The core idea of “digital sovereignty” is that the digital exhaust created by a person, business or government should be stored inside the country where it originated
Fuck countries, all of them. The data should be stored inside the person themselves.
@freeschool The problem is not that user data is placed in a corporate data center in a "wrong" country. Moving data across the borders is not a solution for users' problems. A user still has no say in where their data is located and on what terms. Some people wouldn't trust their "countries" to hold a glass of water for them and certainly would not let their "digital footprint" into a country that has an adversarial stance to its minorities.
@dpwiz
Ok got that... seems a bit more is there with the kinda of sentiment that "The data should be stored inside the person themselves."...
so could you say more about that? (connection to digital with storing in our self, maybe some examples and ideals, or possibilities. I get the trust is not here... so imagine also maybe none of them can be trusted (that all are being used as users- if I get that right, so what would you like or recommend?)
@freeschool The "inside" part is a riff off the original "inside the country".
But you really can treat it as a real thing and move towards it.
The problem is (at least) two-fold:
1) Own what you are. Personal identity management, private keys and metadata, stuff like this. A modern solution here are hardware tokens, esp. with on-device cryptography processing. A bit forward into future and we'll start seeing implantable stuff. Yes, we have implantable NFCs and stuff like that, it's just not particularly capable/interesting.
2) Own what you have. The bulk data storage question. You can't implant a few dozen TBs. But this can be reclaimed with pervasive connectivity when aided by (1). And we also have at least preliminary solutions here with p2p tech.
With a bit of effort you can commit your private keys to your meat memory. Then walk with your stuff through any country border without it getting noticed. The only problem would be Alzheimer's. And a need for external trusted cryptography hardware to actually run the algos.
Arguably the #GNUnet project has some capabilities for both 1 and 2. It "just" needs to gain more traction.
@dpwiz
I'm grateful.
Just flipping to another side (briefly) do you think 'holding' data in terms of person could be something digital in part but mostly in the person themself... so digital aside (but not discounted) somehow making that the focus - do you see that as possible or somehow have any thoughts on that even with a bit of digital... and considering the body is perhaps less digital to take over itself... (at least in some respect or just not limiting the digital aggression by using it less or another way).
Appreciate this is tangential or different but the idea of holding things like a container seems interesting as people did before with knowledge and practise (without also expecting it all and still have a bit of digital but perhaps trying to catch the old ways a bit more somehow and have less digital liability).
Last points were covered well so thought I'd ask about this slightly new take on it... Thanks
@dpwiz
Pretty good connection between data store as people themselves
(did I catch this right?)
And can you say more? (even if it's not perfect but going for speed). Thanks