A research team led by Professor Jude Kong from the University of Toronto is developing new tools to monitor, assess, and govern the use of AI in public health across the Global Majority, with a particular focus on Africa.
The team, which includes Jake Effoduh, Jim Hinton, Abbas Yazdinejad, and Maral Niaz, has begun mapping how AI is being integrated into healthcare systems and infrastructure. The work focuses on identifying key actors, technologies and use cases, providing a clearer picture of how AI is becoming embedded in public health systems.
The next phase involves developing a dynamic dashboard designed to track AI systems and support evidence-based decision-making. Rather than relying solely on top-down governance frameworks, the team aims to co-develop tools that policymakers, civil society organisations, educators and practitioners can use in their own contexts.
In practice, this means creating tools that are not only technically robust but also socially legitimate and locally relevant. While strengthening AI literacy and governance capacity across the Global Majority, the initiative aims to empower policymakers with evidence-based insights, support civil society in understanding AI systems, and enable more informed and inclusive decision-making processes.
By bringing together expertise in technology, law, public policy and social impact, the project reflects the multidisciplinary nature of AI governance. The team will present its findings at the AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva, during ITU’s Kaleidoscope sessions on Thursday, 9 July 2026, from 15:30 to 16:30.
Why does this matter in AI world?
AI for the Global Majority (AI4GM) is a joint initiative of the Geneva Graduate Institute, Microsoft and the International Telecommunication Union. The initiative supports research on how AI can benefit majority populations in areas including governance, education, health, finance, and digital innovation.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
According to Albanese, Cook said the changes were partly inspired by Australia’s under-16 social media age restrictions and by Apple’s continuing research into the impact of social media on children.
Albanese said Australia was proud of its work to support a safer online environment for children and argued that other countries are now developing similar social media age restrictions.
Cook invited Albanese to visit Apple during his next trip to the United States to see the technology in action. Albanese said he intended to accept the invitation as Australia continues to consider how best to protect children online.
The Prime Minister said Australian parents had led the push for stronger protections and that the government was backing their efforts. He said more than 5 million under-16 accounts had already been removed, deactivated, or restricted.
Albanese said social media companies have a social responsibility and that Australia would continue holding them to account to help keep children safe.
Why does it matter?
The announcement highlights how national online safety rules can shape platform design beyond a country’s borders. Australia’s under-16 social media restrictions have been closely watched internationally, and Albanese is presenting Apple’s new child safety tools as evidence that regulatory pressure can push major technology companies towards stronger child protection features. The case also shows the growing link between device-level controls, platform accountability, age assurance, and children’s digital rights.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The UK government is preparing to formally launch PoliceAI, a national centre dedicated to AI in policing, later this month. The centre began mobilising in April 2026 and will support police forces in England and Wales with the responsible adoption of AI and automation.
The government says the use of AI in policing must be lawful, ethical and transparent, supported by robust algorithmic assessments before deployment. It also emphasises that accountability for AI performance and the use of AI-generated outputs must be clearly defined through operational procedures and governance frameworks.
PoliceAI will be hosted by the College of Policing and funded through a Home Office grant under Section 57 of the Police Act 1996. The centre is expected to coordinate AI-related activity across police forces, helping to reduce duplication, improve consistency and strengthen public confidence.
PoliceAI will include an AI Lab responsible for developing, testing and evaluating AI tools, products and services for policing applications. It will assess commercial products and open-source models, benchmark their performance in a UK policing context, run sandbox testing, and support more informed procurement and deployment decisions by Chief Officers.
PoliceAI will also support forces with adoption, guidance, procurement, training, and business change. A dedicated strategy and oversight function will also maintain a public registry of AI models used in operational policing, including details of testing, governance checks and deployment safeguards.
Initial priorities include case file assistants, disclosure assistants, crime data integrity tools, rapid analysis of CCTV and digital media, image identification and classification, governance for Copilot use, transcription and translation tools, and possible AI applications for retail crime and tool theft. A Policing AI Threat Hub will support efforts to address criminal misuse of AI, including the detection of deepfakes and AI-generated false evidence.
Why does it matter?
Police forces are increasingly exploring AI tools to support investigations, administrative tasks, evidence analysis and operational decision-making. However, the use of AI in law enforcement raises important questions about transparency, accountability, bias, public trust and oversight.
PoliceAI represents an effort to create a more coordinated approach to AI adoption across policing in England and Wales. By providing testing, governance, training and public transparency mechanisms, the centre aims to help police forces deploy AI technologies more consistently while addressing concerns about their responsible use.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Germany’s Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, and the Bavarian Data Protection Commissioner will host a high-level debate on the European Commission’s Omnibus proposals. The event, titled ‘From Omnibus to Opportunity: Driving Data Protection and Innovation’, will take place in Brussels on 8 June.
The debate will examine the Omnibus proposals and their potential implications for the GDPR and the wider EU digital regulatory framework. The event is hosted by the Representation of the Free State of Bavaria to the European Union.
According to the EDPS, the proposals introduce targeted adjustments affecting elements of the EU digital acquis, including aspects of the GDPR and the AI Act. Their stated objective is to simplify compliance requirements and reduce administrative burdens while maintaining a high level of protection for fundamental rights.
Discussions will focus on legal certainty, regulatory coherence, preserving the GDPR’s level of protection, and identifying ways to strengthen fundamental rights, innovation and competitiveness across the EU.
The Omnibus proposals have become a focal point in wider debates about how the European Union can strengthen competitiveness and innovation while preserving high standards of data protection and fundamental rights.
The discussion highlights growing efforts to balance regulatory simplification with legal certainty and effective safeguards, particularly as the EU seeks to implement complex frameworks such as the GDPR and AI Act while supporting digital innovation and economic growth.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
India’s Central Consumer Protection Authority has fined PhysicsWallah and McAfee Software India for using dark patterns that the regulator said misled consumers and influenced their choices on digital platforms.
PhysicsWallah was fined ₹5 lakh, while McAfee was fined ₹1 lakh. Both companies were directed to remove the practices from their platforms and ensure that users can make informed choices without pressure or manipulation.
The action was taken under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, and the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns 2023.
In the PhysicsWallah case, the regulator found that a ₹10 donation to the PW Foundation was automatically selected during checkout and added to the total payable amount without the consumer’s explicit consent. Users were also shown emotional messages related to children’s education, healthcare, and marriages that encouraged them to keep the donation selected.
The CCPA also found that courses advertised as free could only be accessed after users shared personal information such as a mobile number and email address. The regulator said the content remained the same across user accounts, indicating that mandatory data collection was not necessary to access the courses.
The authority identified basket sneaking, confirm shaming, and forced action in the PhysicsWallah case. It also said the practices raised serious consumer protection concerns because many users on the platform are students, including minors.
In the McAfee case, the CCPA found that users deciding whether to renew subscriptions were shown options such as ‘Renew Now’ and ‘Accept Risk’. The authority said the wording portrayed non-renewal as a risky decision and created pressure on consumers to continue their subscriptions.
The regulator identified confirmation shaming, interface interference, trick questions, and forced action in McAfee’s renewal process, saying consumers should be able to make subscription decisions freely and without fear-based messaging or misleading design.
The CCPA said the orders form part of its continued action against dark patterns in digital marketplaces. It reiterated that consumer consent must be explicit, informed, and free from manipulative design practices.
Why does it matter?
The penalties show that dark pattern rules in India are moving from guidance to enforcement. By targeting pre-selected donations, emotionally loaded opt-out messages, forced data sharing, and fear-based subscription renewal design, the CCPA is signalling that manipulative interface design can be treated as a consumer protection violation, not just a poor user experience.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Brazil’s telecommunications regulator, Anatel, has approved a new AI governance policy aimed at ensuring the ethical, secure, and transparent use of AI across its regulatory and administrative activities. The framework positions the agency among public institutions in Brazil, proactively addressing the challenges and opportunities of AI-driven transformation.
Developed by the agency’s IA.lab research group, the policy establishes principles including human oversight, transparency, data security and the protection of fundamental rights. It also creates a permanent forum to monitor AI use, assess risks, and support decision-making, ensuring AI complements rather than replaces human judgment in regulation.
A key objective of the policy is to strengthen technological sovereignty by encouraging the development and adoption of AI solutions built in Brazil and, where appropriate, trained on local data and optimised for Portuguese-language use cases.
The policy also lays the groundwork for a broader national AI strategy within the agency, designed to expand responsible innovation across telecommunications regulation and public service delivery.
Anatel said the governance model is intended to balance innovation and accountability, enabling the use of AI to improve efficiency while maintaining security, trust and regulatory integrity.
Why does it matter?
The policy places Anatel among a growing number of public-sector regulators establishing formal governance frameworks for AI. As regulatory agencies increasingly adopt AI tools, questions around transparency, accountability, human oversight and risk management are becoming central to public trust.
The framework also reflects broader efforts by governments to promote technological sovereignty by supporting domestic AI capabilities while ensuring that innovation aligns with legal, ethical and public-interest objectives.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!
The Aithos Research Foundation has launched Aithos LARA (Legal Assessment for Real-world Agents), a public evaluation framework designed to assess whether AI agents comply with key European legal requirements.
The framework places AI models in simulated workplace and consumer-service scenarios where completing assigned tasks may involve actions that conflict with provisions of the EU AI Act or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
According to Aithos, an initial evaluation involving more than 3,000 tests across 12 frontier AI models found that none consistently met acceptable levels of legal compliance. Compliance rates ranged from 7% to 54%, with the highest-performing model adhering to legal requirements in only slightly more than half of the assessed scenarios.
The research suggests that current frontier AI systems may prioritise task completion over legal obligations when operating with a high degree of autonomy.
Furthermore, the study assessed compliance with six provisions of the EU AI Act and four core GDPR principles, including transparency, lawful processing, data minimisation and purpose limitation.
Researchers reported instances in which models generated outputs that would conflict with some of the AI Act’s prohibited practices, including exploiting vulnerable individuals, conducting emotion recognition in workplace environments and engaging in forms of manipulation prohibited under European law.
To increase transparency, Aithos has made evaluation transcripts, model outputs and judicial assessments publicly available. The organisation argues that independent and public oversight can complement company-led governance efforts by providing greater transparency into how AI systems behave in legally and ethically sensitive contexts.
Why does it matter?
The findings highlight the challenges of deploying AI agents in regulated environments where legal compliance is essential. As organisations increasingly explore AI for customer service, human resources, finance and operational decision-making, ensuring that systems comply with data protection and AI regulations is becoming a key governance requirement.
The research also underscores the growing importance of independent testing and oversight mechanisms as policymakers and regulators seek to evaluate how autonomous AI systems behave in real-world scenarios.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
International Labour Organization (ILO) Director-General Gilbert F. Houngbo has called for a human-centred approach to AI at the opening of the 114th International Labour Conference in Geneva. He said the future of work would depend not only on technological advances, but also on the policies, institutions and social dialogue shaping their impact on people’s lives.
Drawing on his report ‘A Moment of Choice: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Decent Work‘, Houngbo outlined an agenda focused on rights, employment and skills, social protection, and social dialogue. He argued that productivity gains generated by AI should be shared through higher wages, stronger labour protections and more inclusive economic growth.
Houngbo warned that decisions taken today would determine whether AI expands opportunity and shared prosperity or contributes to greater inequality and insecurity. He also situated AI governance within a broader context of economic uncertainty, citing ILO estimates that a prolonged oil-price shock could reduce global working hours by the equivalent of millions of full-time jobs and lead to significant labour income losses by 2027.
Delegates will also hold a second discussion on decent work in the platform economy, with the aim of developing new international labour standards. The draft Convention and Recommendation cover employment promotion, protections for digital platform workers, and provisions relating to automated systems used by digital labour platforms.
Delegates from governments, employers, and workers will also address gender equality, social dialogue, tripartism, and the application of labour standards. The conference, which brings together representatives from the ILO’s 187 Member States, will run until 12 June.
Why does it matter?
As AI becomes increasingly integrated into workplaces, governments, employers and workers are debating how productivity gains, skills requirements and labour protections should evolve. The ILO’s focus on human-centred AI reflects growing international efforts to ensure that technological change supports decent work rather than exacerbating inequality.
The discussions are also significant because they could influence future international labour standards for platform work and the use of automated systems in employment, helping shape how AI affects workers worldwide.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The World Health Organization (WHO) has published a discussion paper examining how AI could reshape evidence-informed health policymaking. The paper, titled ‘Artificial intelligence and evidence-informed policy – emerging challenges and opportunities’, examines how AI can affect the way health problems are defined, policy options are designed, and impact is assessed.
The paper was developed jointly by WHO’s Department of Data, Digital Health, Analytics and AI and its Department of Science for Health. It is intended for policy-makers, regulators, health managers, and AI developers, and organises its analysis around the policy cycle, from understanding problems to designing solutions and monitoring implementation.
According to the paper, AI can strengthen policy analysis through the use of larger datasets, continuous evidence synthesis and faster scenario modelling. The paper also identifies risks throughout the policy cycle, including data bias, excessive focus on measurable indicators, digital divides, cybersecurity vulnerabilities and the possibility that automated monitoring systems could gradually shift policy implementation away from its original objectives.
A recurring concern is what the paper describes as ‘epistemic injustice’, whereby AI systems may prioritise quantifiable and data-rich evidence while overlooking lived experience, local expertise, Indigenous knowledge and community-based perspectives. WHO says existing evidence-informed policymaking tools and AI governance frameworks already converge on transparency, participatory engagement, rights protection, and risk-based oversight.
WHO recommends conducting algorithmic impact assessments and technology readiness reviews before deploying AI systems in policymaking processes. Once systems are deployed, WHO recommends continuous evidence-review processes, human verification mechanisms and multidisciplinary oversight, emphasising that AI should support rather than replace human judgement in health policymaking.
Why does it matter?
AI is increasingly being used to analyse large datasets, model policy scenarios and support public-sector decision-making. As governments and international organisations explore these capabilities, questions about transparency, accountability, bias and human oversight are becoming more important.
WHO’s recommendations highlight the need to balance AI’s analytical potential with safeguards that protect human rights, ensure inclusive policymaking and maintain human responsibility for policy decisions.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) conference is an annual gathering that brings together academics, policymakers, industry representatives, civil society, students, and EU institutions to discuss emerging digital policy challenges. This year’s theme was ‘Competing Visions, Shared Futures’, the 19th in the series, and it hosted approximately 150 panels over the span of 3 days in Brussels.
What is CPDP?
CPDP’s value lies in its multidisciplinary approach. With academics presenting their work or debating topical issues, as well as with industry and policy experts bringing their expertise to the table, the event creates a space for honest conversations among participants.
The conference is sponsored by organisations such as Google, TikTok, Apple, as well as the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and VBU. Google even presented its Banana AI model in a photo booth, allowing participants to modify photos they took in the booth.
Alongside panels, CPDP hosts an array of workshops, short films, artwork, radio programming, promotion booths, dedicated DPO, youth, finance and IT tracks, book launches, and pop-up exhibitions. The event always closes the day in style with an open bar and a party to chat and network at.
CPDP is not a typical conference with just panels, attendees, moderators, and lengthy speeches. The conference inspires creativity and gives the freedom to achieve it. This was proven by the diverse topics showcased in the event’s schedule over the three days.
From a fireside chat with the artist, Simon Denny, behind the conference’s art, who uses AI as a medium in some of his work, to typical discussions about the Digital Omnibus or tracking period apps, all the way to an exiled journalist talking about Russian internet censorship. There was something for everyone.
Image via Magnific
What was presented?
The breadth of topics discussed at CPDP offers insight into the issues currently shaping Europe’s digital policy agenda. There were approximately 150 panels in total, with data protection, AI, the Digital Omnibus and the topics of digital sovereignty receiving the most attention. Data protection received the most attention overall, as 33 panels were dedicated to the topic. This was followed by 26 panels on AI, 12 on the Digital Omnibus, 10 on digital sovereignty, and 7 on child-related protection.
The distribution of panels reflects the growing prominence of AI in digital policy discussions. However, data protection topics, including privacy and the GDPR, are still the frontrunners in terms of topic relevance. Newer and emerging topics reveal what is topical in the digital world.
Growing concerns over US tech reliance have intensified discussions about EU digital sovereignty. Alongside this, another heavily debated and sensitive topic is child protection in the online context and its generative AI implications, which raises questions about how to better protect children online.
Emerging topics at CPDP
Digital sovereignty is a challenging topic as it encompasses a lot and has yet to be defined, meaning that taking action can look different for a wide variety of actors. Several discussions framed digital sovereignty as a pathway towards greater digital independence and reduced reliance on external technology providers. In order to try to achieve digital sovereignty, public procurement should be steered away from non-EU actors and towards EU businesses to develop a European stack.
Yes, private partnerships are important, but public ones set the tone. Several participants argued that public procurement choices will play an important role in determining whether EU can strengthen domestic digital capabilities and reduce strategic dependencies. Digital sovereignty needs to come from all corners of the market and society; that is the challenge.
A very interesting panel on data protection and AI, the GDPR, and privacy occurred. In Academic Session I, Stephanie von Maltzan presented findings about her groundbreaking research on LLM unlearning. The larger the LLM, the more data points it will be trained on and the more complex its ‘web’ will be.
Removing data points is not a common practice, given how data points interact with each other, meaning that complexity overrides certain fundamental rights. For example, when data subjects invoke their right to erasure under Article 17 of the GDPR, they may request that certain data be deleted in an LLM, yet this request is difficult to carry out in practice.
The research highlights one of the emerging challenges at the intersection of AI governance and data protection. She presents a two tier model in which the actively deployed LLM is accompanied by a parallel ‘shadow’ model.
After receiving a valied erasure request, the ‘shadow model’ would undergo the necessary unlearning processes to remove the relevant data. In the second tier, in a scheduled update, the ‘shadow’ model, which had undergone unlearning, would replace the initial LLM, thereby upholding data subject requests.
Apart from these insightful exchanges of knowledge on AI, digital sovereignty and data protection, the conference offered practical workshops on how to brainstorm re-writing the proposed Article 88b of the Omnibus, data protection officer and cybersecurity crisis scenarios, as well as open conversations about how to protect children in online environments.
Remaining questions
The conference also highlighted several unresolved policy questions that continue to shape European digital governance debates.
Regarding the Digital Omnibus, would companies scale up overnight if we removed regulations?
Does digital sovereignty need/have a definition, or should it be left to the meaning of ‘digital independence’?
Open markets vs data protection, where is the balance?
Regarding digital sovereignty, which clouds should be used in the EU?
Should simplification mean using the once-used definition of personal data by the CJEU, or sticking to the definition relied on in law, cases, and practice?
In order to protect EU sovereignty, should parts of the stack be a public utility?
Why does it matter?
CPDP 2026 demonstrated that while privacy and data protection remain central pillars of European digital policy, debates around AI governance, digital sovereignty and online child protection are rapidly gaining prominence.
The discussions highlighted the growing challenge of balancing innovation, competitiveness, fundamental rights and strategic autonomy as Europe defines its digital future.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
