Analysis on enterprise AI governance, inline policy enforcement, agentic AI security, and regulatory compliance.
Illinois Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act creates concrete governance work for enterprise AI: identify the processing, bind each request to identity and purpose, enforce data and model policy before transmission, preserve request-level evidence, and test deletion, incident, and exception paths. This guide turns the requirement into controls an assessor can inspect.
Read post →India Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 creates concrete governance work for enterprise AI: identify the processing, bind each request to identity and purpose, enforce data and model policy before transmission, preserve request-level evidence, and test deletion, incident, and exception paths. This guide turns the requirement into controls an assessor can inspect.
Read post →India Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 creates concrete governance work for enterprise AI: identify the processing, bind each request to identity and purpose, enforce data and model policy before transmission, preserve request-level evidence, and test deletion, incident, and exception paths. This guide turns the requirement into controls an assessor can inspect.
Read post →India Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 creates concrete governance work for enterprise AI: identify the processing, bind each request to identity and purpose, enforce data and model policy before transmission, preserve request-level evidence, and test deletion, incident, and exception paths. This guide turns the requirement into controls an assessor can inspect.
Read post →ISO/IEC 27701:2025 creates concrete governance work for enterprise AI: identify the processing, bind each request to identity and purpose, enforce data and model policy before transmission, preserve request-level evidence, and test deletion, incident, and exception paths. This guide turns the requirement into controls an assessor can inspect.
Read post →A hidden instruction in a pull request could make Google ADK's triage agent invoke a more privileged workflow through a trusted bot account. The July 21 patch closed the repository path. The lasting security lesson is narrower: every relayed AI request needs authorization tied to its originating identity.
Read post →Barracuda's August 4 lab simulation started with one compromised mailbox and used its built-in AI assistant to map an organization, find a roughly $250,000 transfer, and draft convincing messages. The account compromise sits outside an AI gateway. The assistant's outbound model calls expose a separate authorization gap.
Read post →ISO/IEC 27701:2025 turns privacy management into operational work for AI systems. This checklist covers inventory, identity, purpose, prompt classification, processor routes, retention, incident response, testing, and request-level evidence, with a clear boundary between privacy governance and HTTP AI enforcement.
ISO/IEC 5338:2023 defines AI system life cycle processes covering acquisition, organizational support, technical management, engineering, operation, maintenance, and disposal. This guide shows how to build an evidence chain across those processes, connect design decisions to production AI requests, and keep the distinction between process conformance and ISO/IEC 42001 management-system certification clear.
Read post →Japan's APPI turns enterprise AI traffic into a privacy evidence problem when prompts, responses, or retrieved context contain personal information. Audit evidence must connect the stated purpose, caller, data category, model destination, transfer basis, policy decision, and retention action for each relevant request. This guide separates records the Act expressly requires from operational proof that supports a PPC inquiry.
Read post →This Japan APPI AI compliance checklist converts purpose limitation, special care-required information, security measures, entrusted-person supervision, foreign transfers, incident response, and individual rights into testable work at the LLM request boundary. Each item names the evidence an owner should retain and flags the applicability decisions that depend on the provider contract and processing route.
Read post →South Korea''s AI Basic Act and its Enforcement Decree took effect on 22 January 2026, with a one-year grace period on administrative fines running to 22 January 2027. This walks the evidence artifacts an operator in the high-impact category has to hand over when the Ministry of Science and ICT inspects: the classification record, the meaningful-explanation record, the prior-notification record, the generative AI labelling record, and the human-supervision record. Each artifact is named alongside the point in the request path that produces it.
Read post →