Don’t let the appeal of Digital Public Infrastructure obscure its risks
Summary
- DPI is under discussion across the world, with India’s UPI held up as an example of its value. While DPI has enormous benefits, its definition needs clarity. We also need clear-cut measures to prevent its misuse.
In recent years, the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) has gained significant attention from the international community, including the United Nations and G20, as a new policy paradigm for development. But understanding the risks of DPI is crucial to ensuring that its potential benefits materialize.
The risks stem from the fact that “digital public infrastructure" lacks a clear definition. The term encompasses the many digital technologies that serve as economic and social infrastructure, from digital identification and payment systems to data exchanges and health services.
As a policy initiative, though, Digital Public Infrastructure refers to a vague vision of using these technologies to serve the public interest. This could result in the internet and technological innovation working for everyone—or just as easily turn them into tools for political control.
Also read: India’s digital public infrastructure: A catalyst for innovation and competition
In discussions about Digital Public Infrastructure, policymakers often point to cases that highlight how technology and connectivity can spur development.
As an example, they frequently cite India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI), which has expanded financial inclusion and reduced the cost of digital transactions for its hundreds of millions of users in the country.
It is also understood that such infrastructure is to be built with Digital Public Goods (DPGs), a concept that encompasses open-source software, open standards and other non-proprietary components.
This definition is partly intended to position DPI as being “for the public," but also to enhance competition and mitigate concentrations of power in the global digital economy.
Lastly, DPI proponents point out that such infrastructure could bolster international cooperation, particularly as the 20-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) approaches.
This important United Nations initiative has provided the framework for countries to collaborate on digital development.
Although authoritarian states have previously sought to assert greater control over the internet’s governance during these negotiations, a focus on promoting DPI could avoid this over-politicized debate and instead foster a constructive agenda to bridge digital divides.
But basing policy on such a poorly defined concept poses significant risks. Ideally, governments would convene other stakeholders to create an enabling environment for Digital Public Infrastructure and safeguard users’ rights and interests.
It is easy to imagine, however, that some governments will place their own interests above civil liberties and fundamental rights, using this infrastructure for surveillance and targeting in the name of law enforcement or national security.
A particularly pernicious example could involve the monitoring and regulation of individual behaviour through dystopian social-credit systems.
Also read: Digital public infrastructure: A dubious way to foster competition
Moreover, while many proponents hope that Digital Public Infrastructure could chip away at Big Tech’s outsize power, it has also been associated with narratives of digital sovereignty that could contribute to the internet’s fragmentation—a systemic threat to global communications.
For example, one can imagine scenarios in which some governments challenge the multi-stakeholder model for governing global internet resources like internet protocol (IP) addresses and domain names on the argument that these constitute DPI.
In fact, we recently witnessed something similar in the European Union when it proposed an amendment to the Electronic Identification, Authentication and Trust Services (eIDAS) regulation that would have empowered governments to mandate the recognition of digital certificates that did not adhere to stringent industry standards.
This risked undermining the global governance model for browser security and could have let European governments surveil communications both within and beyond their borders.
The policy vision of DPI will continue to evolve, and ongoing discussions, it is hoped, will help identify and clarify further opportunities and risks. Initiatives such as the United Nations’ Universal DPI Safeguards Framework, which seeks to establish guard-rails for Digital Public Infrastructure, are a promising start.
But much more must be done. For example, the United Nations’ framework has recognized the need for continuous learning to ensure that the right safeguards are in place.
As the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure gains traction in the United Nations system and at other multilateral organizations, vigorous and informed debate regarding its potential advantages—and pitfalls—will be essential.
Also read: India's digital protection bill promotes competition and user interests
With clear-cut policy guidelines and protections, we can help prevent these technologies from becoming tools for surveillance and repression, ensure that everyone benefits from the burgeoning digital economy and keep the internet open, globally connected and secure. ©2025/Project Syndicate
The author is director of policy development and research at the Internet Society.
topics
