The European Commission’s latest push to reduce dependence on foreign technology providers is not surprising. If Europe believes that critical digital services could be disrupted by foreign governments, foreign legal systems, or foreign-owned providers, it will, of course, respond. That concern is now being expressed in the language of “kill switch” risk, meaning the fear that the cloud, AI, or semiconductor services that Europe depends on could be interrupted or constrained by forces beyond its control.

At a high level, that concern is valid. Europe is right to worry about strategic dependence. If critical public services, regulated workloads, or national-interest systems rely on infrastructure controlled elsewhere, sovereignty becomes more than a policy slogan. It becomes an architectural issue. However, I am skeptical of the leap from identifying the problem to assuming that a policy response will produce a cleaner, safer, or even more sovereign market. There is a good chance it may do the opposite.

What Europe is trying to protect

The motivation behind this effort is clear. Europe wants to reduce its dependence on cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors from providers it does not fully control. It wants to ensure that core digital services cannot be switched off, legally constrained, or strategically influenced from outside the region. That is the public policy objective, and from a government standpoint, it makes sense.

The problem is that cloud markets don’t often respond to political intent as policymakers hope. The public cloud market is concentrated among a few big providers because scale matters. The hyperscalers have built global infrastructure, extensive services, ecosystems, and operating models that smaller regional players can’t match. Enterprises chose them for operational advantages, not geopolitical reasons.

Europe now finds itself in a difficult position. It wants sovereignty, but it also wants the benefits of scale, reliability, feature depth, and cost efficiency that usually come from very large cloud providers. Those goals do not always align.

Sowing enterprise confusion

One likely outcome of this push is that European enterprises will become increasingly confused about which public clouds they should select or avoid. That is not a minor point. Most enterprises already struggle with cloud strategy when the drivers are technical, financial, and operational. Add political sovereignty requirements, and the market becomes even harder to navigate.

Enterprises will now need to ask a more complex set of questions. Is a US-based hyperscaler with a localized European operating model acceptable? Is a European-branded sovereign cloud built on American technology better? Is a regional provider safer simply because it is smaller and local, even if it offers fewer services, weaker security tools, less resilience, and a less certain long-term future? At what point does “sovereign enough” become a legal or political judgment rather than a technical one?

This is where the market gets muddy. Policy discussions often imply a binary distinction between foreign and sovereign. In reality, cloud architectures are full of hybrids, partnerships, licensing arrangements, embedded dependencies, and supply chain layers, making neat categorization difficult. Enterprises do not buy cloud services based on a political slogan. They must navigate stacks of contracts, services, support structures, compliance obligations, and technical capabilities. The more politics enters that decision process, the less clarity there may be for buyers trying to make rational platform choices.

Sovereign clouds may not fix things

There is another reality that I think policymakers underestimate. Increased investment in sovereign cloud providers does not automatically create a durable sovereign cloud sector. In fact, history suggests the opposite.

Governments and enterprises may push investment toward smaller sovereign providers, but those providers still face the same brutal economics of the cloud market. They need capital, scale, customers, engineering depth, and ecosystem gravity. Many smaller providers will struggle to compete over time. Some will fail. Others will narrow their focus. Many will eventually be acquired, directly or indirectly, by larger players, including the very US-based cloud providers Europe is trying to reduce dependence on.

That’s the irony. Political pressure may spark a burst of sovereign cloud activity, but market gravity tends to reward scale. Sovereign cloud investment may create a temporary diversification, but in the long run, it could still end in concentration.

Sovereignty is not a bad goal, but the cloud business is structurally difficult. Running a competitive cloud platform is expensive. Matching hyperscaler capabilities is even harder. Enterprises eventually notice the gaps in services, AI tools, ecosystem support, geographic resilience, and operating maturity. When they do, they drift back toward the biggest and most capable providers.

Fragmentation comes before security

My concern is that Europe may be entering a period when cloud architecture is driven less by technical fit and more by political signaling. That rarely leads to simplicity. It usually results in fragmented strategies, duplicated platforms, inconsistent governance, and long procurement cycles.

Some organizations will choose a sovereign-first model for political reasons. Others will remain with hyperscalers but add contractual and architectural safeguards. Others will adopt a multicloud approach purely to avoid appearing overly dependent on one provider. Still others will split workloads by regulatory sensitivity, which sounds sensible until integration costs and operational complexity add up.

This is how confusion mounts. The question shifts from “Which platform best supports my workload?” to “Which platform is politically safest this quarter?” That is not a stable architectural framework.

Skeptical but attentive

I understand exactly why Europe is raising this issue. No responsible government wants critical digital services held hostage by external dependencies. That concern is rational, but rational concern does not guarantee rational market outcomes. My skepticism is not about whether digital sovereignty matters. It does. But can policy alone produce genuine long-term autonomy or will it create a more confusing procurement environment? At the same time, the market will quietly continue to consolidate around the largest global platforms.

The uncomfortable truth is that sovereignty is easier to announce than to implement. Cloud sovereignty is especially difficult because cloud markets reward scale, capital, ecosystem strength, and breadth of services. Those forces do not disappear simply because a regulator seeks more regional control. I think this issue will become more important over the next few years as cloud, AI, and geopolitical power become even more tightly linked. Europe is right to ask hard questions about dependence. But the answers are likely to be messy, and market outcomes may not look as sovereign as policymakers hope.

I don’t expect to see a clean break from foreign cloud providers. I do expect more hybrid arrangements, more sovereign branding, more enterprise uncertainty, more investment in regional providers, and eventually more consolidation than many people currently anticipate. That is not a failure of the idea. It is just the reality of how cloud markets tend to work.

The real challenge for Europe is not identifying the risk. It is building a response that does not create more confusion than the problem it is trying to solve.

Every organization has data scattered across data warehouses, data lakes, SaaS platforms, cloud drives, and data centers. Data fabrics enable organizations to centralize and control data access, making it easier for users, such as data scientists and citizen data analysts, to find and use trusted and governed data sources. 

Data fabrics, data meshes, and distributed data clouds are all platforms to help IT and data teams put some order to the chaos around the myriad of data sources they support. Large companies need data fabrics due to the volume and variety of their data sources.

“A data fabric can be thought of as the connective tissue that ensures consistent accessibility, availability, and understanding of data across an organization,” says Dominic Wellington, data and AI expert at SnapLogic. “Individual siloed platforms may have their own internal data transfer systems, and particular teams or departments may adopt interchanges that work for that domain, but a data fabric operates at a higher level, ensuring that unified data policies are applied end-to-end across the entire enterprise.”

Types of data fabrics

When reviewing data fabrics, it’s important to consider their primary use cases, supported data types, data processing capabilities, data management structures, and governance functions. Below are some considerations when reviewing data fabrics as features, platforms, and stand-alone products.

• Some data fabrics are optimized for analytics and machine learning use cases and may have limited support for unstructured data.
• Other data fabrics extend the functionality of data governance platforms beyond data cataloging and metadata management and now include persistent data management, data quality, and dataops capabilities.
• Many data integration and API connectivity platforms go beyond proxying, pipelining, and transforming data to include search, governance, and other capabilities from data centralization.
• Some SaaS platforms are extending their connectivity and data integration capabilities, enabling multicloud portability and persistent data.
• The more advanced data fabrics support features needed for AI agents and AI model training. These platforms create a semantic context layer for structured and unstructured data sources, support Model Context Protocol (MCP) integrations, have real-time query capabilities, centralize policy-driven governance, and track data lineage.    

Why data fabrics are needed for AI

Data fabrics are not just for enterprises, and today, even smaller companies need them as part of their AI democratization programs. Here are a few reasons why:

• AI agents in enterprise SaaS solutions need access to broader data sets than those core to their workflows. Platforms such as Adobe, Appian, Oracle, Salesforce, ServiceNow, SAP, and Workday offer data fabric capabilities to bring data outside of the business processes they manage into scope for their AI agents.
• Unstructured data is important for setting the context for AI agents, and data fabrics are now used to provide access to documents, emails, transcripts, and other media formats.
• Data fabrics provide data access standards for the devops teams experimenting with AI code generators, vibe coding tools, and spec-driven development approaches to develop applications and AI agents. 
• As companies use MCP servers to connect AI agents, data fabrics provide a standardized way for the agents to access governed, trusted data sources.

“As AI agents move from generating insights to taking action, the data fabric becomes foundational in the agentic era,” says Irfan Kahn, president and chief product officer of SAP Data & Analytics. “Most enterprises operate across scattered data sources and diverse data landscapes, and what’s needed is shared business context, governed access, and clear accountability for how data is used in decision-making. Without that context, agents can’t fully understand or coordinate across the enterprise to deliver meaningful value.”

Sanjay Koppikar, chief product officer and cofounder of EvoluteIQ, adds, “Multi-agent architectures become untrustworthy when a unifying data fabric architecture is missing, since agents will often work against each other in the service of their own objectives.”

Delivering context to AI agents

AI agents need a combination of real-time data, user information, problem details, and historical context to guide their decision-making. Vishal Sood, president of research and development at Typeface, says, “MCP and data fabrics give agents access, but the harder problem is contextualizing data across multiple sources and ensuring the underlying content, media, and unstructured data are trustworthy.”

Data fabrics are the foundational elements for providing current information and long-term memory to AI agents. They simplify the many-to-many problem of connecting multiple AI models, AI agents, and MCP server integrations to multiple structured and unstructured data sources.

“The data fabric does a beautiful job of encompassing three concepts needed to create applications and processes: the data catalog, the data model, and data access,” says Sanat Joshi, executive vice president of product and innovations at Appian. “But now add business rules, process models, APIs, security groups, the organizational model, and their interrelationships into one unified view of the enterprise, and that becomes your context layer.” 

Integrations with data fabrics

Devops teams just getting started on an AI agent proof of concept may want to connect directly to the optimal data sources and APIs. Michel Tricot, CEO and cofounder at Airbyte, says connecting agents to live APIs is a great start, but it creates two big problems: APIs only return data that an agent already knows to ask for, and every query is an expensive API call chain that, with overhead, can overwhelm infrastructure in production volumes.

Tricot says the data fabric for AI use cases must be dynamic, leveraging discovery of available information from replicated data, fetching live contextual information, and writing the data back to business applications to update records.

Moving data in and out of the data fabric requires an integration strategy. Zero-ETL (extract, transform, load) is one low-cost, efficient approach for connecting to structured data sourced without replicating information. Once information is accessed centrally, it also enables streamlined security and governance.

“The promise of AI agents breaks down when they’re stuck waiting on brittle ETL, dealing with poor data quality, and lacking the right context to perform analysis,” says Preston Wood, chief security and strategy officer at Databahn. “Generating AI-ready data within a data fabric gives agents real-time access to operational data without the latency and drift that undermine decision quality. A well-architected data fabric provides the governance and lineage controls that let you deploy agents confidently, knowing exactly what data they’re touching and why.”

Centralizing AI-ready data

Data fabrics centralize AI-ready data and help data governance teams address data quality issues, biased data concerns, privacy compliance, and other data governance non-negotiables. Data fabrics also help address integration issues, monitor for data pipeline errors, and report on performance latencies. The result is that AI agents, models, and other analytics capabilities can then connect to trusted data sources with consistency.

“As AI agents and MCP architectures increasingly rely on data fabrics as their golden source of truth, data quality stops being a hygiene problem and becomes a trust problem, as we all know that trust is foundational to autonomous decision-making,” says Kellyn Gorman, database and AI advocate and engineer at Redgate Software. “Organizations that invest now in semantic consistency, lineage tracking, and observable data contracts across data fabrics will be the ones whose AI agents can be trusted to act without constant human correction.”

Data fabrics that support zero-ETL and other bidirectional integrations with sources thus become an organizational knowledge base, the data source for training AI models, and a foundation for producing data metrics.

“AI agents are only as reliable as the data they’re built on, and most organizations underestimate how much implicit tribal knowledge lives in their transformation logic rather than their source systems,” says Tobias Ostwald, director of analytics at NMI. “If you’re exposing a data fabric to agents or MCP integrations, you need lineage, testing, and metric definitions baked into the layer itself, not just documented somewhere, because the agent can’t call a colleague to gut-check a number.”

Streamlining security and governance

With a data fabric in place, governance, security, and other risk management leaders have a central location to manage data security, centralize access controls, and fulfill other governance responsibilities. Miles Ward, CTO of AI in Solution Lines at Insight, says, “We have to move past security by isolation to a governance model where the fabric itself enforces the pavement and walls of compliance.”

The data fabric also governs entitlements for AI agents and their users. Centralizing these business rules can help organizations avoid creating AI debt, a risk if controls are implemented directly in data sources or consumers.

“The convergence of AI-generated code sprawl and autonomous MCP connectivity creates a ‘perfect storm’ of architectural drift and toxic permission combinations,” says Karen Cohen, vice president of product at Apiiro. “Effective governance requires a security data fabric that monitors these autonomous connections in real time to enforce intent-based policies and strictly limit agent scope to its specific purpose. By integrating guardrails that align AI-assisted development with secure architecture principles, enterprises can proactively secure their expanding attack surface without sacrificing developer velocity.”

Future considerations for data fabrics

Expect vendors to expand the scope of their data fabrics beyond text and documents. Some will include specialized document processing for common formats such as invoices, contracts, and product documentation. There will be skills and tools to support industry-specific documents such as health records and construction documents. Others will support multimedia file types and provide metadata extraction and search capabilities. 

“Enterprises are asking agents to reason across contracts, images, PDFs, and video, and this is where most data fabrics break,” says Dave Shuman, chief data officer at Precisely. “Multimodal data must be chunked, embedded, and governed with the same rigor as structured data, including lineage and access controls.”

Several other emerging capabilities include:

• Extended support for AI agent interfaces to aid in data discovery, and with greater contextual controls on where and when AI agents can access sensitive data
• Business ontologies, semantic layers, and knowledge graph capabilities, with management tools or integrations with third-party platforms
• Support for data contracts, service-level agreements, centralized data observability, auditing, and other functions that will enhance explainable AI capabilities
• Finops functions to track costs for data owners and consumers

As more companies depend on AI agents in their operations, expect top data fabric platforms to release capabilities to expand scope, scale, use cases, and governance.  

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s speech on Monday insisting that tech companies create device controls to somehow block children from viewing or creating sexually explicit imagery has raised alarms among CISOs, who worry that the same technology could undermine enterprise security. Starmer gave tech firms three months to create and implement such restrictions voluntarily, at which point he said he would push for legislation to make it mandatory.

Behind the technical and logistical hurdles for tech firms to clear, such as how a device would determine that an image was inappropriate, and how it could reliably determine the subject’s age, is the issue of whether this process would interfere with encryption protections for enterprises worldwide. And that comes down to whether the required data analysis happens on the device or in the cloud. 

Starmer did not go into a lot of detail, preferring to let technology companies craft their own plans, but in this case the details matter. Analysts and consultants said that there has been a push for everything to happen on-device, which would avoid any encryption problems; if the inspected data never leaves the device, the encryption protection would stay intact.

But this plan for the process to stay on the device seems highly unlikely for multiple reasons. The first problem is device capabilities and hardware age. Although Apple and Google engineers would be working with the latest devices, much of the UK population is using much older and less capable hardware, analysts said. 

Although a 2-, 3- or 4-year-old phone might still be able to handle the additional load, it would likely suffer a dramatic slowdown sufficient to make users decidedly unhappy. That would mean that even if the execution of the data analysis began on the device, it would likely have to be shifted to the cloud for performance reasons. And once it moved into the cloud, the encrypted data problem begins. 

Trying to do this scanning on-device in the UK would fail, said Flavio Villanustre, CISO for the LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group. “It will make unusable the majority of devices used in the UK today. It just can’t work on-device.”

However, Villanustre observed that on-device analysis for this kind of effort, which would need to scan everything that gets downloaded to the phone in search of prohibited images, might be viable in a few years, once the typical device becomes much more powerful. But not today.

Creates new risks

Leading secure messaging app provider Signal also issued a strong statement opposing Starmer’s proposal.

“The UK governmentʼs demand that all content on all devices sold or used in the UK be scanned on the presumption of nudity, using a dystopian combination of age verification and content scanning, will not safeguard children. It endangers us all, whilst strengthening Apple, Google and Microsoft’s market dominance and their control over our most personal information,” Signal said.  “Once created, [the program] will be expanded, forming a dangerous tool that will be wielded both in the UK and abroad to censor and surveil whatever they might consider ‘threats’ or ‘harmful content.’”

Signal has aggressively fought against such programs before. Similar privacy campaigns have also been launched in other parts of Europe. 

The long held fear is that moving encrypted data to the cloud, regardless of whether it remains encrypted or is converted to clear text, creates opportunities for attackers to access the sensitive data.

“The mechanism that flags and reports a match to external authorities creates a new, built-in exfiltration path,” said Jeff Valdes, a director at consulting firm Acceligence.

Could do more harm than good

Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst at Greyhound Research, argued that the UK proposal is likely to do far more damage than good. He pointed to the short three month timeframe as evidence of a lack of good faith.

“Legislation of this complexity cannot be drafted in a quarter. The deadline is a pressure instrument, not a delivery schedule. Child safety is the destination. Device-wide inspection is the wrong vehicle,” Gogia said. “Apple and Google already run on-device nudity detection in bounded contexts, and it works: a child can be warned, an image blurred, a sharing attempt interrupted.”

Gogia pointed to another logistical problem, which is that some devices such as tablets are often shared between family members, which makes reliable age determinations all but impossible. 

“The deeper flaw is that the policy assumes a stable mapping between device, person, and age, and that mapping does not exist in real households,” Gogia said. “A device cannot know its holder has changed. The only architecture that survives this is default-child with recurring adult verification, which is surveillance arriving through the back door of household economics.”

In addition, he noted, “Children disproportionately inherit the old, out-of-support handsets the mandate cannot reach. Forcing churn manufactures electronic waste and punishes the families least able to buy new.”

Carmi Levy, an independent technology analyst, agreed that the computing overhead alone for such an effort could make this a deal-killer. 

“The compute requirements, particularly in light of the need to execute this kind of filtering in real time, would be immense. It is futile to assume this capability can ever be rolled out at scale without running into massive concerns on several fronts,” Levy said. “Simply deciding how to tune the filters is an almost impossible task. Although the overall definition of nudity, namely not wearing clothing, is generally agreed upon, the line where it becomes inappropriate for minors is neither static nor universally established. So it’s wildly optimistic to assume that a single threshold would be workable at the scale proposed by Prime Minister Starmer.”

Nidhi Luthra, a director at Acceligence, added that the logistical and technological roadblocks are also a big problem. 

“Technically, parts of this can work,” she said, but vendors would have to deal with age verifications, drifts in the models and false positives, and there is also the “lack of contextual information that truly would have let this work.” 

Puts CISOs in ‘an impossible bind’

The UK proposal also puts enterprise CISOs and IT directors who need to protect sensitive data in an impossible bind, Gogia said. 

They “can govern device management and conditional access. What they cannot govern is a mandatory inspection capability that updates according to political appetite rather than enterprise risk appetite,” he pointed out. “The proposal does not automatically create a breach inside Signal, WhatsApp, or Teams, but it creates the conditions for a new class of breach around them. The weakness need not live in the messaging protocol. It can live in the mandated inspection layer, the classifier update mechanism, the age-assurance workflow, or the logs that enforcement inevitably generates.”

Regime change could lead to abuse

Another common concern is that governments change hands, so limited capabilities granted today to one government might be used very differently by a future government. 

Brian Jackson, principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, noted, “the current government may only use it to detect nudes, but what is to stop a future authoritarian government from using it to detect unfavorable political commentary? Creating a back door means there is potential for third parties — hackers — to exploit that back door to gain access to the user’s communications. This is exactly what encryption and on-device security measures are supposed to prevent.”

He added, “Apple’s Communication Safety feature, Google’s Family Link, and a range of parental control tools already use on-device AI to detect and restrict explicit imagery on children’s devices. The government is not filling a gap the market failed to address. It is proposing to transfer control of an existing capability from the device owner to the state. Parents can deploy this protection right now, on their terms. That is where the decision should sit.”

Ryan O’Leary, research director for privacy and legal technology at IDC, said the current proposal only involves the UK, and there’s no way to determine whether other governments will try something similar. He noted that the EU’s GDPR was widely expected to go global when it launched in 2016, but in ten years, it hasn’t.

O’Leary said that if this proposal is enacted in the UK, he would advise IT and cybersecurity executives to be extra cautious when sending team members to the region. 

“It would essentially be ‘China rules’” such as air gapping systems and traveling with disposable data-limited burner phones, O’Leary said. “It’s an exceptionally big deal if it goes through,” but, he added, the chance of it happening is very low. “It seems like the technology companies will call his bluff.”

This article originally appeared on CSOonline.

Researchers in Switzerland claim to have built a perfect random number generator from two quantum superconducting chips, a 30-meter-long pipe, and some software. The resulting device could be used to generate cryptographic keys, or to offer a “public randomness service” for lotteries or blockchain applications, they say.

They’re not the first to make the claim.

Many sources of randomness are biased. For example, coins or dice tend to favor one side. “Even modern random number generators, which are based on quantum mechanical effects like the reflection of photons from beam splitters, are not entirely immune to such a systematic error or ‘bias’,” said Andreas Wallraff, one of the leaders of the research team at ETH Zurich.

Similar biases can be found in purely software-based pseudo-random number generators. This has led to security problems in IoT devices and WhatsApp, among other applications.

To get around that, the researchers set up of two supercomputing chips, each representing one qubit, cooled to near absolute zero. The chips are connected by a 30-meter-long microwave guide, similarly cooled, and the microwave photons flying between them create a situation of quantum entanglement.

The results produced by this process are then transformed via a special algorithm to generate perfect randomness. “The resulting sequence of zeros and ones is now really perfectly random, and we can even certify that,” said Renato Renner, the other team leader. “The technical improvements allowed us to create random numbers that will remain perfectly random for all eternity.”

The team published their results this week in an article entitled “Experimental randomness amplification” in Nature.

This article first appeared on CSO.