Cyberattack hits Liechtenstein’s register of people behind companies and foundations

“I would not like to call this an incident. Let’s say it’s a diplomatic misunderstanding,” said Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister Andrii Sybiha. But the South Korean president definitely sees it as a serious incident, and he has already gone public with it.

“If (Ukraine’s) refusal to acknowledge the facts and issue a public apology continues, we will take additional measures,” President Lee Jae-myung wrote on X. He probably means cutting the non-military aid South Korea gives to Ukraine. (There is no military aid, since the constitution bans Seoul from providing arms to a country actively involved in a war).

What monstrous misdeed did the Ukrainian government commit to deserve such harsh words from a country that is generally sympathetic to Ukraine’s struggle against its giant neighbour? Have the South Koreans discovered Ukrainian spies in the Blue House?

No, it’s what we professionals call a “spat.”

Artificial intelligence is accelerating faster than the governance structures meant to contain it. Canada now faces a structural test — whether our institutions can protect autonomy, dignity, and continuity in an era when decision-making is increasingly mediated by systems we did not design, cannot fully audit, and do not yet constitutionally constrain.

This is not a technological problem. It is a governance problem.

AI systems influence how information flows, how institutions behave, and how decisions are made. They shape the conditions under which harm becomes predictable. They amplify both the strengths and weaknesses of the systems into which they are deployed. And they do all of this at a scale and speed that outpaces traditional regulatory tools.

Canada’s current approach to AI governance relies heavily on policy, guidelines, and sector-specific regulation. These are important, but they are not sufficient. What is missing is structural clarity — a constitutional-grade framework that defines authority, responsibility, accountability, and the minimum conditions under which AI systems may operate without undermining human dignity or institutional credibility.