--- layout: default title: "The Fight for Digital Sovereignty" description: "An argument for adopting free software principles to safeguard privacy, transparency, and national autonomy in a post-Snowden world." categories: [Publications] date: 2013-10-19 authors: ["Sunil Abraham"] source: "Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. XLVIII No. 42" permalink: /publications/the-fight-for-digital-sovereignty/ pdf: created: 2025-11-06 --- **The Fight for Digital Sovereignty** was written by Sunil Abraham and published in the *Economic & Political Weekly* (Vol. XLVIII No. 42, 19 October 2013). The article argues that India must incorporate the principles of free and open source software into its governance and technology policies to protect privacy and maintain autonomy in the digital domain. Drawing from the global debate that followed Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass surveillance, Abraham explores how transparency in code, infrastructure, and standards can strengthen both freedom and security. ## Contents 1. [Publication Details](#publication-details) 2. [Abstract](#abstract) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [Key Themes or Findings](#key-themes-or-findings) 5. [Full Text](#full-text) 6. [Citation](#citation) ## Publication Details
The free and open source software movement (often collectively labelled as FOSS or sometimes FLOSS, with the “l” standing for “libre”) guarantees four freedoms through a copyright licence – the freedom to use for any purpose, the freedom to study the code, the freedom to modify it and the freedom to distribute the modified code gratis or for a fee. Free software principles have spread globally in movements advocating open standards, open content, open access and open data. Of these, the freedom to study the code is the most vital in an open society. Privacy, security and integrity are best achieved through the transparency guaranteed by free software rather than the opacity of proprietary software.
Free software is directly useful in deciding on the software required for device operating systems and applications. NSA’s surveillance programme covered operating system vendors like Microsoft and Apple, and application vendors like Skype. Concerns raised by such surveillance are best addressed by shifting to free software. This transition is increasingly feasible with the availability of Android derivatives that exclude Google’s data collection and through GNU/Linux distributions such as Ubuntu. Ideally, this should be mandated in government and public infrastructure wherever viable alternatives exist. Two complementary policy tools — code escrow and independent audits — can help where proprietary systems remain. Firms willing to share code with the government should be preferred in procurement, creating pressure on others to follow suit. Code escrow also strengthens the quality of audit.
Open hardware, though still marginal in market share, reflects similar principles. India cannot easily impose bans on foreign hardware as some Western nations have done, but it can support domestic research to reverse-engineer and verify both imported and indigenous products for security risks. For example, government-funded initiatives could test whether devices manufactured abroad transmit data covertly over Indian networks.
Cloud and online service dependence introduces further risks to privacy and security. These can be mitigated through the use of free software and open standards. Abraham recommends that government officials avoid corporate email platforms and adopt strong encryption for all sensitive communications. Rather than relying exclusively on a single national infrastructure like that of the National Informatics Centre, the state should support multiple, interoperable, open-source systems to prevent single points of failure. This approach would also strengthen domestic competence in cybersecurity and network management.
Ultimately, digital sovereignty means control over software, hardware, cloud and network infrastructure. Yet, as Abraham notes, sovereignty is not absolute. Law enforcement and national security may necessitate limited surveillance, and human rights protections may require certain technological constraints. The example of South Korea’s legal requirement for visible or audible alerts on recording devices illustrates how privacy and technology can coexist through thoughtful regulation. However, when software or hardware design itself becomes a means of resisting or enforcing law, technology turns into a site of struggle — a battleground for sovereignty between the free software developer and the state.
Abraham, S. (2013).
The Fight for Digital Sovereignty.
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. XLVIII No. 42, 19 October 2013.
https://sunilabraham.in/publications/the-fight-for-digital-sovereignty/
**BibTeX style**
@article{abraham2013sovereignty,
author = {Abraham, Sunil},
title = {The Fight for Digital Sovereignty},
journal = {Economic & Political Weekly},
year = {2013},
volume = {XLVIII},
number = {42},
month = {October},
url = {https://sunilabraham.in/publications/the-fight-for-digital-sovereignty/}
}
**MLA style**
Abraham, Sunil. "The Fight for Digital Sovereignty."
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. XLVIII No. 42, 19 Oct. 2013.
https://sunilabraham.in/publications/the-fight-for-digital-sovereignty/
{% include back-to-top.html %}