The European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor have backed proposals to strengthen the EU cybersecurity law while safeguarding personal data. Their joint opinion addresses reforms to the Cybersecurity Act and updates to the NIS2 Directive.
Regulators support plans to reinforce the mandate of the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity and expand cybersecurity certification across digital supply chains. Clearer coordination between ENISA and privacy authorities is seen as essential for consistent oversight.
Advice also calls for limits on the processing of personal data and for prior consultation on technical rules affecting privacy. Certification schemes should align with the GDPR and help organisations demonstrate compliance.
Additional recommendations include broader cybersecurity skills training and a single EU entry point for personal data breach notifications. Proposed changes would also classify digital identity wallet providers as essential entities under the EU security rules.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The Administrative Court of Luxembourg has annulled a €746 million GDPR fine imposed on Amazon, citing procedural failings by the national regulator. Judges ruled that authorities did not properly assess the company’s level of fault before setting the penalty.
The sanction was issued in July 2021 by the National Commission for Data Protection over alleged breaches of the GDPR and appealed in March 2025. While violations were upheld, the court found the watchdog failed to determine whether the conduct was intentional or negligent.
Judges said European case law requires a clear evaluation of responsibility before fines are calculated. The ruling concluded that the penalty was imposed in an almost automatic manner without the necessary legal analysis.
The case will now be reassessed by the Luxembourgish regulator. Amazon said it welcomed the decision and maintained it acted in good faith while working with authorities on privacy compliance.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The European Data Protection Board has published a summary of its 17 March conference in Brussels on cross-regulatory interplay and cooperation in the EU from a data protection perspective. According to the EDPB, the event brought together representatives of the EU institutions, European Data Protection Authorities, academia, and industry.
Three panels structured the conference discussion. One focused on data protection and competition, another on the Digital Markets Act and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and a third on the Digital Services Act and the GDPR.
Discussion in the first panel centred on cooperation between regulatory bodies in data protection and competition, including lessons from the aftermath of the Bundeskartellamt ruling. The EDPB said speakers emphasised the need for regulators to align their approaches and recognise synergies between the two fields. Speakers also said data protection should be considered in competition analysis only when relevant and on a case-by-case basis. The EDPB added that it had recently agreed with the European Commission to develop joint guidelines on the interplay between competition law and data protection.
The second panel focused on joint guidelines on the Digital Markets Act and the GDPR, developed by the European Commission and the EDPB and recently opened to public consultation. According to the EDPB, speakers described the guidelines as an example of regulatory cooperation aimed at developing a coherent and compatible interpretation of the two frameworks while respecting regulatory competences. The Board said participants linked the guidelines to stronger consistency, legal clarity, and easier compliance. Some speakers also suggested changes to the final version, including points related to proportionality and the relationship between DMA obligations and the GDPR.
The final panel examined the interaction between the Digital Services Act and the GDPR. The EDPB said panellists referred to the protection of minors as one example, arguing that age verification should be effective while remaining fully in line with data protection legislation. Speakers also highlighted the need for coordination between the two frameworks, including cooperation involving the EU institutions such as the European Board for Digital Services, the European Commission, the EDPB, and national authorities. Emerging technologies such as AI were also mentioned in the discussion.
The event also featured keynote speeches from European Commission Executive Vice President Henna Virkkunen and European Parliament LIBE Committee Chair Javier Zarzalejos. According to the EDPB, Virkkunen said the Commission remained committed to cooperation between different frameworks and highlighted the need to support compliance through stronger coordination among regulators. Zarzalejos said close cross-regulatory cooperation was essential for consistency, effective enforcement, and trust, and pointed to the intersections among data protection law, competition law, the DMA, and the DSA.
EDPB Chair Anu Talus closed the conference by reiterating that the EDPB and European Data Protection Authorities are committed to supporting stakeholders in navigating what the Board described as a new cross-regulatory landscape. The EDPB said future work will include continued cooperation with the Commission on joint guidelines on the interplay between the AI Act and the GDPR, finalisation of the joint guidelines on the interplay between the DMA and the GDPR, and work on the recently announced Joint Guidelines on the interplay between data protection and competition law.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Signatories to the EU Code of Conduct on Disinformation have published new transparency reports describing the measures they say they are taking to reduce the spread of disinformation online. According to the European Commission, the reports are the first ones submitted since the Code was recognised as a code of conduct under the Digital Services Act.
The reports are available through the Code’s Transparency Centre and come from a broad group of signatories, including online platforms such as Google, Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok, as well as fact-checkers, research organisations, civil society bodies, and representatives of the advertising industry. The European Commission says the reporting round covers the period from 1 July to 31 December 2025 and marks the first full reporting cycle linked to the Digital Services Act.
Dedicated sections in the reports cover responses to ongoing crises, notably the conflict in Ukraine, as well as measures intended to safeguard the integrity of elections. Data on the implementation of disinformation-related measures is also included, alongside developments in signatories’ policies, tools, and partnerships under the Digital Services Act framework.
Greater significance attaches to the reporting cycle because of the Code’s changed legal and regulatory position. The Commission says the Code was endorsed on 13 February 2025 by the Commission and the European Board for Digital Services, at the request of the signatories, as a code of conduct within the meaning of the Digital Services Act. From 1 July 2025, the Code became part of the co-regulatory framework under the Digital Services Act.
A more formal role now applies to the Code than under its earlier voluntary setup. According to the Commission, signatories’ adherence to its commitments is subject to independent annual auditing, and the Code serves as a relevant benchmark for determining compliance with Article 35 of the Digital Services Act. The Commission also says the Code has become a ‘significant and meaningful benchmark of DSA compliance’ for providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines that adhere to its commitments under the Digital Services Act.
Reporting obligations differ depending on the type of signatory. Under the Code, providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines commit to reporting, every six months, on the actions taken by their subscribed services. The Commission lists Google Search, YouTube, Google Ads, Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, Bing, LinkedIn, and TikTok among the covered services, while other non-platform signatories report once per year under the Digital Services Act structure.
Broader policy relevance lies in the EU’s attempt to connect platform self-reporting to a more formal oversight structure. By placing the disinformation Code inside the Digital Services Act framework, the Commission and the Board are using voluntary commitments, transparency reporting, and auditing as part of a co-regulatory approach to systemic online risks. The reports themselves do not prove compliance, but they now carry greater weight within the wider Digital Services Act architecture for platform governance.
One further point is that the Commission notice focuses on publication of the reports rather than evaluating their quality or effectiveness. The notice says the reports describe measures, data, and policy developments, but it does not assess whether the actions taken by signatories were sufficient. Such a distinction matters in politically sensitive areas such as election integrity and crisis-related disinformation, especially where transparency under the Digital Services Act may shape future scrutiny.
Taken together, the first reporting round shows how the EU is using the Digital Services Act not only to impose direct legal obligations on large platforms and search engines, but also to anchor voluntary commitments within a more structured regulatory environment. Continued reporting, auditing, and review will determine how much practical weight the Code carries within the Digital Services Act and how effectively the Digital Services Act supports oversight of disinformation risks online.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A major expansion of its activities has been outlined by OpenAI Foundation, signalling a broader effort to ensure AI delivers tangible benefits while addressing emerging risks.
The organisation plans to invest at least $1 billion over the next year, forming part of a wider $25 billion commitment focused on disease research and AI resilience.
OpenAI Foundation frames such potential as central to its mission, while recognising that more capable systems introduce complex societal and safety challenges that require coordinated responses.
Initial programmes prioritise life sciences, including research into Alzheimer’s disease, expanded access to public health data, and accelerated progress on high-mortality conditions.
Parallel efforts examine the economic impact of automation, with engagement across policymakers, labour groups and businesses aimed at developing practical responses to labour market disruption.
A dedicated resilience strategy addresses risks linked to advanced AI systems, including safety standards, biosecurity concerns and the protection of children and young users.
Alongside community-focused funding, the OpenAI Foundation’s initiative reflects a dual objective: enabling innovation rather than leaving societies exposed to technological disruption.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A growing wave of AI-driven scams is prompting warnings from Competition Bureau Canada, as fraudsters increasingly impersonate government officials through deepfake technology and fake websites.
Authorities report a steady rise in complaints linked to deceptive schemes designed to exploit public trust.
Scammers are using synthetic media to mimic well-known political figures, including senior government officials, to extract personal information and spread misleading narratives.
Such tactics demonstrate how AI tools are being weaponised for social engineering rather than for legitimate communication.
The trend reflects a broader shift in digital fraud, where increasingly sophisticated techniques blur the line between authentic and fabricated content. As synthetic identities become more convincing, individuals find it harder to verify the legitimacy of online interactions and official communications.
In response, authorities in Canada are intensifying awareness efforts during Fraud Prevention Month, offering expert guidance on identifying and avoiding scams.
The development underscores the urgent need for stronger safeguards and public education to counter evolving AI-enabled threats.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
A surge in AI-generated child sexual abuse material has raised urgent concerns across Europe, with the Internet Watch Foundation reporting record levels of harmful content online.
Findings of the IWF report indicate that AI is accelerating both the scale and severity of abuse, transforming how offenders create and distribute illicit material.
Data from 2025 reveals a sharp increase in AI-generated imagery and video, with over 8,000 cases identified and a dramatic rise in highly severe content.
Synthetic videos have grown at an unprecedented rate, reflecting how emerging tools are being used to produce increasingly realistic and extreme scenarios rather than traditional formats.
Analysis of offender behaviour highlights a disturbing trend toward automation and accessibility.
Discussions on dark web forums suggest that future agentic AI systems may enable the creation of fully produced abusive content with minimal technical skill. The integration of audio and image manipulation further deepens risks, particularly where real children’s likenesses are involved.
Calls for regulatory action are intensifying as policymakers in the EU debate reforms to the Child Sexual Abuse Directive.
Advocacy groups emphasise the need for comprehensive criminalisation, alongside stronger safety-by-design requirements, arguing that technological innovation must not outpace child protection frameworks.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Over the past few years, we have witnessed a rapid shift in the way data is stored and processed across businesses, organisations, and digital systems.
What we are increasingly seeing is that AI itself is changing form as computation shifts away from centralised cloud environments to the network edge. Such a shift has come to be known as edge AI.
Edge AI refers to the deployment of machine learning models directly on local devices such as smartphones, sensors, industrial machines, and autonomous systems.
Instead of transmitting data to remote servers for processing, analysis is performed on the device itself, enabling faster responses and greater control over sensitive information.
Such a transition marks a significant departure from earlier models of AI deployment, where cloud infrastructure dominated both processing and storage.
From centralised AI to edge intelligence
Traditional AI systems used to rely heavily on centralised architectures. Data collected from users or devices would be transmitted to large-scale data centres, where powerful servers would perform computations and generate outputs.
Such a model offered efficiency, scalability, and easier security management, as protection efforts could be concentrated within controlled environments.
Centralisation allowed organisations to enforce uniform security policies, deploy updates rapidly, and monitor threats from a single vantage point. However, reliance on cloud infrastructure also introduced latency, bandwidth constraints, and increased exposure of sensitive data during transmission.
Edge AI introduces a fundamentally different paradigm. Moving computation closer to the data source reduces the reliance on continuous connectivity and enables real-time decision-making.
Such decentralisation represents not merely a technical shift but a reconfiguration of the way digital systems operate and interact with their environments.
Advantages of edge AI
Reduced latency and real-time processing
Latency is significantly reduced when computation occurs locally. Edge systems are particularly valuable in time-sensitive applications such as autonomous vehicles, healthcare monitoring, and industrial automation, where delays can have critical consequences.
Enhanced privacy and data control
Privacy improves when sensitive data remains on-device instead of being transmitted across networks. Such an approach aligns with growing concerns around data protection, regulatory compliance, and user trust.
Operational resilience
Edge systems can continue functioning even when network connectivity is limited or unavailable. In remote environments or critical infrastructure, independence from central servers ensures service continuity.
Bandwidth efficiency and cost reduction
Bandwidth consumption is decreased because only processed insights are transmitted, not raw data. Such efficiency can translate into reduced operational costs and improved system performance.
Personalisation and context awareness
Devices can adapt to user behaviour in real time, learning from local data without exposing sensitive information externally. In healthcare, personalised diagnostics can be performed directly on wearable devices, while in manufacturing, predictive maintenance can occur on-site.
The dark side of edge AI
However, the shift towards edge computing introduces profound cybersecurity challenges. The most significant of these is the expansion of the attack surface.
Instead of a limited number of well-protected data centres, organisations must secure vast networks of distributed devices. Each endpoint represents a potential entry point for malicious actors.
The scale and diversity of edge deployments complicate efforts to maintain consistent security standards. Security is no longer centralised but dispersed, increasing the likelihood of vulnerabilities and misconfigurations.
Let’s take a closer look at some other challenges of edge AI.
Physical vulnerabilities and device exposure
Edge devices often operate in uncontrolled environments, making physical access a major risk. Attackers may tamper with hardware, extract sensitive information, or reverse engineer AI models.
Model extraction attacks allow adversaries to replicate proprietary algorithms, undermining intellectual property and enabling further exploitation. Such risks are significantly more pronounced compared to cloud systems, where physical access is tightly controlled.
Software constraints and patch management challenges
Many edge devices rely on embedded systems with limited computational resources. Such constraints make it difficult to implement robust security measures, including advanced encryption and intrusion detection.
Patch management becomes increasingly complex in decentralised environments. Ensuring that millions of devices receive timely updates is a significant challenge, particularly when connectivity is inconsistent or when devices operate in remote locations.
Breakdown of traditional security models
The decentralised nature of edge AI undermines conventional perimeter-based security frameworks. Without a clearly defined boundary, traditional approaches to network defence lose effectiveness.
Each device must be treated as an independent security domain, requiring authentication, authorisation, and continuous monitoring. Identity management becomes more complex as the number of devices grows, increasing the risk of misconfiguration and unauthorised access.
Data integrity and adversarial threats
As we mentioned before, edge devices rely heavily on local data inputs to make decisions. As a result, manipulated inputs can lead to compromised outcomes. Adversarial attacks, in which inputs are deliberately altered to deceive machine learning models, represent a significant threat.
In safety-critical systems, such manipulation can lead to severe consequences. Altered sensor data in industrial environments may disrupt operations, while compromised vision systems in autonomous vehicles may produce dangerous behaviour.
Supply chain risks in edge AI
Edge AI systems depend on a combination of hardware, software, and pre-trained models sourced from multiple vendors. Each component introduces potential vulnerabilities.
Attackers may compromise supply chains by inserting backdoors during manufacturing, distributing malicious updates, or exploiting third-party software dependencies. The global nature of technology supply chains complicates efforts to ensure trust and accountability.
Energy constraints and security trade-offs
Edge devices are often designed with efficiency in mind, prioritising performance and power consumption. Security mechanisms such as encryption and continuous monitoring require computational resources that may be limited.
As a result, security features may be simplified or omitted, increasing exposure to cyber threats. Balancing efficiency with robust protection remains a persistent challenge.
Cyber-physical risks and real-world impact
The integration of edge AI into cyber-physical systems elevates the consequences of security breaches. Digital manipulation can directly influence physical outcomes, affecting safety and infrastructure.
Compromised healthcare devices may produce incorrect diagnoses, while disrupted transportation systems may lead to accidents. In energy networks, attacks could impact entire regions, highlighting the broader societal implications of edge AI vulnerabilities.
Regulatory and governance challenges
Existing regulatory frameworks have been largely designed for centralised systems and do not fully address the complexities of decentralised architectures. Questions regarding liability, accountability, and enforcement remain unresolved.
Organisations may struggle to implement effective security practices without clear standards. Policymakers face the challenge of developing regulations that reflect the distributed nature of edge AI systems.
Towards a secure edge AI ecosystem
Addressing all these challenges requires a multi-layered and adaptive approach that reflects the complexity of edge AI environments.
Hardware-level protections, such as secure enclaves and trusted execution environments, play a critical role in safeguarding sensitive operations from physical tampering and low-level attacks.
Encryption and secure boot processes further strengthen device integrity, ensuring that both data and models remain protected and that unauthorised modifications are prevented from the outset.
At the software level, continuous monitoring and anomaly detection are essential for identifying threats in real time, particularly in distributed systems where central oversight is limited.
Secure update mechanisms must also be prioritised, ensuring that patches and security improvements can be deployed efficiently and reliably across large networks of devices, even in conditions of intermittent connectivity.
Without such mechanisms, vulnerabilities can persist and spread across the ecosystem.
Rather than relying entirely on decentralised or centralised models, organisations are distributing workloads strategically, keeping latency-sensitive and privacy-critical processes on the edge while maintaining centralised oversight, analytics, and security coordination in the cloud.
Such an approach allows organisations to balance performance and control, while enabling more effective threat detection and response through aggregated intelligence.
Security must also be embedded into system design from the outset, rather than treated as an additional layer to be applied after deployment. A proactive approach to risk assessment, combined with secure development practices, can significantly reduce vulnerabilities before systems are operational.
In conclusion, we have seen how the rise of edge AI represents a pivotal shift in both AI and cybersecurity. Decentralisation enables faster, more private, and more resilient systems, yet it also creates a fragmented and dynamic attack surface.
The advantages we have outlined are compelling, but they also introduce additional layers of complexity and risk. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach that combines technological innovation, regulatory development, and organisational awareness.
Only through such coordinated efforts can the benefits of edge AI be realised while ensuring that security, trust, and safety remain intact in an increasingly decentralised digital landscape.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
Australia’s online safety regulator has found major gaps in how popular AI companion chatbots protect children from harmful and sexually explicit material. The transparency report assessed four services and concluded that age verification and content filters were inadequate for users under 18.
Regulator Julie Inman Grant said many AI companions marketed as offering friendship or emotional support can expose young users to explicit chat and encourage harmful thoughts without effective safeguards. Most failed to guide users to support when self-harm or suicide issues appeared.
The report also showed several platforms lacked robust content monitoring or dedicated trust and safety teams, leaving children vulnerable to inappropriate inputs and outputs from AI systems. Firms relied on basic age self-declaration at signup rather than reliable checks.
New enforceable safety codes now require AI chatbots to block age-inappropriate content and offer crisis support tools, with potential civil penalties for breaches. Some providers have already updated age assurance features or restricted access in Australia following the regulator’s notices.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
The UK Competition and Markets Authority has issued guidance warning firms that AI agents must follow the same consumer protection laws as human staff. Businesses remain legally responsible for AI actions, even when third parties supply tools.
Companies are advised to be transparent when customers interact with AI systems, particularly where people might assume a human response. Clear labelling and honest explanations of capabilities are considered essential for informed consumer decisions.
Proper training and testing of AI tools should ensure respect for refund rights, contract terms and accurate product information. Human oversight is recommended to prevent errors, misleading claims and so-called hallucinated outputs.
Rapid fixes are expected when problems emerge, especially for services affecting large audiences or vulnerable users. In the UK, breaches of consumer law can trigger enforcement action, heavy fines and mandatory compensation.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
