MECM90002 · Global Data Policy And Governance
Key Concepts and Debates
This is the toolkit chapter, and the highest-leverage one in the subject: roughly eighteen ideas that turn “the internet is hard to regulate” into an argument. Every later region — Europe, the US, Africa, Asia, Latin America, the global bodies — is one of these concepts applied to a place or a problem, so the whole course becomes variations on a single tension: data flows globally, but power and law are still organised nationally. You are never marked on reciting definitions; you are marked on using them to frame one specific case. Master datafication (life turned into machine-readable data), the fluid data ecology (the signature concept — data that ignores borders, unlike old territorially-anchored media), sovereignty vs jurisdiction (the right to govern vs the power to enforce), data sovereignty in its four sub-types, and the critical concepts — data monopolies/gatekeepers, public vs private power, the network society, code is law and data colonialism — and you can build the sharp, narrow argument the essay, pitch and case study all reward.
What this chapter covers
- 011.1 Datafication — life turned into machine-readable data
- 021.2 The 'fluid' data ecology — the signature concept
- 031.3 Governance vs government
- 041.4–1.5 Sovereignty (classical) and data/digital sovereignty (its four sub-types)
- 051.6 Jurisdiction, extraterritoriality, transborder flows, localisation, the splinternet
- 061.7–1.9 Data monopolies/gatekeepers · public vs private power · the public interest
- 071.11 Network society, deterritorialisation, 'code is law'
- 081.12 Data colonialism and the historical spine ('those in power stay in power')
Worked example: name the tension precisely (datafication → jurisdiction → sovereignty)
- +1Start at the bottom — datafication. Name what is being turned into data and who profits: everyday voice activity is converted into machine-readable recordings the platform captures, stores and monetises.
- +1Show the fluid data ecology. Unlike old territorially-anchored media, the recordings live on servers anywhere and move continuously — the data ignores the border the regulator sits behind.
- +1Hit the jurisdiction tension. A national authority has the right to govern its citizens’ data but may lack the power to enforce against a globally mobile platform — ambition meets reality.
- +1Name the state’s response — data sovereignty. The state reaches for a sovereignty claim (e.g. data localisation, a sovereign-cloud mandate) to pull the data back inside its reach.
- +1Open the essay with the tension stated. “The fluid data ecology strains jurisdiction, so the state reaches for data sovereignty” — then narrow to one country or platform.
Key terms
- Datafication
- The relentless conversion of everyday life, behaviour and activity into machine-readable data points that platforms can capture, store and monetise (Mejias & Couldry, in Flew & Martin 2022). It is the supply side of the surveillance-capitalism economy and the input that makes data monopolies powerful and privacy law necessary.
- The fluid data ecology
- The subject’s signature concept. Old ‘fixed’ media (radio, TV, print) were territorially anchored, so a regulator could reach them; today’s data is fluid — it lives on servers anywhere and crosses borders continuously. This is the precise point where the law leaks.
- Jurisdiction
- The right of a legal authority to enforce laws over subject matter within its territory, across procedural, substantive and enforcement dimensions. The online tension: it assumes a world divided into territories, but the internet is borderless — a state can write a law it cannot enforce.
- Data / digital sovereignty
- A state’s (or group’s) claim to control data, infrastructure and standards relating to its territory and people. Couture & Toupin (2019) show it is plural and contested — four sub-types compete: national, subjective/individual, Indigenous, and notional ‘platform’ sovereignty.
- Data colonialism
- The extraction of data and knowledge from peoples — especially Indigenous communities and the Global South — in ways that reproduce colonial power asymmetries (Mejias & Couldry). It reframes ‘data flows’ as power flowing from weak to strong, and pairs with Indigenous data sovereignty as the remedy.
Key Concepts and Debates FAQ
Which concept matters most for the assessments?
The fluid data ecology — the idea that data flows globally while power and law stay national. Almost every later chapter is this tension applied to a region, and almost every strong essay opens by naming it precisely, then narrows to one country or platform. Cite it once, early, to lift writing from description to analysis.
What is the difference between sovereignty and jurisdiction?
Sovereignty is the supreme authority to govern within a state (a principle of international relations since Westphalia, 1648); jurisdiction is the practical right of a court to enforce laws over subject matter in its territory. The killer question for any proposed intervention: a state may have sovereignty in principle but lack jurisdiction in practice over a globally mobile platform — can the rule actually be enforced?
Why are there four kinds of data sovereignty?
Because Couture & Toupin show the term is plural and contested. National digital sovereignty (the state — localisation, sovereign cloud), subjective/individual (the citizen — e-Estonia digital ID), Indigenous (a people — Māori Te Mana Raraunga), and notional ‘platform’ sovereignty (a company). In any case, specify which sovereignty is at stake — conflating them weakens the argument.
How do I actually use a concept like 'data colonialism' in an essay?
Use it to reframe, not to decorate. Instead of describing ‘data flows’ neutrally, show power flowing from weak to strong — e.g. cheap Global-South data labour feeding Global-North AI, or First Nations cultural data scraped without consent (a ‘double colonisation’). Then pair it with Indigenous data sovereignty as the remedy. It is a strong Global-South or First-Nations angle markers rarely see done well.
Exam move
Learn the toolkit as framing devices, not flashcards. For each concept, hold three things: a one-line definition, a real example, and a “use it in your writing” angle — the last is where the marks are. Build your mental map around the central tension (global data vs national power) and the sovereignty–jurisdiction pair, because those two ideas carry almost every argument in the subject. When you read the regional chapters, consciously label which toolkit concept each case illustrates; that habit is what lets you open an essay by naming the tension precisely and then narrowing fast.
