As part of the GI Annual Conference 2024, the workshop “Digital Sovereignty in the Field of Tension between Computer Science & Society - Quo Vadis?” addressed how digital sovereignty can be achieved for citizens, companies, and public institutions. Organized by the GI section “Informatics and Society”, the workshop aimed to shed light on digital sovereignty's social aspects and provide a platform for interdisciplinary exchange. Based on the two central questions, for whom should digital sovereignty be established, and how should this sovereignty be achieved?, the different contributions to the workshop were discussed.

The day began with a talk by Mareike Lisker and Oliver Vettermann on deconstructing the concepts of "digital sovereignty" and "digital empowerment". They discussed the concept of sovereignty as political rhetoric, as well as the question of who can become sovereign. They also questioned whether digital empowerment through individual control of data flow is even possible in the face of tracking technologies. Their thesis was that empowerment and sovereignty are concepts that create the illusion of control in data-driven capitalism. This controversial and thought-provoking contribution led directly to a long discussion about the possibilities and limits of sovereignty from a computer science perspective.

Ekaterina Seppelfricke then introduced the concept of digital identity based on the EUDI wallet. This use case already showed how different stakeholders from politics, business and administration, but also citizens, are struggling to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved.

The next sessions discussed the negotiation process of digital sovereignty in everyday life, education and higher education.

Jochen Meyer presented an AI-based application that seeks to improve citizens' access to public services based on a human-centered design process using the example of applying for a certificate of eligibility for subsidized housing. The application aims to establish digital sovereignty for citizens.

Based on the "Privacy by Co-Design" approach, Andy Börner presented how users can be actively involved in the development of sensor-based smart home applications. This is not only about participation but also about empowering people to deal with sensor data in a more reflective way. To give the workshop participants a better understanding of his research, he brought a volume sensor to the workshop.

The third part of the workshop discussed the importance of open source software for promoting digital sovereignty in education. Karin Vosseberg gave a vivid presentation of how digital sovereignty in universities can create new spaces for self-determination - but only if the perspectives of different stakeholders are adequately taken into account.

A key requirement is to provide access to knowledge for all populations, including vulnerable groups, through inclusive learning platforms. Daniel Stattkus presented various requirements for the design of such learning platforms to ensure that digital educational offerings can be adapted to the needs of different target groups.

Andreas Harrer and Gabriele Kunau presented the realization of such an offer on the basis of SecAware.nrw. This is an innovative approach to teach data security in the context of a self-learning academy.

The workshop concluded with a discussion of the various contributions to digital sovereignty and the question of who is ultimately sovereign in the digital age.

The discussion highlighted the importance of protecting personal data, ensuring control over data storage, and promoting digital literacy to enable overall technological mastery. However, challenges lie with business and government, such as implementing clear policies and ensuring transparency of software services. Digital sovereignty should be seen as a journey, not an achievable goal.

As for the question of the ability to act in the face of a supposedly unchangeable system, which permeated the workshop, we found an answer from earlier times on the grounds of the Wiesbaden University of Applied Sciences: In one of the toilets hangs an ashtray that is still in working order – a relic from a time when people smoked everywhere and all the time. As a result of regulation, bans, discursive reframing and health education, the ashtray now looks like a relic from a time that can no longer be imagined. And yes: people still smoke, but at least the network effects and the harm to others have been greatly reduced. Perhaps this is a fitting example of how digital sovereignty could be more than just an empty formula if we embrace the term by creatively dealing with its components. The future of sovereignty and autonomy lies in the willingness of politics to really commit to it.