Blog

August 19, 2024 | Christian Vézina

Bill C-27 in Canada, specifically the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), introduces a set of obligations to regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI). First, AIDA proposes a classification of AI systems, particularly distinguishing "high-risk" systems, defined by their potential impact on individuals' rights, safety, or interests. These high-risk systems are subject to stricter requirements than low-risk systems, though all AI systems must be evaluated based on their potential risk. Transparency is also a key aspect of the law, requiring companies to inform users when an AI system is used to make decisions about them. In addition to transparency, explainability is required for high-risk systems, ensuring companies can clearly explain the decisions made by their algorithms.

Before deploying any high-risk AI system, companies must conduct an AI impact assessment (AIA) to identify risks related to data protection, security, and individual rights. The results of these assessments must be documented and, in some cases, shared with regulatory authorities. Additionally, companies must implement measures to ensure the security of data and algorithms used by their AI systems while maintaining rigorous data governance to prevent discriminatory biases or errors in outcomes. High-risk AI systems must also undergo continuous monitoring to correct any anomalies or deviations and be regularly audited to allow for traceability and verification of the decisions made by the algorithm.

In the event of non-compliance with AIDA obligations, companies may face severe penalties, including significant fines, especially if the misuse of an AI system results in harm to individuals. Companies are also required to take immediate corrective action when an AI system is found to be non-compliant or causes harm, which may include suspending its use or fixing the errors. Compliance with these obligations will be overseen by an AI and Data Commissioner, who will have the authority to conduct investigations, request audits, and impose sanctions for non-compliance. The commissioner will also play a role in promoting ethical AI practices by providing guidelines and encouraging transparency and innovation.

Preventing discriminatory biases is another fundamental pillar of the bill. AI systems must be designed to avoid any form of discrimination based on race, gender, age, or other protected characteristics. Companies must demonstrate that they have implemented measures to identify and correct these biases. In this regard, promoting ethical AI practices, such as transparency, fairness, and respect for individual rights, is strongly encouraged. Finally, collaboration with stakeholders, including users and civil society, is promoted to ensure that AI systems are developed and evaluated with ethical and social expectations in mind.

In conclusion, Bill C-27, through AIDA, establishes a strict framework for the use of AI in Canada, aimed at protecting individuals' rights while promoting responsible innovation. For companies looking to benefit from AI, complying with these new obligations will be crucial to ensuring their AI initiatives are not only effective but also ethical and in line with regulatory requirements. If you have any questions, or need help planning your compliance efforts, don’t hesitate to contact us.

September 2, 2024 | Christian Vezina

Adopted on September 22, 2021, Bill 25, also known as the Act to Modernize Legislative Provisions Regarding the Protection of Personal Information, marks a significant milestone in the evolution of data protection in Quebec. This legislation aims to strengthen individuals' rights and impose new obligations on organizations in both the public and private sectors. Here are the key points of this law and its implications for businesses.

New Rights for Individuals: Bill 25 introduces two important new rights for Quebec citizens. The right to data portability allows individuals to request that their personal information be transferred from one organization to another in an accessible format. The right to be forgotten, on the other hand, provides individuals with the ability to demand the deletion of their personal data when it is no longer necessary or when consent has been withdrawn.

Increased Obligations for Businesses: Organizations must also comply with several new obligations. Among these, the appointment of a Chief Compliance Officer for the Protection of Personal Information (CCOPI), who will oversee the protection of information within the organization, is now required. This role is typically assigned to the chief executive officer unless otherwise designated. Furthermore, prior to any project involving personal data, businesses must conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) to ensure compliance and protect individuals.

Explicit Consent and Transparency: Regarding consent and transparency, the law imposes stricter standards. Consent from individuals must be explicit, clear, and informed, and it can no longer be implicit. Organizations must also transparently inform individuals about the use of their data, the purposes for which it is collected, and the rights of the individuals concerned.

Management of Privacy Incidents: When a privacy incident occurs, Bill 25 requires mandatory notification to the Commission d’accès à l’information (CAI) as well as to the affected individuals if a serious risk is identified. Additionally, organizations must maintain a record of incidents documenting all events related to privacy, regardless of whether notification is required.

Sanctions and Penalties: The sanctions outlined in Bill 25 are severe for non-compliant organizations. They face administrative fines of up to $10 million or 2% of their global annual revenue. In cases of serious non-compliance, criminal penalties may be imposed, with fines reaching up to $25 million or 4% of global annual revenue.

Implementation Timeline: The law is being implemented gradually over three years, with the first phase on September 22, 2022, marking the appointment of a Chief Compliance Officer for the Protection of Personal Information (CCOPI) and the introduction of initial obligations. On September 22, 2023, the obligation to conduct Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) came into effect. Finally, on September 22, 2024, all provisions of the law will be fully in force, including new requirements for transparency and data portability.

Implications for Organizations: To comply with Bill 25, businesses must review and adjust their personal information management practices. This includes revising consent policies, proactively managing privacy incidents, and implementing more rigorous data governance. These new obligations are likely to prompt organizations to invest in technologies that facilitate consent management, data protection, and regulatory compliance.

Conclusion: Bill 25 imposes strict standards and modernizes data management in Quebec. To remain compliant, organizations will need to adjust their processes and invest in suitable technological solutions, thereby ensuring enhanced protection of personal information. If you need assistance in establishing and implementing your compliance plan, please do not hesitate to contact us.

September 23, 2024 | Christian Vezina

In today’s evolving cybersecurity landscape, both IT (Information Technology) and OT (Operational Technology) security play critical roles in protecting an organization’s assets. However, while they may seem similar on the surface, IT security and OT security operate under vastly different principles, priorities, and challenges. Understanding these differences is essential for anyone involved in the protection of critical infrastructure, especially as these two domains are increasingly converging.

IT security focuses on protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA triad) of digital information within traditional computing environments like servers, networks, and endpoints. This includes safeguarding business systems such as email, databases, and file servers from external and internal threats. Common attack vectors in IT environments include malware, phishing, and DDoS attacks, and the primary objectives are data protection, privacy, and regulatory compliance.

On the other hand, OT security deals with protecting systems that control physical processes, such as those found in manufacturing plants, energy grids, transportation systems, and utilities. OT environments consist of Industrial Control Systems (ICS), SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems, PLCs (Programmable Logic Controllers), and sensors that manage physical processes. The main goal of OT security is to ensure the availability and safe operation of these systems. A disruption or compromise in OT could lead to physical damage, downtime, or even risk to human lives.

Key Differences Between IT and OT Security

Priorities. The primary difference between IT and OT security lies in their priorities. IT security emphasizes confidentiality, ensuring that sensitive information like customer data or intellectual property is protected. In contrast, OT security focuses on availability and safety, as even a brief interruption in service could have catastrophic consequences, from production halts to safety risks. In OT environments, maintaining operational continuity is paramount, making availability the top priority.

Risk Tolerance. The risk tolerance between IT and OT also differs significantly. In IT environments, regular system patches and updates are part of standard cybersecurity practices to fix vulnerabilities and enhance security. While this may lead to occasional downtime, it is generally acceptable in IT settings. However, in OT environments, updates and patches must be handled with extreme caution, as even brief downtime can severely impact critical infrastructure, production schedules, or safety measures. This means that OT systems are often designed to run continuously, with minimal opportunities for updates or maintenance, which increases the complexity of managing security in these environments.

System Lifecycle. Another key distinction is in the lifecycle of the systems themselves. IT systems generally have shorter lifecycles, typically ranging from three to five years, and are regularly upgraded or replaced to meet new performance and security demands. In contrast, OT systems often operate for decades and rely on legacy technologies that were not initially designed with cybersecurity in mind. Replacing or upgrading OT systems can be expensive, time-consuming, and operationally disruptive, creating additional challenges for security management.

Attack Surface. The attack surface in OT environments is also broader and more vulnerable. IT environments typically operate with more controlled security measures, such as firewalls, access controls, and monitoring systems that can detect and prevent intrusions. In OT environments, however, legacy equipment, proprietary protocols, and less secure communication methods are common. Many OT systems were not originally designed for internet connectivity but are now increasingly being integrated with IoT technologies, exposing them to cyber threats. This growing interconnectivity raises the stakes for OT security.

Security Tools. In terms of security tools, IT security uses standard measures like firewalls, antivirus software, intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS), and SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) solutions. OT security requires more specialized tools that focus on securing industrial protocols, such as Modbus or DNP3, and monitoring physical processes. Unlike IT systems, which can afford some level of disruption for maintenance, OT systems require security solutions that can be implemented non-intrusively, without halting operations.

Human Safety and Impact. One of the most critical differences between IT and OT security is the potential impact of a security breach. In IT, data breaches can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, or legal issues, but they generally do not pose immediate physical risks. In OT, a cyberattack can result in much more severe consequences, including physical damage to equipment, environmental hazards, or threats to human life. For instance, an attack on a power plant or water treatment facility could have life-threatening implications.

The Convergence of IT and OT

As industries embrace digital transformation, IT and OT systems are becoming more interconnected, blurring the lines between the two domains. This convergence creates efficiencies but also increases the risk of cyber threats that can bridge both environments. Cyberattacks like Stuxnet have demonstrated how vulnerabilities in IT networks can be exploited to target OT systems. The convergence of IT and OT makes it essential for organizations to develop a unified security strategy that addresses the unique needs of both domains.

While IT and OT security share the goal of protecting assets, they differ significantly in their approach, priorities, and the risks involved. As industrial systems become more connected with digital platforms, cybersecurity professionals must understand these differences and work towards developing tailored security strategies that address the unique challenges of both IT and OT environments. Maintaining a balance between security and operational efficiency is key to ensuring both the safety of physical processes and the protection of digital assets. If you need assistance sorting out where you stand and establish a roadmap to a resilient environment, don’t hesitate to contact us.