Germany's digital autonomy remains elusive for now
In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence (AI), regulation and security have become paramount concerns. Three key players, China, the USA, and Germany, are taking different approaches to ensure the safe and secure use of AI.
China's approach is comprehensive, viewing AI as a national security and public safety issue. The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) are the main enforcers of AI regulations, which feature detailed technical standards and risk frameworks. The regulations address 31 categories of safety and security risks, with a particular emphasis on political and social stability [1][3][5].
In contrast, the U.S. Cloud Act is primarily focused on government access to data held by U.S. cloud service providers for law enforcement and national security purposes. It does not regulate AI security specifically but addresses cross-border data access and privacy concerns related to cloud data [no direct source in search results, general knowledge].
Germany's approach is tied to the implementation of the EU AI Act, which categorizes AI systems by risk and imposes governance, transparency, and risk-management obligations. Enforcement in Germany is conducted by national competent authorities designated for AI supervision, which must have adequate resources and technical expertise to oversee compliance [2][4].
In a recent development, the German cloud provider Ionos received an order from the federal administration for the setup of a particularly strictly secured computer cloud solution. The unique feature of this platform is that it is not connected to the public internet [6].
As the BSI chief emphasizes, the time factor is crucial given the current pace of AI development. Central questions include how to prevent prompt injections and the use of AI for malicious purposes [7]. The BSI is responsible for cybersecurity and, therefore, should also bear the corresponding responsibility in the field of artificial intelligence.
The speaker also underscores the importance of Germany building its own AI models, citing many successful AI projects already underway in the country [8]. The "private enterprise cloud," certified by the BSI, is to be operated in the data centers of the Information Technology Center of the Federal Government.
While the roles of the Federal Network Agency and the BSI in ensuring that AI models do not pose risks are still being discussed, it is clear that all parties agree on the importance of focusing on these issues and not only on the USA [9]. It is also important to consider problematic data access laws in countries other than the USA, including China [10]. The regulations needed for distributing these tasks are currently being worked out by the federal government.
In summary, China’s AI security regulations are extensive and politically focused, the U.S. Cloud Act governs data access without AI-specific safety rules, and in Germany, AI security enforcement is carried out by designated national authorities under the EU AI Act.
References:
- China’s AI Development Strategy and Its Implications for Global AI Governance
- EU AI Act: A Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)
- China’s AI Development Strategy and Global Governance
- EU AI Act: Enforcement and Supervision
- China’s AI Development Strategy and Global AI Governance
- Ionos Cloud Wins Federal Administration Contract for a Particularly Secure Cloud Solution
- BSI Chief Warns of AI Security Risks
- Germany’s AI Success Stories
- Germany Must Not Ignore AI Regulation
- Problematic Data Access Laws in China
- The discussion regarding AI security extends beyond the USA, involving other key players such as China and Germany, each adopting distinct policies and legislations.
- China's approach prioritizes AI as a matter of national security and public safety, with the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) enforcing comprehensive regulations that address 31 categories of safety and security risks, with a focus on political and social stability.
- In contrast, the U.S. Cloud Act regulates data access primarily for law enforcement and national security purposes, yet does not specifically address AI security.
- Germany, on the other hand, is implementing the EU AI Act, which categorizes AI systems by risk, imposes governance, transparency, and risk-management obligations, and has designated national authorities for AI supervision. These authorities must have adequate resources and technical expertise to oversee compliance.
