upvote
> If anything "EU Tech Sovereignty" is a net negative for me.

Is it? If you live in the EU, the fact that pretty much all companies completely depend on US tech to work means that the US can not only spy on them (if Airbus uses Microsoft Teams, then the US government can ask Microsoft to give them access to the data and use that to help Boeing win contracts for instance), but also put pressure on those companies by blocking their access to that tech (it has happened).

The "sovereignty" part here is a net positive for anyone living in the EU. Net negative for anyone living in the US of course, because being in a dominant position does favour the US.

reply
The default stance should be that nothing you do is private on the internet. If we're talking spying then no service in any country will be secure unless fully encrypted with audits. Any country with an intelligence agency can force companies in their jurisdiction to give them access to data otherwise.
reply
Not sure what you are trying to say, except that it confirms my point: if a company in say, Germany, uses Microsoft and Google services for all their communications, then the US (!) can just get access to all their data.

Now if that company was using services based in Germany, then only Germany could access that data, which is obviously much less of a sovereignty problem (Germany interfering with Germany's affair is just a normal government).

reply
Sure for a German company in Germany that's perfectly reasonable, but we're not talking about each country in Europe having their own copy of AWS/Stripe/Search.

In reality all the data will be in France/Germany/Netherlands because that is where the infrastructure is. They also happen to be countries with world class intelligence agencies.

We need better services and protocols developed with privacy in mind from the beginning, no matter where it's hosted.

reply
> but we're not talking about each country in Europe having their own copy of AWS/Stripe/Search.

We're not talking about having hyperscalers in each country, but I could totally imagine each country having infrastructure.

> In reality all the data will be in France/Germany/Netherlands

Having the choice between 3 European countries is already a lot better than giving all the data to the US. The US has been a lot more hostile to European countries than "the intersection of hostility from France/Germany/Netherlands".

> We need better services and protocols developed with privacy in mind from the beginning, no matter where it's hosted.

Sure, I agree with that. But one doesn't prevent the other. Typically it's not practical to run LLMs in a privacy-preserving manner, so it's a lot better (in terms of sovereignty) to run a server in a place you trust than in a hostile country.

reply
> Having the choice between 3 European countries is already a lot better than giving all the data to the US. The US has been a lot more hostile to European countries than "the intersection of hostility from France/Germany/Netherlands".

History shows conflict seems to be inevitable. You can't assume all European nations will be friendly forever. I'm American, but my hope is that this knee-jerk reaction to just move everything possible to EU has more thought behind it. Improving upon what we currently have especially with respect to privacy so that everyone in the world may benefit rather than just clone American tech and calling it a day.

reply
Not sure you understood my point.

- IF you can choose to rely on one of [France, Germany, Netherland], then you would need to be in conflict with all three to be screwed.

- IF you can choose to rely on a service in your country, it's better for sovereignty.

Overall, it's all better for competition. The best would be competing services sharing an open core (or even everything).

> this knee-jerk reaction to just move everything possible to EU

The thought is that if you are in the EU, in terms of sovereignty you are better off giving your data to EU services. US companies give their data to US services, so of course it is much less of an issue there. And Americans are not the last to complain when US companies give their data to non-US companies...

reply
Well, where do you live?

I live in an EU country and care deeply for the right to erasure and our consumer rights. The EU legislature does some good things on that front. I "care" for EU tech companies as much as I can care for any company currently. I think technological sovereignty is and will be important moving forward, for our economic resilience, infrastructure stability, among other things.

BTW "EU nationalist" just sounds like an oxymoron to me.

reply
Which is why we’re putting our entire digital identification infrastructure in the hands of Google and Apple. EU technological sovereignty is a kafkaesque affair, and that’s putting it mildly.
reply
I concur, except about the "putting it mildly" part. The digital ID stuff feels kafkaesque, sure, but not more. It's good lobbying at play, and I'm sure we'll find a way moving forward.
reply
Assuming that most Europeans would be loyal to the EU is like assuming that most US Americans are loyal to Donald Trump (or Biden). But in reality a big enough proportion of Europeans see the EU as a hostile foreign influencing force.

Or, to put it another way, do you think any Americans use Microsoft or Apple products out of patriotism or fear of being dependent on technology from other nations?

reply
> But in reality a big enough proportion of Europeans see the EU as a hostile foreign influencing force.

Yeah, I have to doubt your perceived reality here. Can you name some of these "hostile foreign influences"?

The big competitor to Apple is Google, whereas the big competitor to Microsoft is Linux/FOSS IMHO. I'm sorry to be blunt, but in the current political climate I couldn't care less what any Americans are using and for whatever reason. EU citizens on the other hand sure got a few reasons during the last decade due to foreign American politics.

reply
> Can you name some of these "hostile foreign influences"?

The name is the European Union. It is the foreign entity to Europeans. If you doubt that there is a big portion of Europeans who aren't pro-EU, then I guess you doubt that there are Americans who aren't pro-Trump?

Anyway, there were referendums in many countries on the subject of joining the EU, and you can look at those and see that not 100% of the population voted yes.

So it is a false assumption that Europeans would by default have any loyalty or goodwill towards the EU, although I'm sure that a big portion of them do. Especially in some countries.

reply
> not 100% of the population voted yes.

Well, call me surprised! Which democratic election ever achieves a one-sided 100%?

Still, the majority of the EU population seems to in favor of the EU, whereas the majority of the US citizens are pro-Trump, or they were during the last election at least. So I don't really understand what you're arguing for here.

reply
If the location of something is a part of what you use to decide what to use, then if it's in the EU which is your preferred location, it no longer is "an inferior option", it might end up your only option.

But clearly you don't care, so understandably that choice doesn't make sense for you, that's all fine and good. But still you have to understand other people/organizations than you might have different requirements? Or is that a very foreign concept?

reply