacy and free flow of information, between autonomy and a global Internet, in ways that respect democracy, ecology, and public health? * Shall we enter in an arms-race for reproducing the achievements of Big Tech in Europe or invest in the required social infrastructures to reduce addiction and dependence on technology in our everyday lives? Given the multidimensional nature of “Digital Sovereignty” and the diversity of affected stakeholders, civil society needs a broad set of strategies and arguments — rather than a single response — to effectively advocate for states and businesses to respect digital rights, ensure privacy, provide equitable access to information, and preserve the possibility of analogue participation in society. Independently from the term used to describe these rights, because terms can be appropriated, misused, “washed”. What might such a toolset look like? In our discussion, several possible components for it emerged: * Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) as the only type of software that enables users — whether public offices, businesses, educational institutions, or private individuals — to control and adapt technology to their needs without requiring permission from third parties. * Open and Interoperable Standards that connect people and enable broad participation. These standards, and the networks built upon them, must be designed to withstand malicious actors, who will inevitably appear. * Emphasizing the importance of educating citizens and policymakers about technology in two dimensions: (1) how to build and operate it and (2) how to reflect critically on it. * Fostering curiosity about different ways of organizing society, with more decentralisation and greater autonomy for local communities to decide how they want to live together. We at ISOC‑CH look forward to building and applying this toolset to help shape a more just, open, and human‑centered digital future — in Switzerland, across Europe, and around the globe. The work ahead is challenging, but the momentum is real, and the need for voices from civil society has never been clearer. More material from this event will be processed and shared soon, together with forthcoming contributions in the context of our event series. The next step will be a workshop at Open Education Day 2026, with a special focus on education — an area where “Digital Sovereignty” becomes more tangible for everyone, because it directly affects how people learn, teach, access knowledge, and participate in society. We warmly invite you to share your ideas with us and to join the conversation at one of our future events. Your perspectives, questions, and critiques are essential to shaping the digital world we want to live in. Until then, we leave you with a few reading recommendations from our discussion participants: * “Resisting the Techno‑Fascist Takeover: Are We Ready for Decomputing?” by Dan McQuillan, 26.06.25 * “Unthinking Digital Sovereignty: A Critical Reflection on Origins, Objectives, and Practices” by Julia Pohle, Riccardo Nanni and Mauro Santaniello, 06.01.2025 * “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” by John Perry Barlow, 08.02.1996 The post Event recap “What does Digital Sovereignty mean for civil society?” appeared first on ISOC Switzerland Chapter.

On Friday 18 September a small group of people gathered at L200 (and online) to analyze certain important risks associated with the new law on the Swiss E-ID. The discussion was very lively and productive and the main outcomes relevant for keeping a critical attitude with the fast digital transformation that is happening everywhere. We identified 3 major “risk areas” that need to be better understood especially now that the outcome of the referendum was positive, and the Swiss E-ID will be eventually implemented: 1) Unnecessary dependence on technology in everyday life. 2) Extended exposure of one’s private data. 3) Increased potential damage by identity theft, device hacking or failure. Some of these risks could be better addressed by the current law, most notably the lack of clear measures that ensure its optional character. And others, like the increased exposure to surveillance and various forms of attacks or accidents, are questioning the necessity of a Swiss E-ID in the first place.  The main goal of our discussion was not to repeat the main arguments that prioritize those risks in comparison to the respective benefits mostly related to convenience and law enforcement. The goal was to discuss the most effective ways of communicating those risks to raise the awareness and engagement levels toward a wise digital transformation. 1) The optional character of the Swiss E-ID is an empty promise This is a key point to communicate properly: A digital E-ID stops to be “optional” when it is obligatory for an activity that is really important for someone. If the E-ID is required for me to have an operation for a serious disease it stops being optional for me. It is obligatory. And if for people that have an ID, the compromise to have also an E-ID to access vital services might not seem such a disaster, it becomes one for those without an ID in the first place. If you are not one of those that believe that such people should be exterminated, you should make sure that the E-ID stays truly optional. The law does not guarantee this, but the people can still fight for it. Related to this topic, you can read a recent publication by the Computer magazine titled “How much technology is needed to build a smart community space?“, by Panayotis Antoniadis, which explains why it is important to maintain a wide set of more or less technological options for addressing social problems and why FLOSS software is a key ingredient for enabling local communities to make the right choices. 2) Stronger identity means more powerful surveillance Simple narratives around surveillance capitalism like the “age verification with restricted data” case study, as promoted of the “pro” campaign for the Swiss E-ID, can be dangerous. The threats to privacy caused by the avalanche of digitization cannot be addressed only through protection measures. It is a complex issue that requires complex thinking, not an easy task for communication specialists.  The intention of the Swiss E-ID law has a positive dimension. It aims to minimize the amount of personal data shared with private companies when they need to verify certain aspects of our identity, most notably our age. This is a good design, but it underestimates the power of big corporations to extract more than necessary information in the same way that nudge people into accepting their cookies.  Moreover, it adds one more actor that has full access of one’s digital life, the government. Big companies still collect the same amount of personal data they did before and in addition have access also to our official identification information. And the government that was not aware of our online activities, it will now has also access to a significant part of it. Of course, we trust more our government than Facebook. This is clear. But even a benign state can fail sometimes, can become the victim of attacks, or change in light of a big crisis. Finally, even if we do our best to protect our privacy online, this success can cause important side-effects. A more trustworthy digital world can increase our addiction and dependence on digital services and the power of those having access to this information for producing knowledge on human behavior. 3) Increased digitization increases vulnerability to attacks or failures Accidents or failures happen always, with the examples of blackout in Spain and the airport ransomware still present in our memory, we can only hope that we will not be among the victims of the next natural disaster, malicious attack, or internal failure.  Moreover, the danger of identity theft is another reason why the optional character is highly compromised. Here, the Swiss E-ID law cannot do much. It is a matter of implementation and the advantage is always to those that wait in the back instead of leading the process. The fact that the proposed solution is not fully open source can only make us worry. The more we depend on digital devices for our everyday life the more vulnerable we depend on potential failures and accidents. If we get used to our Swiss E-ID and we leave its physical counterpart always at home, the more harmful it will become if we fall from the bicycle and break our phone or if we lose it before going to an important event or trip that requires it. Final note: the critical role of Free/Libre and Open Source Software The result of the referendum was remarkably close despite the fact that the majority of political parties were in favor. This means that the Swiss people are really concerned by the risks of digitization and thus it is really important to discuss and debate about specific details of its implementation. For this, the role of Free/Libre and Open Source Software is critical, and ISOC-CH is a communication partner of the more ambitious funding programmes for supporting FLOSS software worldwide, the NGI0 Commons Fund. Our forthcoming “what does digital sovereignty mean for … ” series, will include this key dimension in the overall debate taking the perspective of different actors and focusing on what can be actually done, now. Just waiting the European industry to fight the American Big Tech on its own field is not very productive. There is a lot we can all do to protect ourselves from actors that abuse their power and from technologies that do not serve our real needs.  Become an ISOC-CH member and/or join our announcements list by sending a message to contact@isoc.ch to stay tuned! The post What could possibly go wrong with the Swiss E-ID? (a short summary) appeared first on ISOC Switzerland Chapter.

The Internet has now become essential for all aspects of life and business. Thus it is not surprising that more and more people, including people who don’t understand much about technology, express thoughts about how the Internet, and its governance, should evolve in the future. There is a tendency in some quarters to take the... The post A vision for the future of the Internet appeared first on ISOC Switzerland Chapter.

Building on the analogy between information and food, between agriculture and digital platforms, the question arises: what means for the Internet to be more organic? That is, more healthy, more grounded, and more sovereign? Clearly, global digital platforms like Facebook, and Google represent the extreme of highly industrialized solutions that manage information at scale optimized... The post Imagining a more organic Internet appeared first on ISOC Switzerland Chapter.