The need for privacy and security has grown in tandem with the rapid proliferation of internet-enabled technologies. This is a major concern for consumers and individuals, and governments are increasingly mindful of online threats to their national security and their citizens. All of this represents an imposing challenge for companies—especially now that technology has enabled them to operate with relative ease across jurisdictions throughout the world.

The rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence in various industries is increasingly attracting the attention of regulators, who aim to encourage the progression of AI technologies while ensuring their responsible use. Recent regulatory developments around the world, including in the European Union and Southeast Asia, serve as evidence of this emerging trend. Here we shall discuss the effect of AI regulatory approaches in the  EU on Southeast Asian countries. Approach and Action The EU Artificial Intelligence Act has been officially adopted by EU colegislators and will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the EU Official Journal.[1] Most of its provisions will apply two years after its entry into force. The act establishes a harmonized EU legal framework, aiming at ensuring that AI systems placed on and utilized in the EU market are safe, have managed risks, and are aligned with EU fundamental rights and values. Countries in Southeast Asia, predominantly governed by civil law systems, often adopt statutory frameworks similar to those in the EU when addressing new legal matters. In the rapidly developing field of AI, Southeast Asian countries are adopting a wait-andsee approach toward global regulatory trends. This cautious stance allows them to observe and analyze international developments in AI regulation before crafting their own frameworks. Compared to the EU, countries in Southeast Asia are generally more focused on using AI for national development. Common themes include building human resource capability, developing ecosystems and building infrastructure. Some countries emphasize governance and ethics more than others. Over the past five years, governments across Southeast Asia have been focusing on promoting AI by implementing national policies to strengthen AI promotion and governance. While there may be less regional integration in the approach to AI of countries in Southeast Asia, there are some efforts to create

“Forced labor” has many incarnations. Some forms are shocking, such as a case in 2021 where Vietnamese guest workers were brought to a Chinese-owned factory in Serbia that manufactured tires sold to European car companies. The guest workers allegedly had their passports taken away and were subjected to horrible living conditions, including a lack of food, forcing them to resort to hunting small animals in the nearby forest to survive. However, forced labor more often takes subtler forms, so that most people do not even recognize it as such. For example, a factory may receive an order with an extremely short production deadline, and the workers are instructed to work overtime hours. If the employees refuse to do so and stop working when their regular shift ends, they receive warning letters the next day. While less shocking than the situation of the guest workers forced to hunt squirrels to survive, it is also forced labor. ILO Convention No. 29 on Forced Labor defines forced labor as “all work or service…extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered…[them]self voluntarily.” The ILO names 11 indicators of forced labor: abuse of vulnerability, deception; restriction of movement, isolation, physical/sexual violence, intimidation and threats, retention of identity documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive working or living conditions, and excessive overtime. Excessive overtime in particular is common in the manufacturing sector in Southeast Asia, and debt bondage is also prevalent. Some companies demand employees provide a “training deposit” when they commence their employment, which they will have repaid provided they continue working for a minimum period. However, these common practices may soon be eradicated due to new supply chain due diligence legislation. Two such examples demonstrating this greater focus on forced labor within