Raluca A. Stana, PhDIn a significant move toward digital independence, Denmark’s two largest municipalities—Copenhagen and Aarhus—have announced plans to gradually phase out Microsoft products from their IT infrastructures. This decision isn’t just about licensing costs; it reflects a deeper concern over vendor lock-in, data sovereignty, and the increasing politicization of technology.
The Danish Municipalities’ Stand
For years, public institutions in Denmark have depended on Microsoft’s software ecosystems. But now, driven by both economic and strategic motivations, Copenhagen and Aarhus are seeking alternatives—particularly open-source and European-based solutions that offer greater transparency and control over their data.
This shift coincides with a growing awareness of the risks posed by dependence on dominant tech providers. As geopolitical tensions rise, even seemingly mundane services like email or document management can become vulnerable. A recent example: a judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague lost access to their Microsoft Outlook account due to sanctions-related restrictions—raising serious concerns about the autonomy of digital services within democratic institutions.
Technology Is Not Neutral
This isn’t just a Danish issue. Across Europe and beyond, public authorities should begin to ask harder questions about their digital dependencies. Where is the data stored? Who sets the prices? Who controls access—and for whom is the technology designed? How much will the subscription costs be in the future?
And! How will AI be integrated in all this – to shape our very own way of thinking, acting and run our citizen services?
This reflection echoes the warnings of tech scholar Shoshana Zuboff, who famously wrote:
“Surveillance capitalism unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data.”
— Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
(Source)
Zuboff’s critique highlights the broader structural issue: many of the digital tools we rely on are not built for public service or societal resilience—they are built for extraction, prediction, and profit.
Between Cost and Control
Critics of this municipal shift may argue that moving away from Microsoft could be inefficient or expensive. And yes, digital independence has costs—new systems must be implemented, staff must be trained, and interoperability must be ensured. But the alternative—continued dependence on opaque, foreign-owned platforms—is arguably more expensive in the long run, both economically and democratically.
Conclusion: Awakening to Digital Sovereignty
Denmark’s initiative marks more than a procurement change—it represents a cultural shift. One where digital infrastructure is no longer treated as neutral or benign, but as inherently political.
As cities and nations around the world reflect on their own digital dependencies, the Danish case offers a valuable example of how to prioritize long-term resilience over short-term convenience. This is not just about software choices—it’s about who holds power in the digital age, and how much control we’re willing to give away.
#DigitalSovereignty #TechEthics #PublicInfrastructure #OpenSource #Microsoft #Zuboff #TechnologyAndSociety
