There is no active legislation on the development and use of AI yet. Crucially, however, a number of such initiatives are currently on their way through legislative processes globally.
EU’s Landmark AI Act: A Step Towards Global AI Regulation
The EC published an initial legislative proposal in 2021, and the European Parliament adopted a revised version as their official position on AI in June 2023, moving the legislation process to its final phase.
This proposed EU AI Act takes a risk management approach to regulating AI. Organisations looking to employ AI must take note: an internal risk management approach to deploying AI would essentially be mandated by the Act. It is likely that other legislative initiatives will follow a similar approach, making the AI Act a potential role model for global legislations (following the trail blazed by the General Data Protection Regulation). The “G7 Hiroshima AI Process”, established at the G7 summit in Japan in May 2023, is a key example of international discussion and collaboration on the topic (with a focus on Generative AI).
Risk Classification and Regulations in the EU AI Act
At the heart of the AI Act is a system to assess the risk level of AI technology, classify the technology (or its use case), and prescribe appropriate regulations to each risk class.
For each of these four risk levels, the AI Act proposes a set of rules and regulations. Evidently, the regulatory focus is on High-Risk AI systems.
Contrasting Approaches: EU AI Act vs. UK’s Pro-Innovation Regulatory Approach
The AI Act has received its share of criticism, and somewhat different approaches are being considered, notably in the UK. One set of criticism revolves around the lack of clarity and vagueness of concepts (particularly around person-related data and systems). Another set of criticism revolves around the strong focus on the protection of rights and individuals and highlights the potential negative economic impact for EU organisations looking to leverage AI, and for EU tech companies developing AI systems.
A white paper by the UK government published in March 2023, perhaps tellingly, named “A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation” emphasises on a “pragmatic, proportionate regulatory approach … to provide a clear, pro-innovation regulatory environment”, The paper talks about an approach aiming to balance the protection of individuals with economic advancements for the UK on its way to become an “AI superpower”.
Further aspects of the EU AI Act are currently being critically discussed. For example, the current text exempts all open-source AI components not part of a medium or higher risk system from regulation but lacks definition and considerations for proliferation.
Adopting AI Risk Management in Organisations: The Singapore Approach
Regardless of how exactly AI regulations will turn out around the world, organisations must start today to adopt AI risk management practices. There is an added complexity: while the EU AI Act does clearly identify high-risk AI systems and example use cases, the realisation of regulatory practices must be tackled with an industry-focused approach.
The approach taken by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is a primary example of an industry-focused approach to AI risk management. The Veritas Consortium, led by MAS, is a public-private-tech partnership consortium aiming to guide the financial services sector on the responsible use of AI. As there is no AI legislation in Singapore to date, the consortium currently builds on Singapore’s aforementioned “Model Artificial Intelligence Governance Framework”. Additional initiatives are already underway to focus specifically on Generative AI for financial services, and to build a globally aligned framework.
To Comply with Upcoming AI Regulations, Risk Management is the Path Forward
As AI regulation initiatives move from voluntary recommendation to legislation globally, a risk management approach is at the core of all of them. Adding risk management capabilities for AI is the path forward for organisations looking to deploy AI-enhanced solutions and applications. As that task can be daunting, an industry consortium approach can help circumnavigate challenges and align on implementation and realisation strategies for AI risk management across the industry. Until AI legislations are in place, such industry consortia can chart the way for their industry – organisations should seek to participate now to gain a head start with AI.
An effective cybersecurity strategy demands a comprehensive approach that incorporates technology, education, and policies while nurturing a culture of security awareness throughout the organisation. CISOs face the daunting task of safeguarding their organisations against relentless cyber intrusion attempts by cybercriminals, who often leverage cutting-edge automated intrusion technologies.
To maintain an advantage over these threats, cybersecurity teams must have access to continuous threat intelligence; automation will be essential in addressing the shortage of security expertise and managing the overwhelming volume and frequency of security events. Collaborating with a specialised partner possessing both scale and experience is often the answer for organisations that want to augment their cybersecurity teams with intelligent, automated agents capable of swiftly
Digital Workplace. As with other industries with a high percentage of knowledge workers, BFSI organisations are grappling with granting remote access to staff. Cloud-based collaboration and Fintech tools, BYOD policies, and sensitive data traversing home networks are all creating new challenges for cyber teams. Modern approaches, such as zero trust network access, privilege management, and network segmentation are necessary to ensure workers can seamlessly but securely perform their roles remotely.
Looking Beyond Technology: Evaluating the Adequacy of Compliance-Centric Cyber Strategies
The BFSI industry stands among the most rigorously regulated industries, with scrutiny intensifying following every collapse or notable breach. Cyber and data protection teams shoulder the responsibility of understanding the implications of and adhering to emerging data protection regulations in areas such as GDPR, PCI-DSS, SOC 2, and PSD2. Automating compliance procedures emerges as a compelling solution to streamline processes, mitigate risks, and curtail expenses. Technologies such as robotic process automation (RPA), low-code development, and continuous compliance monitoring are gaining prominence.
The adoption of AI to enhance security is still emerging but will accelerate rapidly. Ecosystm research shows that within the next two years, nearly 70% of BFSI organisations will have invested in SecOps. AI can help Security Operations Centres (SOCs) prioritise alerts and respond to threats faster than could be performed manually. Additionally, the expanding variety of network endpoints, including customer devices, ATMs, and tools used by frontline employees, can embrace AI-enhanced protection without introducing additional onboarding friction.
However, there is a need for BFSI organisations to look beyond compliance checklists to a more holistic cyber approach that can prioritise cyber measures continually based on the risk to the organisations. And this is one of the biggest challenges that BFSI CISOs face. Ecosystm research finds that 72% of cyber and technology leaders in the industry feel that there is limited understanding of cyber risk and governance in their organisations.
In fact, BFSI organisations must look at the interconnectedness of an intelligence-led and risk-based strategy. Thorough risk assessments let organisations prioritise vulnerability mitigation effectively. This targeted approach optimises security initiatives by focusing on high-risk areas, reducing security debt. To adapt to evolving threats, intelligence should inform risk assessment. Intelligence-led strategies empower cybersecurity leaders with real-time threat insights for proactive measures, actively tackling emerging threats and vulnerabilities – and definitely moving beyond compliance-focused strategies.
While cybersecurity is still crucially important, the ability to recover from breaches quickly and cost-effectively is also imperative. How you recover from a breach will ultimately determine your organisation’s long-term viability and success. The capabilities needed to recover quickly include:
A well-documented and practices incident response plan. The plan should outline the roles and responsibilities of all team members, communication protocols, and steps to be taken in the event of a breach.
Backup and Disaster Recovery (DR) solutions. Regular backups of critical data and systems are essential to quickly recover from a breach. Backup solutions should include offsite or cloud-based options that are isolated from the main network. DR solutions ensure that critical systems can be quickly restored and made operational after a breach.
Cybersecurity awareness training. Investing in regular training for all employees is crucial to ensure they are aware of the latest threats and know how to respond in the event of a breach.
Automated response tools. Automation can help speed up the response time during a breach by automatically blocking malicious IPs, quarantining infected devices, or taking other predefined actions based on the nature of the attack.
Threat intelligence. This can help organisations stay ahead of the latest threats and vulnerabilities and frame quicker responses if a breach occurs.
Backup and Disaster Recovery is Evolving
Most organisations already have backup and disaster recovery capabilities in place – but too often they are older systems, designed more as a “just in case” versus a “will keep us in business” capability. Backup and DR systems are evolving and improving – and with the increased likelihood of a breach, it is a good time to consider what a modern Backup and DR system can provide to your organisation. Here are some of the key trends and considerations that technology leaders should be aware of:
Cloud-based solutions. More organisations are moving towards cloud-based backup and DR solutions. Cloud solutions offer several advantages, including scalability, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to access data and systems from anywhere. However, technology leaders need to consider data security, compliance requirements, and the reliability of the cloud service provider.
Hybrid options. As hybrid cloud becomes the norm for most organisations, hybrid solutions backup and DR that combine on-premises and cloud-based backups are becoming more popular. This approach provides the best of both worlds – the security and control of on-premises backups with the scalability and flexibility of the cloud.
Increased use of automation. Automation is becoming more prevalent in backup and DR solutions. Automation helps reduce the time it takes to backup data, restore systems, and test DR plans. It also minimises the risk of human error. Technology leaders should look for solutions that offer automation capabilities while also allowing for manual intervention when necessary.
Cybersecurity integration. With the rise of cyberattacks, especially ransomware, it is crucial that backup and DR solutions are integrated with an organisation’s cybersecurity strategy. Backup data should be encrypted and isolated from the main network to prevent attackers from accessing or corrupting it. Regular testing of backup and DR plans should also include scenarios where a cyberattack, such as ransomware, is involved.
More frequent backups. Data is becoming more critical to business operations, so there is a trend towards more frequent backups, even continuous backups, to minimise data loss in the event of a disaster. Technology leaders need to balance the need for frequent backups with the cost and complexity involved.
Super-fast data recovery. Some data recovery platforms can recover data FAST – in as little as 6 seconds. The ability to recover data faster than the bad actors can delete it makes organisations less vulnerable and buys more time to plug the gaps that the attackers are exploiting to gain access to data and systems.
Monitoring and analytics. Modern backup and DR solutions offer advanced monitoring and analytics capabilities. This allows organisations to track the performance of their backups, identify potential issues before they become critical, and optimise their backup and DR processes. Technology leaders should look for solutions that offer comprehensive monitoring and analytics capabilities.
Compliance considerations. With the increasing focus on data privacy and protection, organisations need to ensure that backup and DR solutions are compliant with relevant regulations, often dictated at the industry level in each geography. Technology leaders should work with their legal and compliance teams to ensure that their backup and DR solutions meet all necessary requirements.
The sooner you evolve and modernise your backup and disaster recovery capabilities, the more breathing room your cybersecurity team has, to improve the ability to repel threats. New security architectures and postures – such as Zero Trust and SASE are emerging as better ways to build your cybersecurity capabilities – but they won’t happen overnight and require significant investment, training, and business change to implement.