Jurisdiction Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

UN Cybercrime Convention Protocol talks reveal competing visions

The process of developing a supplementary protocol to the UN Convention against Cybercrime has begun, with early state submissions already showing competing views over its scope and timing.

The Ad Hoc Committee Secretariat invited preliminary written inputs on the possible scope, objectives and structure of a draft protocol supplementary to the Convention, also known as the ‘Hanoi Convention’. The mandate follows UN General Assembly resolution 79/243, which asked the Committee to negotiate a draft protocol addressing, among other issues, additional criminal offences.

The United States questioned the exercise’s premise, arguing that discussions on a supplementary protocol are premature because the Convention has not yet entered into force and its implementation has not yet been tested. Washington called for the Committee first to address whether a protocol is needed at all before discussing its scope, objectives and structure.

Russia, by contrast, submitted a draft protocol text covering a broad range of offences, including terrorism financing, extremism, arms and drug trafficking, critical information infrastructure, unauthorised access to personal data and crimes involving AI. The proposal reflects a wider approach to criminalisation, including content-related offences that are likely to be contested by states concerned about overreach, legal certainty and human rights safeguards.

Other early submissions appear more cautious. Brazil, Nigeria, and Ecuador broadly support advancing the protocol process, while signalling the need to limit its scope and maintain attention to safeguards. Brazil warned against including offences where there is insufficient international consensus, while Ecuador proposed a structure that includes emerging offences, digital evidence, public-private cooperation, proportionality and human rights.

The early inputs point to a familiar divide in UN cybercrime negotiations: whether the treaty framework should remain focused on classical cybercrime, electronic evidence and criminal justice cooperation, or expand further into content-based offences, national security concerns and politically sensitive forms of online conduct.

Why does it matter?

A supplementary protocol could shape the evolution of the UN cybercrime framework after the adoption of the main Convention. If states use the protocol to add broad or content-related offences, the treaty system could move beyond core cybercrime and electronic evidence cooperation into areas with direct implications for freedom of expression, human rights safeguards, political speech, platform governance and state sovereignty. The early submissions suggest that those unresolved tensions are already resurfacing before the Convention has entered into force.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UK to test AI legal assistants to help reduce court delays

The UK government will develop and test AI legal assistants as part of a broader set of technology initiatives aimed at reducing court delays and improving the efficiency of the justice system. The Ministry of Justice said the tools will support routine casework, including research and case analysis, before any possible use in the Crown Court.

The AI legal assistants will be developed in collaboration with legal professionals and AI developers, with initial testing taking place in controlled environments. The government said the trials will help establish standards for the safe and ethical use of AI in legal settings and ensure any future systems meet the expectations of judges and legal practitioners before wider deployment.

Judges are also preparing to test an AI tool designed to identify trial-ready cases and group similar hearings together. The government said the tool is intended to better use judicial, prosecutorial, and court resources, helping cases move more quickly for victims.

The announcement also covers Justice Transcribe, an AI tool now available to every probation officer in England and Wales. The tool records and transcribes conversations with offenders, reducing the administrative burden associated with transferring handwritten notes into digital systems.

According to the government, Justice Transcribe could free up the equivalent of 18,750 days annually, enabling probation officers to spend more time supervising offenders and supporting efforts to reduce reoffending. A similar transcription tool is being trialled in Immigration and Asylum Tribunals to support judges with case notes and reduce administrative pressure.

The projects form part of the Prime Minister’s AI Exemplars programme, which aims to accelerate the adoption of AI across public services. The government also pointed to AI Growth Labs, secure testing environments intended to help the UK lawtech sector develop and refine AI products before bringing them to market.

Why does it matter?

Justice systems around the world are exploring how AI can help address growing caseloads, administrative burdens and resource constraints. Applications such as legal research assistance, transcription services and case management tools have the potential to improve efficiency while allowing legal professionals to focus on higher-value tasks.

At the same time, the use of AI in judicial and legal contexts raises important questions about accountability, transparency, fairness and human oversight. The UK’s emphasis on controlled testing and ethical safeguards reflects growing recognition that AI deployment in the justice sector requires robust governance alongside technological innovation.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

US unveils new strategy to accelerate AI adoption in national security

The Trump administration has issued a new National Security Presidential Memorandum aimed at accelerating the adoption of AI across the US national security apparatus.

According to the White House, the framework is intended to ensure that military personnel, intelligence professionals and national security agencies have access to advanced AI systems while maintaining accountability and operational control.

The memorandum directs federal agencies to expand the use of commercial and open-source AI technologies in support of national security missions. It also calls for investment in next-generation secure computing infrastructure capable of supporting increasingly advanced AI models and computational workloads.

The memorandum also proposes the creation of an AI National Security Strategic Reserve, bringing together leading non-governmental experts to support national security priorities.

The new framework places emphasis on accountability, reliability and command authority. The White House emphasised that agency leaders and military commanders will remain accountable for decisions and operations supported by AI systems.

Why does it matter?

AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic capability across defence, intelligence, cybersecurity and military planning. Governments are investing heavily in AI systems that can enhance analysis, decision support, operational planning and threat detection.

The memorandum signals Washington’s intention to accelerate the integration of AI into national security operations while maintaining human oversight and accountability. It also reflects broader geopolitical competition over advanced technologies, as major powers seek to secure advantages in AI-driven security capabilities.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

New Washington initiative targets legal frameworks for collective cyber defence

A new policy coalition has been launched in Washington to develop frameworks governing collaboration between government agencies and private companies on cyber operations, amid growing concerns that unresolved legal questions are limiting deeper cooperation.

Venable’s Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law established the Cyber Operations Policy Coalition this week. The coalition aims to bring together industry representatives, government officials, legal experts, academics and civil society organisations to develop policy frameworks for collective cyber defence.

Corporate members include Microsoft, Lumen, Halcyon, Autonomous Cyber, and Voreas Labs. Non-corporate members span think tanks and academic institutions, including the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Cyber Threat Alliance, the Institute for Security and Technology, McCrary Institute for Cyber and Critical Infrastructure Security, and American University’s Tech, Law, and Security Program. The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Stimson Center participate as observers.

The coalition is coordinated by Stacy O’Mara and advised by a panel that includes former NSA Cybersecurity Director Rob Joyce, former CISA official Bryan Ware, and former Representative Jim Langevin.

During the launch event, current and former officials identified legal authorities, liability arrangements and operational rules as key areas requiring clarification before public-private cyber collaboration can expand at scale. Katie Sutton, assistant secretary of defence for cyber policy, noted that legal expertise would be central to closer integration, pointing to existing authority frameworks on both the government and industry sides.

Tonya Ugoretz, head of PwC’s Cyber & Risk Innovation Institute, highlighted the need for clearer liability frameworks to enable cyber operations without requiring case-by-case authorisation.

The initiative reflects the structure of the cyber domain, where much of the internet and critical infrastructure is privately owned, making companies both potential targets of cyberattacks and key partners in cyber defence efforts.

Several parallel developments add context to the coalition’s launch. The Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative, the CISA-led body for public-private cyber coordination, is mapping both defensive and potential offensive options for use in geopolitical crisis scenarios involving major infrastructure providers, according to JCDC deputy assistant director Matt Springer.

The US military has also more openly discussed offensive cyber operations in recent months, while Congress is considering a proposal for a dedicated cyber service branch.

The emergence of increasingly capable AI systems with cybersecurity applications has further expanded the range of technical, operational and legal questions facing policymakers.

Why does it matter?

Cybersecurity increasingly depends on cooperation between governments and private companies because much of the infrastructure targeted by cyberattacks is privately owned and operated. However, legal questions surrounding authority, liability and operational responsibilities remain unresolved in many jurisdictions.

The coalition reflects growing recognition that existing frameworks may not be fully suited to large-scale cyber defence efforts, particularly as geopolitical tensions, critical infrastructure threats and AI-enabled cyber capabilities increase. Its work could help shape future approaches to collective cyber defence and public-private cybersecurity cooperation.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Anthropic offers ENISA access to advanced AI security model

Anthropic has invited the European Commission to facilitate access for ENISA, the EU agency for cybersecurity, to its cybersecurity-focused AI model Mythos, according to Bloomberg. The invitation followed a meeting between Anthropic and the Commission in San Francisco on 29 May. The EU must now establish a mechanism with appropriate security safeguards before access can be implemented; an ENISA official confirmed the agency does not currently have active access.

Anthropic unveiled Mythos in April, describing it as a model capable of identifying and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities at a level that surpasses most human experts. Bloomberg reported on 2 June that ENISA was set to receive access to the model.

European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier welcomed the development, saying that access could help authorities build a clearer understanding of potential risks as increasingly capable AI models enter the market. The invitation follows calls from European policymakers and cybersecurity officials for greater access to advanced AI systems and for the development of comparable European capabilities.

Why does it matter?

The emergence of AI models capable of identifying software vulnerabilities at scale is reshaping cybersecurity risk assessments for governments, regulators and critical infrastructure operators. Access to such systems can help authorities better understand their capabilities, evaluate potential threats and develop appropriate safeguards.

For the EU, granting ENISA access to Mythos could support evidence-based policymaking and strengthen preparedness as increasingly powerful cybersecurity-focused AI models become available. The move also highlights a broader challenge: ensuring that public institutions can keep pace with rapidly advancing AI capabilities.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

Greece approves major digital governance and interoperability reforms

The Greek Parliament has approved a bill from the Ministry of Digital Governance and Artificial Intelligence to expand digital public services, reduce bureaucracy, and strengthen cybersecurity.

The legislation implements the EU rules on the cross-border automated exchange of supporting documents through the once-only principle, allowing citizens and businesses to avoid repeatedly submitting the same documents to public authorities across the EU.

Greece’s new framework establishes technical and operational measures enabling public authorities to retrieve official documents securely and automatically, with the user’s consent. The system will operate through the European interoperability infrastructure and in line with the EU data protection requirements.

The General Secretariat for Information Systems and Digital Governance will oversee technical coordination and implementation.

Beyond cross-border services, the legislation introduces several domestic digital initiatives. These include a Defective Vehicle Recall Registry to notify vehicle owners about critical safety issues, upgrades to the MyStreet application with electric vehicle charging points and emergency gathering locations, and a customer relationship management platform on gov.gr that will allow citizens to track public service requests through a single interface.

The bill also includes measures to accelerate the launch of more than 800 new public-sector interoperability services and strengthen protections against online fraud. A National Malicious Website Blocking List will be established through Greece’s National Cybersecurity Authority to support faster blocking of phishing websites, scam portals, and malicious online services.

Why does it matter?

The legislation shows how EU interoperability rules are being translated into national digital government reforms. Greece is combining the once-only principle for cross-border public services with domestic service integration, citizen-facing digital tools, and cybersecurity measures against online fraud. The result is a broader shift towards public administration built around automated document exchange, consent-based data retrieval, and shared digital infrastructure.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

EU launches consultation on trusted flagger guidelines under the DSA

The European Commission has launched a public consultation on draft guidelines for trusted flaggers under the Digital Services Act, aiming to establish a clearer and more consistent framework for organisations that identify and report illegal online content.

Trusted flaggers are specialised entities whose notices about illegal content must be prioritised by online platforms under the DSA. Platforms remain responsible for assessing whether the reported content is illegal.

More than 70 trusted flaggers have already been designated across the EU, covering areas such as child sexual abuse material, intellectual property infringements, online fraud, financial scams, and online harassment.

The proposed guidelines clarify the criteria and procedures used by national Digital Services Coordinators to grant trusted flagger status. They also set out technical requirements for trusted flaggers and platforms when processing notices of illegal content.

The draft guidelines include safeguards intended to ensure that trusted flaggers remain independent, objective, and accountable while operating in full respect of freedom of expression. They also include measures to prevent misuse of the mechanism, including public annual transparency reports and procedures to suspend or revoke trusted flagger status.

The Commission is inviting feedback from platforms, trusted flaggers, applicants, researchers, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders until 26 June 2026. Following the consultation, the Commission plans to adopt the final guidelines in the second half of 2026.

Why does it matter?

Trusted flaggers are becoming an important procedural tool in the EU’s online safety framework. Clearer rules could improve the reporting and handling of illegal content while reducing fragmentation across member states. The safeguards are also important because prioritised notices must be balanced with accountability, transparency, and protection of freedom of expression.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Germany approves draft law expanding cyber defense powers for federal authorities

Germany’s federal cabinet has approved draft legislation that would expand cyber defence capabilities for three federal agencies, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), and the Federal Police (Bundespolizei), as part of a broader effort to strenghten the country’s response to cyber threats.

Under the proposal, authorities would be able to block or disrupt software and server infrastructure used in cyberattacks, including systems located outside Germany. The BSI would also receive expanded authority to collect, store, and analyse data to detect activities indicative of attack preparation. Telecommunications providers and major digital platforms would be required to relay BSI warnings about identified threats directly to users.

The government describes the measures as ‘active cyber defence,’ arguing that they are intended to stop or disrupt ongoing attacks rather than conduct retaliatory cyber operations. Current practice involves redirecting attacks to isolated network areas; the new framework would instead authorize direct action against attacker-controlled systems.

According to the Federal Situation Report on Cybercrime 2025, presented by Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt and the Vice President of the Federal Criminal Police Office, Martina Link, Germany is among Europe’s most frequently targeted countries for cyberattacks.

Federal authorities in Germany have documented sustained campaigns against industrial companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, research institutions, government bodies, and political parties, with a portion attributed to state-affiliated actors.

The draft will now proceed to parliamentary debate. It requires a legislative vote before entering into force.

Why does it matter?

The proposal reflects a broader shift among governments toward more proactive cybersecurity strategies as cyberattacks become increasingly frequent and sophisticated. Rather than focusing solely on defending networks, authorities are seeking legal powers to disrupt malicious infrastructure before attacks cause significant harm.

The legislation also raises important questions about the scope of state cyber powers, oversight mechanisms, and the legal implications of taking action against infrastructure located outside national borders. If adopted, it would mark one of Germany’s most significant cybersecurity policy changes in recent years.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

European Commission fines Temu €200 million under DSA

The European Commission has imposed a €200 million fine on Temu after finding that the online marketplace breached obligations under the Digital Services Act by failing to properly assess and mitigate systemic risks linked to illegal products sold to consumers in the EU.

According to the Commission, Temu’s 2024 risk assessment did not meet DSA requirements because it relied on general information about the wider e-commerce sector rather than evidence specific to its own platform. Regulators also found that the company significantly underestimated the likelihood that the EU consumers would encounter illegal or unsafe products.

The investigation drew on mystery shopping exercises and information from customs and market surveillance authorities. Findings included chargers that failed basic safety requirements and baby toys that contained chemicals above legal limits or presented choking hazards.

Regulators also criticised Temu for failing to sufficiently assess how recommender systems and influencer promotion programmes could contribute to the spread of illegal products on the platform.

Temu must now submit a detailed action plan explaining how it will address the shortcomings identified by the Commission. The plan will be reviewed with the European Board for Digital Services before implementation requirements are set. Failure to comply could lead to additional penalties under the DSA.

The decision is part of a wider Commission investigation into Temu, including issues related to potentially addictive design, recommender systems, and data access for researchers.

Why does it matter?

The fine marks one of the most significant enforcement actions under the Digital Services Act against a major online marketplace. It shows that the DSA is being used not only to address illegal content, but also to require platforms to assess and reduce consumer safety risks linked to illegal and unsafe goods. The case reinforces the EU’s focus on proactive risk management by very large online platforms, including how marketplace design, recommendations, and influencer promotion can amplify the reach of harmful products.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

European Commission advances AI transparency code under EU AI Act

The European Commission’s AI Office has convened a new round of working group meetings and workshops on the forthcoming Code of Practice on Marking and Labelling of AI-Generated Content.

The discussions brought together providers of generative AI systems and models, technology companies, industry representatives, civil society organisations and academic experts. Feedback from the meetings will inform the third and final draft of the code, expected in early June.

The code is intended to support transparency obligations under the AI Act, including requirements linked to marking, labelling, disclosure and detectability of AI-generated content. It covers issues such as synthetic media, deepfakes and certain AI-generated text.

Working Group 1 focused on marking and detection obligations for providers, including a revised multi-layered approach, technical feasibility, benchmarking, compliance frameworks and possible third-party assessments. Industry participants raised concerns over compliance burdens, innovation and feasibility, while civil society and academic experts called for stronger safeguards in the public interest.

Working Group 2 examined disclosure obligations for deployers of generative AI systems, particularly deepfakes and certain AI-generated text. Discussions covered origin disclosure, user-facing labels, proportionality, governance measures, editorial control and the possible development of a uniform EU label.

Additional workshops explored how machine-readable marks, provenance data, visible labels, watermarking systems and an EU-wide icon could work together across the AI value chain. Participants also discussed coordination with other EU rules, including the Digital Services Act, while stressing the need to balance transparency, legal clarity, accessibility and innovation.

Why does it matter?

The code of practice will help determine how AI-generated content is marked, labelled and disclosed across the EU. Its development highlights the practical difficulty of turning transparency obligations into workable rules, particularly when regulators, companies and civil society disagree over technical feasibility, compliance costs, user experience and safeguards against deceptive synthetic media.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!