AI in Cybersecurity: The Governance Question No One Is Asking
Artificial intelligence is now embedded across cybersecurity tooling - from detection and response to policy management and reporting.
But regulators are asking a different question than vendors:
Who remains accountable when AI is involved?
What regulators actually care about
UK and EU regulators are broadly aligned on one principle:
AI may support decisions, but accountability must remain human.
This is consistent with guidance from bodies such as:
- The Information Commissioner's Office, which emphasises explainability and accountability
- Emerging EU AI governance principles that stress auditability and oversight
As the ICO has stated:
“Organisations must be able to explain and justify decisions made with the assistance of AI.”
Where AI genuinely adds value
In a cyber governance context, AI is highly effective when used for:
- Risk aggregation and pattern detection
- Mapping controls to regulatory obligations
- Translating technical exposure into business language
- Preparing board-ready insight
These are preparation activities - not governance judgements.
Where AI must not decide
AI should not:
- Accept or reject risk
- Set risk appetite
- Override board judgement
- Replace decision ownership
From a regulatory standpoint, automated governance is indefensible.
RockSec360’s AI philosophy
At RockSec360, AI is used to remove friction - not responsibility.
Our model is simple:
AI prepares.
People decide.
Governance is evidenced.
This alignment is critical for regulator trust, insurer confidence, and board protection.
Experience AI-enabled governance without accountability dilution via the Cyber Risk & Compliance ScoreCard
