Dominic Jainy stands at the leading edge of a profound technological shift, where the digital and physical worlds are becoming inextricably linked through machine learning and autonomous systems. With a professional background deeply rooted in artificial intelligence and blockchain, Jainy has dedicated his career to understanding how these advanced technologies can be safely integrated into global industries. As we move toward an era of connected vehicles and industrial robotics, the legal and technical frameworks we rely on are being tested by the fluid nature of data in motion. This conversation explores the often-overlooked “sovereignty gap” that occurs when Physical AI moves across national borders, challenging our traditional definitions of data protection. By shifting the focus from data at rest to the infrastructure of the network itself, Jainy provides a roadmap for how organizations can navigate a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape.
When Physical AI endpoints like connected vehicles cross borders, how does the risk profile shift for data in transit?
When a connected vehicle or a mobile robot rolls across an international boundary, the risk profile shifts from a static, manageable state to a highly complex and dynamic “compliance risk vector.” In traditional IT, we have focused almost entirely on data at rest—the information sitting securely in a localized server—because that was a variable we could easily audit and prove compliance for. However, a piece of Physical AI is essentially a mobile edge node that is constantly transmitting and receiving sensitive intelligence to function. The moment that vehicle crosses into a new jurisdiction, it begins leaning on foreign network infrastructure and identities assigned to its SIM cards, which may not align with the strict data laws of its home country or its current location. This creates a matrix of variables where the actual pathway the data takes through the network becomes a potential point of legal failure. We are no longer just worried about where the data is stored; we are now forced to consider the sovereignty of the data while it is moving through the invisible veins of global connectivity.
Why is the traditional focus on “data sovereignty at rest” no longer sufficient for the modern landscape of robots and autonomous systems?
The industry has done significant work on securing data at rest, but that is a two-dimensional solution for a three-dimensional problem in the age of Physical AI. Smart endpoints like autonomous delivery systems or distributed industrial agents are in a state of constant motion, and their value is derived from the real-time processing of data. If we only worry about the data once it reaches its final destination, we are ignoring the entire transit phase where it is most vulnerable to being routed through prohibited jurisdictions or handled by non-compliant third parties. Proving that a database is located in a specific country is relatively simple, but proving that a packet of data didn’t violate a regulation while it was traversing three different national networks is much harder. This is why we are seeing a regulatory land-rush to manage these concerns, as lawmakers realize that the movement of intelligence is just as critical as its storage. We must treat the network as the active environment where sovereignty is either maintained or breached in real-time, rather than an afterthought.
The June 2026 Transforma Insights report on connected vehicles highlights significant concerns regarding foreign infrastructure; what are the specific dangers of roaming on these networks?
The report from Transforma Insights is a critical milestone because it explicitly warns that connected vehicles supported by foreign infrastructure or roaming on foreign network identities raise massive digital sovereignty concerns. When a device relies on a foreign system to transmit its data, it is essentially operating in a “black box” where the owner has very little control over the underlying architecture. This creates a situation where a company might inadvertently violate local laws simply because their network path took a shortcut through a system that doesn’t meet specific jurisdictional standards. It is not just about the data being accessed or used by unauthorized parties; the mere act of transit through a foreign system can be a breach of compliance in many modern regulatory frameworks. This is why the report emphasizes that it is the network identity and the infrastructure it leans on that create the most significant exposure for global operators today. To mitigate this, we have to move toward a model where we have comprehensive control over the device identities and the computing resources that touch the data at every stage of its journey.
What does “Full-stack coordination” look like in practice, and why is it essential for maintaining compliance in a Physical AI ecosystem?
Full-stack coordination requires a seamless, end-to-end integration of the core network, the SIM card, and the operational support systems that manage them to ensure there are no gaps where noncompliance can creep in. In a practical sense, this means that every single handoff or control function must be visible and deterministic, leaving no room for the unpredictability of third-party providers like hyperscalers or neoclouds. If any part of the transmission chain is handled by an entity that cannot provide a transparent view of its processes, the assurance of data sovereignty is effectively lost. This level of coordination allows an operator to see exactly which network functions are processing the data and where those gateways are physically located. Without this unobstructed view, a company cannot truthfully claim that their data is sovereign, as they are essentially outsourcing their compliance to a chain of unknown actors. It is about building a foundation of visibility that allows for localized execution and absolute control over the data’s physical and digital path.
How should companies approach the deployment of packet gateways and servers to ensure the network architecture serves the needs of the data rather than dictating its movement?
We have to flip the traditional connectivity model on its head; instead of letting the network’s existing architecture dictate where data is allowed to go, we must shape the network to fit the specific business and compliance needs of the application. This requires a high degree of flexibility in how we deploy packet gateways, allowing them to be placed on-premises, in an in-country cloud, or even at the extreme edge of the network in a co-location facility. By strategically placing these gateways within the jurisdiction where the vehicle or robot is operating, we can ensure that the network path feeding the AI model remains entirely within national borders. This is a departure from conventional global roaming models that prioritize cost and coverage over legal sovereignty and localized control. When you have the option to terminate and process data locally, you eliminate the risk of illegal cross-border data transfers while also improving the performance and latency of the AI system itself. It is a dual benefit that addresses both the technical requirements of high-performance AI and the legal requirements of a fractured global regulatory environment.
As Physical AI continues to expand into every sector of our economy, what is your forecast for the evolution of network sovereignty?
I believe we are entering a phase where “Network Sovereignty” will become the primary benchmark for the success of any global Physical AI deployment, moving beyond a niche concern to a standard operational requirement. As vehicles, robots, and industrial systems become more autonomous, the legal stakes of their data movement will increase, leading to the development of highly specialized, sovereign-ready network fabrics. We will likely see a move away from generic global SIMs toward more sophisticated, multi-identity solutions that can automatically reconfigure their network path based on the specific laws of the territory they are entering. My forecast is that within the next decade, the ability to provide in-country control of data in motion will be the “license to operate” for any company in the mobility or robotics space. Organizations that fail to build this foundation now will find themselves facing exponential risk factors and a compliance landscape that is practically impossible to navigate. The future belongs to those who recognize that when intelligence moves, the network becomes the most critical piece of the sovereignty puzzle.