Digital Sovereignty and the End of the Open Internet?

Digital Sovereignty: The End of the Open Internet as We Know It? (Part 1)

Published on 03 April 2025 | Updated on 03 April 2025
Author: Marília Maciel

Digital sovereignty has emerged as one of the most debated and multifaceted issues in today's interconnected world. With calls to bolster state autonomy and national security echoing from Brussels to Addis Ababa, what does it really mean for the future of an open, borderless internet? In this long-form technical post, we explore the historical context of sovereignty, its evolution in the digital age, and the technical implications that come with the nation-centric reordering of cyberspace. While we start at the conceptual layer, you will also find practical, real-world examples – including scanning commands and scripts in both Bash and Python – that demonstrate how the security challenges underlying digital sovereignty are tackled in the field of cybersecurity.

This is Part 1 of a two-part series. In part 1, we focus on understanding digital sovereignty from a political economy perspective and its transformation from a liberal ideal to a neo-mercantilist instrument. We then move on to the technical realm by discussing cybersecurity use cases and real-world code examples that professionals may find useful. Part 2 will then examine how these dynamics further challenge the ideal of an open internet.

Introduction: The Shifting Paradigm of Sovereignty
Defining Digital Sovereignty
Sovereignty and Autonomy in a Digital Context
Digital Sovereignty and the Political Economy: A Three-Act Play
Cybersecurity and Digital Sovereignty
- The Role of Digital Sovereignty in Cyber Defense
- Real-World Example: Network Scanning and Analysis
Using Bash and Python to Analyze Network Security
Future Considerations and Open Questions
Conclusion
References

1. Introduction: The Shifting Paradigm of Sovereignty

For decades, the ideal of an open internet was intrinsically linked to the liberal order that celebrated free flows of information, commerce, and ideas. In the wake of globalization following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the internet was seen as a borderless space where ideas prospered and innovation flourished. However, rising concerns over national security, economic dependencies, and even misinformation have forced many states to re-read the narrative on sovereignty in the digital realm.

Digital sovereignty is rapidly moving from being a marginal idea to a core element of recent digital policy-making. Now, governments and supranational organizations are re-examining how to secure digital infrastructures while asserting control over data, networks, and communications. This challenge is compounded by technical vulnerabilities and cybersecurity threats that have exposed the inherent tension between an open, global internet and the desire for national autonomy.

In this post, we will explore how digital sovereignty is reshaping our understanding of state power and network security, bridging political debate with technical measures. Along the way, we provide practical examples and code samples to help digital and cybersecurity professionals understand how these issues translate into everyday practices.

2. Defining Digital Sovereignty

Digital sovereignty refers to the ability of a nation or political community to independently control its digital infrastructure, data, and networks. Unlike traditional state sovereignty—which is grounded on territorial integrity, non-interference, and legal equality among states—digital sovereignty deals with intangible assets that flow seamlessly across borders. This blurred line raises complex questions:

How can states maintain control over data in an inherently global digital economy?
Is enhanced digital control a pathway to better security, or does it risk isolating nations from beneficial international exchanges?
How do traditional notions of autonomy apply to the interconnected digital world?

At its core, digital sovereignty is about autonomy. It is about a political community’s capability to steer its digital destiny, balancing national security concerns with the benefits of international collaboration. Given the interconnected nature of modern communications and commerce, achieving this balance remains a contentious and evolving endeavor.

3. Sovereignty and Autonomy in a Digital Context

Classic debates on sovereignty trace their origins back to the Peace of Westphalia, where the concept of state sovereignty was forged around territorial boundaries. Today’s digital landscape challenges that traditional model. As financial institutions, tech companies, and governments rely on robust, cross-border data flows, it becomes imperative to rethink sovereignty.

In rethinking sovereignty, we invoke concepts proposed by scholars like Geenens: when speaking of sovereignty, we refer to the ability of a political community to understand itself as an autonomous agent. This understanding introduces two significant consequences:

Political Claim: Sovereignty is a manifestation of political will. It is a claim by a collective of conscious agents to control and shape their destiny.
Autonomy vs. Autarky: Autonomy involves having the capacity to choose responses to external influences without resorting to full isolation (autarky). In the digital economy, absolute self-sufficiency is impractical. Instead, sovereignty may be seen as the ability to negotiate, adopt, and reconfigure digital infrastructure based on national interests.

This nuanced approach shows that sovereignty, in the digital age, is not about completely cutting off from global flows but about having robust mechanisms to decide when, how, and to what extent a nation participates in these flows.

4. Digital Sovereignty and the Political Economy: A Three-Act Play

Discussions of digital sovereignty can be conceptualized as an unfinished play in three acts, each reflecting changing perspectives and policy trends:

Act I: The Liberal Rejection

Initially, liberal democratic thought embraced a global digital marketplace. Activists and policymakers envisioned the internet as an open platform for innovation and free exchange. The liberal perspective promoted:

Minimal restrictions on data flows.
Cross-border interoperability.
An ecosystem that encourages innovation and creativity by dissolving national barriers.

Under this model, digital sovereignty was seen by many as anachronistic—a relic of a bygone era when state boundaries mattered more than the limitless expanse of the digital realm.

Act II: The Neo-Mercantilist Turn

In recent years, the narrative has shifted dramatically. Rising geopolitical tensions, data breaches, and cybersecurity threats have led various states to adopt more protectionist measures. Under the neo-mercantilist lens:

The open internet becomes a potential vulnerability.
There is a push to “re-erect” digital borders along geopolitical lines.
National policies like India Stack and Euro Stack have gained momentum, aiming to reduce external economic dependencies while asserting control over domestic data and digital infrastructure.

This approach underscores a shift where national security concerns supplant the liberal advocacy for an unfettered internet. Here, digital sovereignty becomes the mechanism by which states can steer economic, technological, and geopolitical outcomes.

Act III: Towards a Hybrid Digital Order?

Looking forward, there is an increasing recognition that neither an entirely open internet nor complete digital isolation is feasible or desirable. Rather, a hybrid model might emerge:

One that promotes cross-border collaboration in areas like cybersecurity and innovation.
Yet retains enough control to protect national interests.
That embraces multistakeholder governance, where governments, corporations, and civil society jointly negotiate rules and norms.

This hybrid order would require considerable technical investments in cybersecurity, digital identity, infrastructure resilience, and data governance. Such investments, in turn, demand robust technical measures—many of which exemplify the real-world challenges that digital sovereign policies must overcome.

5. Cybersecurity and Digital Sovereignty

In the context of digital sovereignty, cybersecurity is paramount. National commitments to digital sovereignty often involve improved security practices aimed at protecting digital infrastructure from external threats. The transformation of networks into strategic assets has prompted government agencies worldwide to invest in tools and practices that secure national cyberspace.

The Role of Digital Sovereignty in Cyber Defense

Digital sovereignty and cybersecurity share a symbiotic relationship:

Control and Protection: A digitally sovereign state strives to control its digital infrastructure and data flow. Cybersecurity tools help monitor, detect, and defend against external threats that might compromise this control.
Monitoring and Surveillance: Effective cybersecurity requires the continuous monitoring of network activities. National frameworks for information sharing and threat intelligence often rely on automation and robust data analysis—areas where digital sovereignty policies might either add layers of control or even introduce isolated “security islands.”
Resilience in Adversity: As hostile actors refine their tactics, nation states may adopt advanced scanning, vulnerability assessment, and response mechanisms to ensure that critical infrastructure remains secure. Digital sovereignty translates to a technical imperative for proactive defense measures.

The practical implications of these theories become evident when examining how cybersecurity professionals use scanning tools and parsing techniques to keep networks secure.

6. Using Bash and Python to Analyze Network Security

Network scanning and vulnerability analysis are critical components of any cybersecurity strategy. Let’s walk through a real-world example of how to use common tools to perform network scanning and then parse the results. These techniques are not only valuable for security analysis in a national context—they also serve as excellent case studies in digital defense strategies aligned with digital sovereignty.

6.1 Example: Scanning with Nmap

Nmap (Network Mapper) is one of the most widely used and trusted tools for network discovery and security auditing. Here’s a simple command to scan a target network for open ports and services:

nmap -sV -p 1-1024 192.168.1.0/24

Explanation of the command:

-sV: Enable version detection to determine what service and version are running on the open ports.
-p 1-1024: Specifies the scanning of ports ranging from 1 to 1024.
192.168.1.0/24: Targets a subnet, which, in this case, is a common local network.

6.2 Parsing Nmap Output with Bash

Often, raw output from a scan is too verbose for immediate analysis. Using Bash, you can quickly parse the output to extract meaningful information. Here’s an example script that filters open ports and writes the results to a file:

#!/bin/bash

# Define target and output file
TARGET="192.168.1.0/24"
OUTPUT_FILE="nmap_results.txt"

# Run nmap scan and save output to a file
nmap -sV -p 1-1024 "$TARGET" -oG "$OUTPUT_FILE"

# Parse the results: extract hostname, port, and service information from the grepable output
echo "Open ports on hosts within $TARGET:" > parsed_results.txt
grep "/open/" "$OUTPUT_FILE" | while read -r line; do
    HOST=$(echo "$line" | awk '{print $2}')
    PORTS=$(echo "$line" | grep -oP '\d+/open' | sed 's/\/open//g')
    echo "$HOST: Open ports: $PORTS" >> parsed_results.txt
done

echo "Results parsed and saved to parsed_results.txt."

Explanation:

The script runs an nmap scan and outputs in grepable format (-oG).
It then uses grep and awk to filter out lines that indicate open ports.
Finally, it writes a concise report to parsed_results.txt.

6.3 Parsing Nmap Output with Python

In many modern workflows, Python is used for parsing and deeper analysis of network data. The following Python script reads the grepable nmap output and organizes the data into a structured format:

#!/usr/bin/env python3
import re

def parse_nmap_grepable(file_path):
    results = {}
    with open(file_path, 'r') as file:
        for line in file:
            # Skip comments and irrelevant lines
            if line.startswith("#") or "Status:" not in line:
                continue

            parts = line.split()
            host = parts[1]
            # Find all instances of ports reported as open in the line
            open_ports = re.findall(r'(\d+)/open', line)
            if open_ports:
                results[host] = open_ports
    return results

def main():
    input_file = "nmap_results.txt"
    parsed_data = parse_nmap_grepable(input_file)
    
    # Output in a simple text format
    print("Parsed Nmap Scan Results:")
    for host, ports in parsed_data.items():
        print(f"{host}: Open Ports -> {', '.join(ports)}")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()

Explanation:

The script uses Python’s regular expressions (re module) to extract open port information.
It reads each line of the nmap output file and filters those lines that denote active hosts.
Finally, it prints a structured summary showing which hosts have which ports open.

These technical examples illustrate how a centralized approach to digital sovereignty might also empower cybersecurity professionals to deploy, automate, and analyze network defenses. They embody a technical emphasis on data control, transparency in vulnerability reporting, and rapid incident response—all critical to a state’s digital autonomy.

7. Future Considerations and Open Questions

While much of the technical debate on digital sovereignty focuses on surveillance, firewalls, and control mechanisms, several broader strategic questions remain:

Balance Between Control and Openness: How will nations reconcile the increased need for cybersecurity with the benefits of an open internet? Will a patchwork of isolated networks stifle innovation, or can robust security coexist with openness?
Multistakeholder Governance Models: Digital sovereignty need not be a zero-sum game. Can governments, corporations, and civil society find a unified framework to ensure that digital policies enhance security without curtailing freedom and creativity?
The Evolution of International Law: As digital policies become more nationalistic, how will international legal frameworks adapt? Will we see treaties addressing digital borders similar to those that now govern traditional territorial disputes?
Technological Innovation vs. Regulation: How will advances in areas such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and quantum computing influence the future of digital sovereignty? Can innovations in these fields provide new tools for secure digital governance?

These questions underscore the ongoing transformation in how we think about sovereignty in the digital age. The evolution of policy and technology is not linear but iterative, requiring continuous adaptation and debate among all stakeholders.

8. Conclusion

Digital sovereignty is at the intersection of geopolitics, economics, technology, and cybersecurity. As we witness a shift away from the liberal ideals of a borderless digital realm towards models where state control and surveillance are paramount, it becomes clear that the future of the internet is in flux.

This post has provided a comprehensive overview of digital sovereignty by:

Outlining its historical roots and transformation in the digital era.
Examining the interplay between sovereignty, autonomy, and the global economy.
Presenting technical examples—such as network scanning using Nmap, parsing output with Bash and Python—that illuminate the practical side of cybersecurity in an era defined by digital control.

The implications for policy makers and cybersecurity professionals are profound. Striking the right balance between security and openness will be one of the defining challenges of our time. In Part 2 of this series, we will further explore the consequences of digital sovereignty on the open internet, examining case studies that highlight both successes and shortcomings in the current landscape.

As we move forward, understanding and engaging with these technological and policy dimensions will be essential. Whether you are a cybersecurity practitioner, policy maker, or an interested citizen, the evolution of digital sovereignty invites us all to reconsider the rules that govern our digital lives.

9. References

Embrace the intersection of digital policy and cybersecurity, and join us in the continuing conversation about the future of the open internet. Stay tuned for Part 2 as we delve deeper into the implications of digital sovereignty on global connectivity and innovation.

Keywords: digital sovereignty, open internet, cybersecurity, digital autonomy, network scanning, nmap, bash scripting, python parsing, digital policy, cyber defense

Happy coding and stay secure!