Jurisdiction Archives | Page 5 of 135 | Digital Watch Observatory

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!

EU and Canada begin negotiations on a digital trade agreement

The European Commission and Canada have launched negotiations on a new Digital Trade Agreement to strengthen the rules governing cross-border digital commerce.

The initiative was announced in Toronto by the EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and Canadian International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu.

An agreement that will expand the digital dimension of the existing Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which has already increased trade in goods and services between the two partners.

Officials say the new negotiations aim to create clearer rules for businesses and consumers engaging in cross-border digital transactions.

Proposals under discussion include promoting paperless trade systems, recognising electronic signatures and digital contracts, and prohibiting customs duties on electronic transmissions.

The agreement between the EU and Canada will also seek to prevent protectionist practices such as unjustified data localisation requirements or forced transfers of software source code.

European officials argue that the negotiations reflect a broader effort to develop international standards for digital trade governance while preserving governments’ ability to regulate emerging challenges in the digital economy.

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

Privacy lawsuit targets Meta AI glasses after reports of footage review

Meta is facing a new lawsuit in the US over privacy concerns tied to its AI smart glasses.

The legal complaint follows investigative reporting indicating that contractors working for a Kenya-based subcontractor reviewed footage captured by users’ devices, including sensitive personal scenes.

The lawsuit alleges that some of the reviewed material included nudity and other intimate activities recorded by the glasses’ cameras.

According to the complaint, the footage formed part of a data review process designed to improve the AI system integrated into the wearable device.

Plaintiffs claim Meta marketed the product as prioritising user privacy, citing advertisements suggesting that the glasses were ‘designed for privacy’ and that users remained in control of their personal data.

The complaint argues that such messaging could mislead consumers if the footage were subject to human review without clear disclosure.

A legal action that also names eyewear manufacturer Luxottica, which partnered with Meta to produce the glasses.

Meanwhile, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office has begun examining the issue after reports that face-blurring safeguards may not have consistently protected individuals captured in the recordings.

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