The French government recently announced plans to phase out US video conferencing platforms like Microsoft Teams and Zoom across its public sector, replacing them with a domestically developed solution called Visio. The rollout, expected to be completed by 2027, is part of a broader strategy to strengthen digital sovereignty by keeping sensitive public-sector communications and data under national control.
This isn’t just about choosing different software, it reflects a growing recognition that digital infrastructure, and the data it produces, is a matter of national autonomy, security, and trust. Many countries are now openly questioning reliance on foreign technology where legal frameworks and geopolitical dynamics can complicate who actually controls data.
It’s a powerful example of digital sovereignty, and it raises important questions for technology strategy here in Australia.
What Is Data Sovereignty?
At its core, data sovereignty refers to the principle that data should be governed by the laws and frameworks of the country in which it is created or stored. For governments and organisations, this often means ensuring data storage, processing and access comply not only with local regulation, but also with strategic public-interest considerations.
This includes clarity on:
- Who controls the data
- Where it is stored
- Which legal jurisdiction it falls under
- How it can be accessed and audited
Military, health and research systems are increasingly considering these questions as part of broader strategies around security and continuity, not just convenience.
Indigenous Data Sovereignty: A Distinct but Related Concept
In Australia, the conversation goes deeper.
Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) refers to the inherent rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to govern data about their communities, cultures, lands and priorities, not simply to comply with national laws, but to exercise cultural authority, interpretation and decision-making across the entire data lifecycle.
This isn’t a technical nuance. It reflects:
- Self-determination
- Cultural integrity
- Economic and social agency
Indigenous data shouldn’t just be protected, it should be meaningfully governed by Indigenous people on terms that align with their values and worldviews.
The Australian Public Service’s Framework for Governance of Indigenous Data aims to embed these principles into public sector data practices, increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ agency over how data is used, interpreted and shared.
Bridging National and Cultural Data Sovereignty
France’s move reminds us that data and technology governance are no longer neutral technical decisions.
When large institutions, such as national governments, rethink who controls platforms and where data resides, they are implicitly recognising that data governance has strategic, legal and even cultural implications.
For Australia, this intersects with existing efforts to rethink how data about First Nations peoples is:
- Collected
- Interpreted
- Stored
- Shared
- Governed
Unlike national digital sovereignty, which focuses on compliance and control within national borders, Indigenous data sovereignty emphasises self-determined ownership and cultural interpretation of data, beyond mere location or storage.
Why This Matters for Organisations and Governments
The lesson isn’t that every Australian department needs to build its own Visio-like platform, it’s that data governance choices have ramifications far beyond IT budgets. They shape:
- Trust with communities and stakeholders
- Legal and compliance obligations
- Strategic independence and digital resilience
- Cultural empowerment and accountability
Increasingly, organisations (especially in government, health, social services and research) must consider how their data strategy aligns with national priorities and the rights of the communities whose data they hold.
What To Watch Next
In Australia, these themes are playing out in real policy frameworks:
- The Australian Public Service’s Framework for Governance of Indigenous Data emphasises partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in data decision-making.
- Indigenous Data Sovereignty movements advocate for data governance aligned with Indigenous worldviews and priorities.
- CARE Principles and similar frameworks highlight ethical, collective and culturally anchored approaches to data governance.
All of these recognise that data sovereignty isn’t just about where data lives, it’s about who it serves and how it reflects the values of the people it represents.
Final Thought
France’s digital sovereignty shift is a compelling reminder that data and technology decisions today aren’t purely technical. They are political, cultural and strategic.
For Australia, and particularly for Indigenous Australians, the future of data governance must be built on principles of partnership, self-determination and cultural integrity.
Only then can technology truly support not just secure systems, but equitable, accountable and representative outcomes for all.