Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
06/06/2026 2:30 am
TL;DR: Data sovereignty is shifting from policy language into procurement criteria as European governments and enterprises reassess where communication data lives, who can access it, and which legal regime governs it, according to SSH Communications Security. The real governance issue is jurisdictional control, not convenience, because access, custody, and legal exposure now sit inside the collaboration stack.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SSH Communications Security: data sovereignty and communication platform control in Europe
By the numbers:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations evaluate collaboration platforms for data sovereignty?
A: Start with where the data lives, then examine who can access it, who can administer the service, and which jurisdiction governs each path.
Q: Why do communication tools create sovereignty risk for IAM teams?
A: Because they combine sensitive content with privileged administration, vendor support, and recovery access.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about sovereign cloud?
A: They often treat local hosting as the same thing as sovereignty.
Practitioner guidance
- Map collaboration platform privilege paths Inventory admin, support, recovery, and delegated-access identities for every messaging or meeting platform.
- Separate data residency from administrative control Require evidence that the service can keep operational administration, emergency access, and key custody inside the intended jurisdiction.
- Bring communication tools into PAM and offboarding reviews Treat collaboration suites as privileged systems during access reviews and leaver processes.
What's in the full article
SSH Communications Security's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The article expands on the European policy and infrastructure context behind sovereign communication choices.
- It outlines the business pressures driving organisations toward locally controlled collaboration systems.
- It presents the vendor's view of how secure messaging aligns with data sovereignty requirements.
- It gives readers the original framing around sovereignty, control, and communication platform selection.
👉 Read SSH Communications Security's analysis of data sovereignty in communication platforms →
Data sovereignty in collaboration tools: what should IAM teams do?
Explore further
06/06/2026 4:12 am
Data sovereignty is now an identity governance problem, not only a cloud procurement issue. The decisive question is who can access communication data, support it, and compel it under legal or operational authority. Once sensitive conversations move into externally governed platforms, identity control becomes inseparable from jurisdictional control. Practitioners should treat collaboration services as part of the access governance perimeter.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them. That gap is a reminder that governance fails when access outlives business need.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when a communication platform does not meet sovereignty requirements?
A: Accountability usually spans security, legal, procurement, and the service owner. If the platform exposes data to external jurisdictional control, the organisation needs a clear owner for the decision to accept that risk and for the evidence used to justify it.
👉 Read our full editorial: Data sovereignty is reshaping European communication platform choices
