Edition 3: Spring brings more AI Policy around Asia
AI Policy in India, China, Korea, Singapore, Japan and ASEAN - Privacy, Copyright and More
Privacy and AI Policy
Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Commission issues guidance on personal data in AI recommendation and decision systems. It provides some useful information for companies seeking to comply with data protection obligations while utilizing genAI tools.
What we are thinking: Expect more data and privacy authorities in Asia to issue similar guidance tailored to their markets. Asia has seen an explosion of privacy laws, and data protection authorities over the last few years (laws that recently came into force or amended: China in 2019, Indonesia in 2022, Thailand in 2022, Vietnam in 2023, Taiwan amendments in 2023, India in 2023).
Intellectual Property (IP) and AI Policy
The Japan Patent Office (JPO) and China IP Administration (CNIPA) conducted a comparative research paper on AI-related invention patent prosecution. Some case studies are at the end showing how patent prosecution would work in both countries. Good for patent nerds.
What we are thinking: these efforts to demonstrate cross-border comparative rules on IP, or other issue areas like privacy, are key for businesses and individuals to know the landscape of rules in AI. It underscores the need for harmonization, interoperability or overall awareness.
Policy Reports
The Tech for Good Institute released the report, “Evolution of Tech Regulation in the Digital Economy” focused on 6 ASEAN countries. Gets to who the regulators are in the region.
The Hinrich Foundation issued a report covering AI’s impact on trade in Asia. The report recommends countries in Asia establish regulatory sandboxes, working towards standards on taxonomy, transparency, risk management, establishing centers of excellence for corporate AI governance, testing through red-teaming centers based in the region, and certifications of regulations in the model of ICAO and other multilateral orgs in other industries.
The newly minted Journal of AI Law and Regulation has two articles covering AI policy in Asia – one on AI and Copyright in Korea (useful analysis on copyright exceptions for text and data mining), and another on Taiwan’s posture on AI legislation (tl;dr: has gone through multiple iterations in the Legislative Yuan over the past few years, and now industry friendly approach).
Brookings report: Small Yards Big Tents covers how China, the EU and the US operate to create AI standards. Covers many standards formed at the international level.
What we are thinking: The purposes of our Asia AI Policy Center of Excellence network and this newsletter are intended to empower the rest of Asia to participate and actively influence AI policies outside the Big Three regulators of US, EU and China. Read our thought leadership on this idea in the Asia Times.
The Global Initiative Against Organized Crime reported on recent AI deepfake enabled scams proliferating in Southeast Asia. These include instances in Singapore where deepfakes of top leaders were promoting scam investments, to an incident in Hong Kong where employees were tricked into transferring millions after engaging with deepfakes of their company’s CFO. There has been an increase of over 1530% for reported deepfakes cases in Asia from 2022-2023 with Japan and Philippines leading that growth.
AI Law and Policy Events in Asia
March 22: Human Rights Lawyers Association (Thailand-based) will host “Digital Anthropology and Liability of AI”. If interested register here.
The Bigger Picture: Bits over borders
The WTO recently extended the customs moratorium on duties for electronic transactions. AI products and services are inherently cross-border, certainly for Indo-Pacific countries and are a growing part of the vision for future digital economy. The WTO has extended this moratorium for another two years until March 31, 2026 (or the 14th Ministerial whichever is sooner).
What we are thinking: This shows that many policies and practices that undergird so much of our digital economy rest on assumptions, which policymakers can quickly change. If AI tools concentrate more economic power (as many commentators note), the pressure to redistribute wealth will increase at these multilateral fora. This calls for more cross-border interoperability and sharing of benefits at the policy level, and addressing digital divides in practical ways. The Indo-Pacific will be a key region to watch given its diversity economically, involvement in digital trade, and scope of the digital divide.
Elsewhere in the multi-lateral world, The United Nations adopted the landmark resolution on AI. The resolution emphasized the need for AI to support human rights (online and offline), that member states should cooperate to address the digital divide (between and within countries), and overall promote safe, secure and trustworthy AI in support of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Policy News
South Korea 🇰🇷 Cabinet amends enforcement measures of the Personal Information Protection Act to address AI issues, including transparency and accountability in automated decision making.
India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an advisory on March 1 – then amended on March 15 - requiring AI platforms ensure services that are under-tested are labeled for consumers protection.
China’s Guangzhou Internet Court finds copyright infringement in genAI images of Ultraman. This follows on the heels of the Beijing Internet Courts decision to grant copyright protection in genAI images to the individual who prompts the image creation.
What we are thinking: as we predicted at the beginning of the year – copyright policy will get more clarity around Asia through litigation such as above, or through guidance issued by copyright authorities. China’s courts may also be the first to take a bite at whether copyright can be infringed in the context of unauthorized use of copyrighted material in data training sets.
China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi discussed global AI governance during the “Two Sessions” meetings in March. He stressed the Global AI Governance Initiative as proposed by Chairman Xi Jinping of last year. The initiative has three central points: 1) AI should be conducive to the welfare of humanity, 2) Safety – including explainability and reliability as core tenets and 3) fairness; namely at the international governance level among nations through a UN organization.
Additionally, he mentioned the government’s “AI Plus Initiative” for increasing government support for big data and AI research and development during the Government Work Report for 2024 to the National People’s Congress.
Public Comments and Advocacy Opportunities
UN Global Digital Compact Submissions are due this month in response to a call from the Swedish and Zambian governments.
Japan’s Copyright Office Legal System Subcommittee published the deliberations regarding AI and Copyright here (in Japanese). Japan’s Copyright Law has one of the world’s most liberal provisions for data training, amended in 2019.
Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications also held public comments on addressing mis/disinformation in the context of emerging technology such as genAI.
Asia’s AI Policymaker Profiles
Haksoo Ko is a member of the UN’s Advisory Body on AI from South Korea.
Dr. Haksoo Ko is a prominent authority in AI policy and governance. Currently, he holds the position of Chairman at Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC), a government agency overseeing data policies. While leading the PIPC, he directed the creation of Korea’s national strategy for AI data and initiated collaborations with local and global stakeholders.
Mr. Ko previously served as the Head of the Center for Law and Economics at Seoul National University and the President of the Asian Society of Law and Economy. He is also a renowned expert in the field of \artificial intelligence and served as the President of the Korean Association for Artificial Intelligence and Law.
His research primarily focused on legal and policy aspects concerning data privacy and AI. With a background in both economics and law, he has extensive experience in academic and professional settings across the U.S., Europe, and Asia, delving into various research areas spanning law, economics, and technology. He obtained his J.D. and a Ph.D. in Economics from Columbia University.