Jurisdiction Archives | Page 10 of 140 | Digital Watch Observatory

Digital sovereignty in Asia moves beyond US versus non-US cloud debate

AI, cloud computing, and cross-border data flows have made questions about control and jurisdiction increasingly important for governments and businesses. In Asia, the debate around digital sovereignty often focuses on ‘US versus non-US cloud’ providers or data localisation.

Such simplifications miss the practical challenges organisations face when choosing hosting locations or training AI models while navigating diverse regulatory regimes.

At the same time, Asia’s digital economy is building its own regulatory foundations. In Vietnam and Indonesia, new rules such as Vietnam’s Decree 53 and Indonesia’s data protection framework show how governments are shaping data governance while still relying on global cloud and AI platforms. Most organisations across the region continue to operate using a mix of local, regional, and international providers.

Organisations must address key questions about data jurisdiction and workload mobility when risks change. They must also control who can access sensitive systems during incidents. Digital sovereignty is clearer when seen through three pillars: data sovereignty, technical sovereignty, and operational sovereignty.

Data sovereignty is about jurisdiction, not just data storage. As AI regulation expands, businesses need to know which authorities can access their data and how it may be used. Technical sovereignty is the ability to move or redesign systems as regulations or geopolitics shift. Multi-cloud and hybrid strategies help organisations remain adaptable.

Operational sovereignty focuses on governance and control. It addresses who can access systems, from where, and under what safeguards, thus linking sovereignty directly to cybersecurity and incident response.

For Asia-Pacific organisations, digital sovereignty should not be a simple procurement checklist. Instead, it should guide cloud and AI strategies from the start, ensuring legal clarity, technical flexibility, and operational trust as the digital landscape evolves.

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

EU draft regulation aims to create new legal framework for startups

A draft initiative from the European Commission seeks to introduce a new legal structure designed to simplify how companies operate across the EU.

The proposal, often referred to as the ‘EU Inc’ initiative, explores the creation of a so-called ’28th regime’ that would exist alongside national corporate frameworks used by member states.

A concept that aims to provide startups and technology firms with a single legal structure that applies across the EU.

Instead of navigating different national rules in each country, companies could operate under a unified regulatory model intended to reduce administrative barriers and encourage cross-border innovation.

According to the draft, the initiative may rely on an EU regulation rather than separate national legislation. Such an approach could enable faster implementation, as the EU regulations apply directly across all member states without requiring domestic transposition.

However, the legal basis of the proposal could raise institutional concerns. Using a regulation as the primary mechanism may constitute an unconventional shortcut in the EU lawmaking, potentially sparking debate among policymakers over the approach’s scope and legitimacy.

The initiative reflects broader efforts within the Union to simplify regulatory frameworks and strengthen the competitiveness of European startups. If adopted, the ‘EU Inc’ model could reshape how young companies expand across the single market.

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

The US releases national cyber strategy, prioritising offense and AI

President Donald Trump released his administration’s national cybersecurity strategy, outlining priorities across six policy areas: offensive and defensive cyber operations, federal network security, critical infrastructure protection, regulatory reform, emerging technology leadership, and workforce development. Trump also signed an executive order the same day, directing federal agencies to increase the prosecution of cybercrime and fraud.

The strategy document spans five pages of substantive text, with administration officials describing it as intentionally high-level. The White House stated that more detailed implementation guidance would follow.

The strategy’s six pillars include the following provisions:

Shaping adversary behaviour requires deploying US offensive and defensive cyber capabilities and incentivising private-sector disruption of adversary networks. It also states the administration will “counter the spread of the surveillance state and authoritarian technologies.”

Promoting regulation advocates for reducing compliance requirements characterised as ‘costly checklists’ and addresses liability frameworks — a priority also present in the prior administration’s approach.

Modernising federal networks involves adopting post-quantum cryptography, AI, zero-trust architecture, and reducing procurement barriers for technology vendors.

Securing critical infrastructure emphasises supply chain resilience and preference for domestically produced technology, alongside a role for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.

Sustaining technological superiority focuses primarily on AI, quantum cryptography, data centre security, and privacy protection.

Building cyber talent commits to removing barriers among industry, academia, government, and the military to develop a skilled cybersecurity workforce. This pillar follows a period in which the administration reduced the number of federal cyber positions.

The accompanying executive order directs the attorney general to prioritise cybercrime prosecution, tasks agencies with reviewing tools to counter international criminal organisations, and assigns the Department of Homeland Security expanded training responsibilities. The strategy itself references cybercrime once.

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

US government faces lawsuits over Anthropic AI move

Anthropic has launched two lawsuits against the US Department of Defence, disputing its recent designation of the AI firm as a ‘supply chain risk.’ The company claims the move is unlawful and infringes on its First Amendment rights.

The company argues that the government is punishing it for refusing to allow the military to use its AI for domestic surveillance or for fully autonomous weapons.

The lawsuits, filed in California and Washington, DC courts, follow the Pentagon’s unprecedented use of the supply chain risk tool against a US company. The designation requires other government contractors to sever ties with Anthropic, posing a serious threat to its business operations.

The company maintains it remains committed to supporting national security applications of its AI.

The Department of Defence has used anthropic’s AI model Claude in operations targeting Iran. The company says it has worked with the DoD on system adaptations and seeks to continue negotiations while protecting its business and partners.

The firm claims government actions cause harm, though CEO Dario Amodei said the designation’s impact is limited. Anthropic insists judicial review is a necessary step to defend its business and ensure the responsible deployment of its technology.

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

Canada warns about AI-generated scams targeting citizens online

Authorities in Canada have issued a warning about the growing use of AI in impersonation scams targeting citizens. Fraudsters increasingly deploy advanced tools capable of mimicking politicians, government officials and other public figures with convincing realism.

Deepfake videos, synthetic audio and AI-generated messages allow scammers to create convincing communications that appear to come from trusted authorities.

Such tactics are often used to persuade victims to send money, reveal personal information, install malicious software or engage with fraudulent investment offers.

Officials also warn about fake government websites created with AI-assisted tools that imitate official pages by copying national symbols and similar domain names. Suspicious websites often use unusual web addresses, extra characters, or unfamiliar domain endings to mislead visitors.

Authorities advise Canadians to verify unexpected messages through official channels rather than clicking links or responding immediately.

Suspected impersonation attempts should be reported to the Competition Bureau or the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

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

Malaysia expands AI learning across universities with Google tools

AI tools from Google are now available across all public universities in Malaysia after the nationwide deployment of Gemini for Education.

An initiative that integrates AI capabilities into university systems, providing digital research and learning support to nearly 600,000 students and 75,000 faculty members.

The rollout is coordinated with the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia as part of the country’s broader strategy to become an AI-driven economy by 2030. Universities already using Google Workspace for

Education can now access advanced tools, including NotebookLM and the reasoning model Gemini 3.1 Pro, which are designed to support research, writing and personalised learning.

Several universities are already experimenting with AI-assisted teaching. At Universiti Malaysia Perlis, lecturers have created customised AI assistants to guide students through specialised engineering courses.

Meanwhile, researchers and students at Universiti Putra Malaysia are using AI tools to improve literature reviews and academic research workflows.

Other institutions are focusing on digital literacy and AI skills.

At Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, hundreds of lecturers and students are receiving AI certifications, while training programmes are expanding across campuses.

Officials believe the combination of AI tools, training and research support will strengthen the education system of Malaysia and prepare graduates for an increasingly AI-driven economy.

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

EU considers stronger child protection in Digital Fairness Act

Capitals across the EU are being asked to discuss how stronger child protection measures should be incorporated into the upcoming Digital Fairness Act (DFA).

The initiative comes as policymakers attempt to address growing concerns about how online platforms expose minors to harmful content, manipulative design practices, and unsafe digital environments.

According to a document circulated during Cyprus’s Council presidency of the European Union, member states are expected to debate which concrete safeguards should be introduced as part of the broader consumer protection framework.

Officials are exploring whether new rules should require platforms to adopt stricter safeguards when designing digital services used by children.

The discussions are part of the European Union’s broader effort to strengthen digital governance and consumer protection across online platforms. Policymakers are increasingly focusing on how platform design, recommendation algorithms, and monetisation models may affect younger users.

The proposals could complement existing EU regulations targeting large digital platforms, while expanding protections specifically focused on minors.

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

Australia introduces strict online child safety rules covering AI chatbots

New Age-Restricted Material Codes have begun to be enforced in Australia, requiring online platforms to introduce stronger protections to prevent children from accessing harmful digital content.

The rules apply across a wide range of services, including social media, app stores, gaming platforms, search engines, pornography websites, and AI chatbots.

Under the framework, companies must implement age-assurance systems before allowing access to content involving pornography, high-impact violence, self-harm material, or other age-restricted topics.

These measures also extend to AI companions and chatbots, which must prevent sexually explicit or self-harm-related conversations with minors.

The rules form part of Australia’s broader online safety framework overseen by the eSafety Commissioner, which will monitor compliance and enforce the codes.

Companies that fail to comply may face penalties of up to $49.5 million per breach.

The policy aims to shift responsibility toward technology companies by requiring them to build protections directly into their platforms.

Officials in Australia argue the measures mirror long-standing offline safeguards designed to prevent children from accessing adult environments or harmful material.

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

AI legal advice case asks whether ChatGPT crosses legal boundaries

A newly filed lawsuit against OpenAI raises a key issue: Does allowing generative AI systems like ChatGPT to provide legal advice violate laws that bar the unauthorised practice of law (UPL)? UPL means providing legal services, such as drafting filings or giving advice, without the required legal qualifications or a state licence.

The case claims an individual used ChatGPT to prepare legal filings in a dispute with Nippon Life Insurance, prompting the company to argue OpenAI should be held responsible for the outcome.

The lawsuit claims ChatGPT helped the user challenge a settled legal dispute. As a result, the company had to spend additional time and resources responding to filings produced with ChatGPT. The claim alleges tortious interference with a contract, which is the unlawful disruption of an existing agreement between two parties by causing one of the parties to breach or alter it.

Ultimately, this disrupted another party’s contractual relationship. The suit also claims unauthorised practice of law and abuse of the judicial process, which means using the legal system improperly to gain an advantage. It argues OpenAI should be liable because ChatGPT operates under its control. The dispute centres on whether AI systems should analyse disputes and offer legal advice like a lawyer.

Advocates argue the tools could widen access to legal advice. They could make legal support more accessible and affordable for those who cannot easily hire a lawyer. However, US legal frameworks restrict the provision of legal advice to licensed lawyers. The rules are designed to protect consumers and ensure professional accountability.

Critics argue that limiting legal advice to licensed lawyers preserves an expensive monopoly and hinders access to justice. AI-driven legal tools highlight this tension over the future of legal services.

The outcome of this lawsuit will likely hinge on whether AI-generated responses constitute intentional legal advice and if OpenAI can be held liable for such outputs. Even if it fails, the case foregrounds the broader debate about granting generative AI a legitimate role in legal guidance.

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

AI copyright warning as 5 major risks outlined in UK Lords report

Concerns about AI copyright are rising after a House of Lords committee report. The report warns that unlicensed use of creative works for AI training threatens the UK’s creative industries.

Large AI systems rely on vast amounts of human-created content, often used without clear consent or compensation. Such developments have intensified debates around AI copyright protections.

The committee argues that the key issues are not the copyright framework itself, but the widespread unlicensed use of protected works and AI developers’ lack of transparency.

The lack of clarity prevents rightsholders from knowing whether their works are being used or from enforcing their rights, raising critical questions about the practical application of AI copyright rules.

The report urges the government to reject the proposed commercial text and data mining exception, introduce stronger protections against unauthorised digital replicas, and safeguard against AI outputs that imitate a creator’s style, voice, or identity.

The committee also calls for legal transparency in AI training data, backing the development of a licensing market, and standards for rights-reservation, data provenance, labelling AI-generated content, and support for UK-governed AI models within a robust AI copyright framework.

Baroness Keeley, committee chair, warned: ‘Our creative industries face a clear and present danger from uncredited and unremunerated use of copyrighted material to train AI models.

Photographers, musicians, authors, and publishers are seeing their work fed into AI models, which then produce imitations that take employment and earning opportunities from original creators.’

Keeley added: ‘AI may contribute to our future economic growth, but the UK creative industries create jobs and economic value now.

In 2023, the creative industries delivered £124 billion of economic value to the UK, and this is set to grow to £141 billion by 2030. Watering down the protections in our existing copyright regime to lure the biggest US tech companies is a race to the bottom that does not serve UK interests. We should not sacrifice our creative industries for the AI jam tomorrow.’

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