The UK Government plans to introduce new cybersecurity legislation across the UK in the form of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill (the Bill). The Bill's objective is to improve the law around cybersecurity generally to make the UK's critical and cyber infrastructure more resilient in the face of frequent and damaging cyberattacks. Neil Williamson and Colin Lambertus, from EM Law, delve into the Bill and how it may be influenced by other developments in cybersecurity regulation, including the consultation on the NIS Regulations and the NIS 2 Directive.

India's commitment towards the promotion and development of artificial intelligence (AI) was recently highlighted in the Union Budget of 2024-25 that was announced by the Indian government in July 2024. The Budget allocated $65 million exclusively to the IndiaAI Mission, an ambitious $1.1. billion program that was announced earlier this year to focus on AI research and infrastructure in India. It has also widely been reported that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is in the process of formulating a national AI policy, which is set to address a wide spectrum of issues including the infringement of intellectual property rights and the development of responsible AI. As per reports, MeitY is also analyzing the AI framework of other jurisdictions to include learnings from these frameworks in its national AI policy. Part I of this series focussed on understanding the regulatory approaches adopted by some key jurisdictions like the EU and the USA. In Part two, Raghav Muthanna, Avimukt Dar, and Himangini Mishra, from INDUSLAW, explore measures that India can adopt, and lessons it can take from such markets, in its journey in the governance of AI systems.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) published guidance on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), recognizing risks and that responsible deployment of AI has the potential to make a positive contribution to society.

Part one of this Insight series discusses chapter one of the ICO's guidance on the lawful basis for web scraping, part two focuses on chapter two on the application of the purpose limitation principle to different phases of the generative AI lifecycle discussed in chapter two of the guidance, and part three explores the ICO's third chapter concerning the accuracy of data and outputs. In part four, James Castro-Edwards, from Arnold & Porter, delves into chapter four of the guidance on individual rights, particularly in the stages of training and fine-tuning generative AI.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has published a series of chapters on its interpretation of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 regarding the use, risks, and responsible deployment of artificial intelligence (AI).

Part one of this Insight series focused on chapter one of the ICO's guidance on the lawful basis for web scraping, while part two looked at how the purpose limitation principle of the UK GDPR applies to different phases of the generative AI lifecycle discussed in chapter two of the guidance. In part three, James Castro-Edwards, from Arnold & Porter, explores the ICO's third chapter concerning the accuracy of data and outputs.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) published a series of chapters highlighting its emerging views on its interpretation of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018, in relation to questions around the use, risks, and responsible deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). 

Part one of this Insight series focused on chapter one of the ICO's guidance on the lawful basis for web scraping. In part two, James Castro-Edwards, from Arnold & Porter, looks at chapter two of the guidance which discusses how the purpose limitation principle of the UK GDPR applies to different phases of the generative AI lifecycle.