The scenario describes a legislative drafting situation in Arkansas concerning the implementation of cloud services security controls, specifically referencing ISO 27017:2015. The core of the question lies in understanding the responsibility allocation between a cloud service customer and a cloud service provider within the framework of this standard. ISO 27017:2015, which provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services, emphasizes a shared responsibility model. In this model, certain security controls are the responsibility of the cloud service provider (CSP), while others are the responsibility of the cloud service customer. The standard explicitly defines which controls fall under each party’s purview. For instance, the CSP is typically responsible for the security *of* the cloud infrastructure, including the physical security of data centers, network security, and the hypervisor layer in IaaS. The customer, on the other hand, is responsible for security *in* the cloud, which includes managing their operating systems, applications, data, access controls, and user identities. Therefore, when drafting legislation that mandates adherence to ISO 27017:2015 for cloud services used by Arkansas state agencies, the legislation must clearly delineate these shared responsibilities to avoid ambiguity and ensure accountability. The specific control related to the secure configuration and management of virtual machine images, including operating system patching and application software updates, falls squarely within the customer’s domain of responsibility, as it pertains to the security of the data and applications running *within* the cloud environment, not the underlying cloud infrastructure itself.

The Arkansas General Assembly’s Legislative Council plays a crucial role in overseeing legislative activities between sessions. One of its key functions is the review of proposed administrative rules promulgated by state agencies. Arkansas Code Annotated § 10-3-309(a) outlines the process by which the Legislative Council reviews these rules. When a rule is submitted to the Legislative Council, it is referred to the appropriate committee for review. The committee then has a period to examine the rule for compliance with legislative intent, statutory authority, and procedural correctness. If the committee finds the rule to be inconsistent with legislative intent or statutory authority, or if it was not promulgated in accordance with the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, it can recommend disapproval. The Legislative Council then considers these recommendations. Arkansas Code Annotated § 10-3-309(c) specifies that if the Legislative Council disapproves a rule, it is transmitted to the Governor. The Governor then has a period to review the disapproval. If the Governor vetoes the disapproval, the rule becomes effective. However, if the Governor sustains the disapproval, the rule is void. The question probes the specific outcome when the Governor *does not* veto the Legislative Council’s disapproval. In this scenario, the disapproval is sustained, rendering the rule void. Therefore, the rule does not become effective.

The question pertains to the application of ISO 27017:2015 controls within a legislative drafting context, specifically concerning cloud service security. ISO 27017 is an international standard that provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services. It builds upon ISO 27002 and addresses specific cloud-related security issues. When drafting legislation related to cloud services, particularly in a jurisdiction like Arkansas, understanding the shared responsibility model is paramount. This model delineates the security obligations of the cloud service provider (CSP) and the cloud service customer (CSC). ISO 27017:2015, Clause 6.3.1, “Information security in the service delivery process,” outlines that the CSC is responsible for securing data and user access within the cloud environment, while the CSP is responsible for the security of the underlying cloud infrastructure. Therefore, legislative provisions must clearly define these responsibilities to avoid ambiguity and ensure accountability. For instance, legislation might mandate that a CSC in Arkansas must implement specific access control mechanisms and data encryption for sensitive information processed in the cloud, aligning with the CSC’s responsibilities as defined by the standard. Conversely, the legislation would also need to address the CSP’s obligations regarding the physical security of data centers and network security. The core principle is that the drafting must reflect the distinct yet interconnected security roles inherent in cloud computing as detailed in ISO 27017.

The scenario involves a legislative amendment to Arkansas Code § 14-14-706, which governs the creation of municipal improvement districts. The core of the question lies in understanding the procedural requirements for amending the enabling legislation of such a district, specifically concerning public notice and the potential for citizen challenge. Arkansas Code § 14-14-706, as amended, requires that any material alteration to the powers or boundaries of an improvement district, as originally established by ordinance or resolution, must be publicized through a prescribed notice period in a newspaper of general circulation within the county where the district is primarily located. Following this publication, there is a statutory window during which affected property owners can petition for a judicial review or challenge the amendment. This challenge period is typically 30 days from the date of the final publication of the notice. Therefore, if the amendment is published on October 15th, the challenge period would conclude on November 14th. The legislative drafter must ensure that the amendment clearly delineates the specific changes and that the notice publication adheres strictly to the statutory requirements to prevent legal challenges based on procedural defects. The legislative intent behind such provisions is to provide transparency and an opportunity for due process for those whose property rights or interests might be affected by changes to the district’s operational framework or geographic scope.

The scenario involves a legislative proposal in Arkansas aimed at regulating the use of cloud services by state agencies. The core of the question lies in understanding the appropriate framework for such regulation, considering the shared responsibility model inherent in cloud computing and the specific security controls outlined in ISO 27017:2015. ISO 27017 provides guidance on information security controls for cloud services, extending the controls of ISO 27002. It addresses both cloud service customers and cloud service providers, acknowledging their distinct but overlapping responsibilities. When drafting legislation for state agencies using cloud services, it is crucial to define clear lines of responsibility for security. Arkansas Code Annotated (ACA) Title 19, Chapter 5, Subchapter 10, concerning information technology policies, and ACA Title 19, Chapter 5, Subchapter 11, regarding data security, would be relevant foundational statutes. However, the specific controls for cloud environments, particularly the division of security tasks between the agency (customer) and the cloud provider, require a more granular approach. ISO 27017’s control objectives and controls, such as those related to access control, cryptography, incident management, and business continuity, must be mapped to the responsibilities of the state agency as the customer. The legislation should mandate that state agencies contractually ensure that cloud service providers adhere to relevant ISO 27017 controls applicable to the provider’s role, while the agency itself remains responsible for implementing controls within its purview, as defined by its use of the cloud service. This necessitates a legislative approach that empowers agencies to enforce these contractual obligations and outlines the agency’s own responsibilities for managing the security of their data and applications within the cloud. Therefore, the most effective legislative approach would be to require state agencies to establish clear contractual agreements with cloud providers that explicitly define and allocate security responsibilities in accordance with ISO 27017 controls relevant to both parties.

The core of this question revolves around the legislative drafting process in Arkansas, specifically concerning the amendment of existing statutes. When drafting an amendment to an Arkansas Code Annotated (A.C.A.) section, the primary objective is to clearly indicate which portions of the existing law are being modified, added, or deleted. The standard practice for indicating deletions is to strike through the text that is to be removed. Conversely, new text to be inserted is typically underlined. This visual distinction is crucial for legislative review committees, fellow legislators, and the public to understand the precise changes being proposed. Therefore, to amend A.C.A. § 14-20-101 by removing the phrase “and shall be eligible for reappointment” while adding the phrase “and shall serve a term of four years,” the correct drafting convention involves striking through the former and underlining the latter. This ensures clarity and precision in the legislative record, adhering to established drafting protocols within Arkansas.

The scenario describes a legislative proposal in Arkansas aimed at regulating the use of artificial intelligence in state government operations. The core of the question lies in understanding how legislative drafting principles, particularly those concerning clarity, enforceability, and scope, apply to emerging technologies like AI. When drafting legislation for AI, a key consideration is defining the scope of “artificial intelligence” itself, as the term is broad and constantly evolving. A well-drafted law needs precise definitions to avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent application. For instance, a definition might specify types of AI systems, their intended uses, or the data they process. Furthermore, the legislation must address the accountability for AI-driven decisions, the ethical implications of AI deployment, and the procedures for oversight and auditing. The principle of “due diligence” in legislative drafting is paramount, requiring drafters to anticipate potential issues and unintended consequences. The Arkansas Code Annotated, Title 1, Chapter 2, Section 101, emphasizes the importance of clear and unambiguous language in statutory construction. When drafting a bill to regulate AI, the drafter must consider the technological landscape, potential impacts on citizens, and existing legal frameworks. The goal is to create a statute that is both effective in achieving its stated purpose and adaptable to future technological advancements. The definition of AI in the proposed legislation is critical for establishing the boundaries of its regulatory reach, impacting everything from data privacy requirements to the types of AI systems subject to review. A broad, overly inclusive definition could stifle innovation, while a narrow definition might fail to capture significant AI applications. Therefore, a balanced and precise definition, often informed by expert consultation and comparative analysis of similar legislation in other jurisdictions like Texas or California, is essential for a successful legislative outcome. The legislative intent must be clearly articulated, guiding the interpretation and implementation of the law. The Arkansas General Assembly’s rules of legislative procedure also dictate how bills are structured and debated, ensuring that such complex issues are thoroughly vetted.

The scenario describes a legislative amendment in Arkansas concerning the disclosure of certain data by cloud service providers. The core issue revolves around balancing transparency with the protection of proprietary information and client confidentiality. Arkansas Code § 4-102-101, while not directly about cloud security standards like ISO 27017, sets a precedent for legislative intent regarding data protection and disclosure in commercial transactions within the state. When drafting legislation that interfaces with existing frameworks, such as cloud service agreements governed by international standards like ISO 27017:2015, a drafter must consider how the new provisions interact with established legal principles and industry best practices. Specifically, ISO 27017:2015 provides controls for cloud security, including aspects related to customer and provider responsibilities for data. A legislative amendment in Arkansas aiming to mandate specific disclosures about data processing locations and security measures by cloud providers would need to be carefully worded to avoid conflicts with contractual obligations and to ensure enforceability. The amendment must define the scope of “sensitive data” and the specific “security measures” to be disclosed. Furthermore, it must consider the practicalities of disclosure for providers operating across multiple jurisdictions, as well as the potential impact on competitive advantage if proprietary security protocols are revealed. The legislative intent is to enhance consumer protection and regulatory oversight without unduly burdening businesses or creating loopholes. Therefore, a provision that requires disclosure of data processing locations and a summary of implemented security controls, as defined by relevant international standards, strikes a balance between these competing interests. This approach ensures that stakeholders have visibility into data handling practices while allowing providers to protect specific technical details that constitute trade secrets. The legislation should also specify the format and frequency of such disclosures.

The scenario describes a situation where a legislative act in Arkansas, specifically Act 589 of 2021, is being reviewed for its impact on digital services and data privacy. The question probes the understanding of how such legislation, aiming to regulate cloud service providers operating within Arkansas, would be interpreted and applied in practice, particularly concerning the shared responsibility model inherent in cloud computing. ISO 27017:2015 provides a framework for information security controls for cloud services. When drafting legislation that interacts with cloud service providers, a key consideration is the delineation of responsibilities between the cloud service provider (CSP) and the cloud service customer (CSC). Act 589 of 2021, as a hypothetical Arkansas law, would likely need to address this shared responsibility. The correct approach for drafting such legislation would be to explicitly define the minimum security obligations of the CSP concerning the underlying cloud infrastructure and services provided, while acknowledging that the CSC retains responsibility for the security of their data and applications within that environment. This aligns with the principles of ISO 27017:2015, which emphasizes defining roles and responsibilities for cloud security. Specifically, Clause 5.1.1 of ISO 27017:2015, titled “Roles and responsibilities,” mandates that the CSP and CSC agree on the security responsibilities. Therefore, a legislative act would need to reflect this by clearly stating the CSP’s baseline obligations, such as physical security of data centers, network security of the infrastructure, and the security of the virtualization layer, while leaving the responsibility for data encryption, access control management, and application security to the customer, unless otherwise specified by contract or the law itself. This nuanced understanding of shared responsibility is critical for effective and enforceable digital service regulation in Arkansas.

The core of this question revolves around the principle of legislative intent and how it guides statutory interpretation when a specific Arkansas statute is ambiguous or silent on a particular issue. When a court encounters a statute that does not explicitly address a modern technological development like cloud service shared responsibility models, it must look beyond the literal text. The primary goal is to ascertain what the legislature intended when it enacted the law, assuming it could foresee such developments or that the underlying principles of the law are adaptable. This involves examining various sources, including the plain language of the statute, the legislative history of the act (such as committee reports, floor debates, and sponsor statements), the purpose or objective the statute was designed to achieve, and any prior judicial interpretations of similar statutes. The principle of *in pari materia* might also be considered, where statutes dealing with the same subject matter are construed together. However, when a statute is truly silent and no legislative history directly addresses the emerging issue, courts often rely on the overarching purpose of the legislation and principles of common law or established legal doctrines that best fit the new context. The specific context of cloud services, with its inherent shared responsibility between the customer and provider, necessitates an interpretation that aligns with the general principles of liability, contract law, and consumer protection as they existed or were intended at the time of the statute’s enactment, adapted to the new technological paradigm. The Arkansas General Assembly’s intent, as reflected in the broader statutory framework governing, for example, data privacy or contractual obligations, would be paramount.

The scenario describes a legislative drafting challenge in Arkansas concerning the implementation of a cloud service security framework, specifically referencing ISO 27017:2015 controls. The core issue is determining the most appropriate legislative mechanism to ensure compliance for cloud service providers operating within or offering services to Arkansas citizens. Arkansas Code Annotated (ACA) Title 4, Chapter 1, Subchapter 11, concerning the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and ACA Title 17, Chapter 10, concerning professional licensing and regulation, provide potential avenues. However, the question focuses on the *type* of legislative instrument best suited for establishing broad security standards for cloud services, which often involves a framework that can be updated and adapted to evolving technological landscapes and international standards. A legislative act or statute is the primary form of law enacted by the Arkansas General Assembly. While rules and regulations promulgated by state agencies (like the Department of Information Systems, if it were to be tasked with this) are crucial for detailed implementation, the foundational authority and broad policy direction for a comprehensive security framework like ISO 27017 would originate from a statute. A joint resolution is typically used for matters of legislative opinion or to propose constitutional amendments, not for establishing regulatory frameworks. An executive order is issued by the Governor and has the force of law but is generally for administrative matters or to direct executive branch agencies, not to create comprehensive statutory obligations for private entities in the same way an act of the legislature does. Therefore, a legislative act is the most direct and appropriate method for establishing a statutory mandate for cloud service providers to adhere to specific security controls, such as those outlined in ISO 27017:2015, within Arkansas.

The scenario describes a situation where a legislative act in Arkansas, specifically concerning the regulation of digital asset custodians, needs to be amended to align with evolving federal interpretations of consumer protection laws. The core of the amendment involves defining the scope of “digital assets” and the responsibilities of custodians regarding segregation and reconciliation of client assets. Arkansas Code Annotated (A.C.A.) § 23-70-101 et seq., the foundational legislation for digital asset custodians in Arkansas, requires custodians to maintain accurate records and segregate client assets from the custodian’s own assets. However, recent guidance from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on similar regulatory frameworks suggests a need for more granular detail in asset reconciliation procedures to prevent commingling and ensure clear title. To address this, the legislative drafter must identify the most appropriate mechanism within the existing Arkansas legislative framework to introduce these enhanced requirements. Amending the existing statute is the most direct and legally sound approach. The specific amendments would focus on clarifying the definition of “digital asset” to encompass a broader range of cryptographic tokens and decentralized identifiers, and to mandate a daily reconciliation process for all segregated client digital assets against the custodian’s internal ledger and, where applicable, blockchain explorers. This reconciliation must verify the existence and ownership of each client’s holdings. The objective is to strengthen consumer protection by ensuring transparency and preventing the misuse of client assets, thereby enhancing the security and trustworthiness of digital asset custodians operating under Arkansas law. This aligns with the principle of ensuring that state legislation remains current with federal regulatory trends and best practices in emerging financial technologies.

The scenario describes a legislative proposal in Arkansas aimed at regulating the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal document drafting, specifically focusing on the potential for bias amplification. The core of the question revolves around identifying the most appropriate legislative mechanism to address this issue, considering the principles of legislative drafting and the nuances of AI regulation. Arkansas Code Annotated (ACA) Title 1, Chapter 2, Subchapter 10, concerning the legislative process and bill drafting, provides the framework. When drafting legislation to address emerging technological issues with potential societal impacts, drafters must consider existing legal structures and the feasibility of enforcement. The proposal aims to ensure fairness and prevent discriminatory outcomes, which aligns with broader constitutional principles of equal protection. Identifying specific AI models or algorithms for direct legislative prohibition is often impractical due to the rapid evolution of technology and the proprietary nature of many AI systems. Instead, a more effective approach is to focus on the *outcomes* and *processes* that can lead to bias. Establishing clear standards for AI model testing, validation, and ongoing monitoring for biased outputs, along with requiring transparency in the development and deployment of AI used in legal drafting, provides a more robust and adaptable regulatory framework. This approach allows for flexibility as AI technology advances while ensuring accountability for discriminatory results. Therefore, mandating rigorous pre-deployment bias audits and continuous post-deployment performance monitoring, coupled with a requirement for explanatory documentation regarding the AI’s decision-making processes, represents a comprehensive legislative strategy. This strategy focuses on preventing harm by ensuring that AI tools used in legal drafting are developed and operated in a manner that mitigates, rather than amplifies, existing societal biases, thereby upholding principles of fairness and equal access to justice within Arkansas.

The scenario describes a legislative act in Arkansas aimed at regulating the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in state government operations. Specifically, it addresses the procurement and deployment of AI systems, requiring a comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation strategy before implementation. The core principle being tested is the due diligence required by governmental entities when adopting new technologies, particularly those with potential societal impacts. In Arkansas, legislative drafting must adhere to established procedural rules and substantive legal frameworks. When drafting legislation concerning emerging technologies like AI, drafters must consider existing statutes, constitutional provisions, and potential impacts on citizens’ rights and governmental efficiency. The requirement for a “comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation strategy” directly aligns with the need for legislative foresight to anticipate and address potential harms, such as bias in algorithms, data privacy violations, or unintended consequences in public service delivery. This approach ensures that the deployment of AI is both effective and responsible, safeguarding public interest and maintaining accountability. The legislative process in Arkansas involves multiple readings, committee reviews, and gubernatorial approval, all of which provide opportunities to refine such requirements. Therefore, a bill mandating a detailed pre-implementation assessment for AI in state government reflects a proactive approach to governance, ensuring that the adoption of advanced technologies is preceded by thorough evaluation and planning, consistent with the principles of sound public administration and legal accountability.

The question asks to identify the most appropriate legislative drafting action when a proposed bill in Arkansas aims to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in state government operations, specifically focusing on data privacy and security, and the drafter must ensure compliance with existing federal regulations and best practices in cloud security. ISO 27017:2015, an international standard for information security management for cloud services, provides a framework for controls related to cloud service customers and cloud service providers. When drafting legislation that impacts cloud services, particularly those used by government entities, aligning with recognized security standards is crucial for ensuring robust data protection and operational resilience. Arkansas Code Title 19, Chapter 11, Subchapter 7, addresses state government information technology security policies and standards, which would be the primary state-level legal context. However, the question specifically asks about the drafting action concerning the *implementation* of controls informed by cloud security best practices. When drafting legislation to regulate AI in state government, considering the security of the underlying cloud infrastructure is paramount. ISO 27017 provides controls that address both cloud service provider and cloud service customer responsibilities, including aspects like asset management, access control, cryptography, and incident management, all of which are relevant to AI systems processing sensitive state data in a cloud environment. Therefore, the drafter should ensure the proposed legislation explicitly or implicitly references or allows for alignment with such established cloud security standards. This involves reviewing the proposed bill to see if it mandates specific security measures or provides a mechanism for adopting or referencing relevant standards. If the bill is silent or vague on these aspects, the drafting action should be to incorporate language that either mandates adherence to recognized cloud security frameworks or grants authority to a state agency (like the Department of Information Systems in Arkansas) to develop and enforce such standards, ensuring they are consistent with federal requirements and international best practices like ISO 27017. This approach ensures that the legislation is forward-looking, adaptable, and grounded in established security principles, thereby enhancing the security posture of state government AI deployments.

The scenario describes a situation where a legislative bill in Arkansas aims to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making, specifically concerning the procurement of cloud services. The core issue is ensuring that AI systems used in these processes are transparent, accountable, and do not introduce bias. In Arkansas legislative drafting, when a bill proposes to adopt or adapt standards from external bodies, the drafting process involves careful consideration of how to integrate these standards into the statutory language. This often entails defining key terms, specifying compliance mechanisms, and establishing oversight. For instance, if a bill references ISO 27017:2015 (Code of practice for information security controls applicable to cloud services) and mandates its application to AI procurement for cloud services, the drafter must ensure that the bill clearly articulates which specific controls from ISO 27017 are relevant to AI and cloud procurement. This involves identifying the clauses within ISO 27017 that address risk management, access control, data protection, and service level agreements, and then translating these into enforceable legal requirements. The bill might require agencies to conduct risk assessments that consider AI-specific vulnerabilities within the cloud environment, implement controls for data segregation and privacy in AI-driven cloud services, and establish clear accountability for AI system outputs. The drafting process would involve defining terms like “public sector decision-making,” “cloud services,” and “artificial intelligence” within the context of Arkansas law. It would also require specifying the reporting and auditing mechanisms to ensure compliance with the adopted ISO standards. The drafter must anticipate potential ambiguities and ensure that the language is precise enough to be legally sound and practically implementable by state agencies. The bill would likely need to outline a process for periodic review and updates to align with evolving AI technologies and cloud security best practices, potentially by referencing future revisions of ISO standards or establishing a state-level advisory committee.

The scenario describes a situation where a legislative act is being drafted in Arkansas, specifically concerning data protection for cloud services. The core of the question revolves around identifying the most appropriate control from ISO 27017:2015 that directly addresses the risk of unauthorized disclosure of sensitive customer data stored in a public cloud environment. ISO 27017 provides guidance on information security for cloud services. Control A.9.2.3, “Management of privileged access rights,” is relevant to controlling access to cloud infrastructure, but it focuses on the management of accounts with elevated privileges. Control A.14.1.2, “Secure development policy,” pertains to the security of the software development lifecycle, not the ongoing operational security of cloud services. Control A.14.2.7, “Secure system engineering principles,” is a broader principle guiding secure design. Control A.18.1.4, “Protection of information assets,” is the most directly applicable control. This control mandates that organizations identify and protect information assets, including customer data, from unauthorized disclosure, modification, or destruction. In the context of cloud services, this translates to implementing measures to safeguard data against breaches, which is precisely the concern raised in the question. Therefore, ensuring that the drafted legislation aligns with the principles of protecting information assets is paramount.

The question probes the understanding of legislative drafting principles concerning the amendment of existing statutes in Arkansas, specifically when a new act is intended to modify a prior law. Arkansas Code § 1-4-103, titled “Amendments to be published at length,” dictates that when an act amends a section or part of a section of a previous act, the new act must publish the entire section or part as amended. This ensures clarity and prevents ambiguity by presenting the complete, updated text of the law, rather than relying on the reader to mentally integrate the changes into the original wording. Failure to publish the amended section at length can lead to confusion regarding the operative text of the law, undermining the principle of clear statutory expression. Therefore, a drafter must ensure that any amendment to an existing Arkansas statute is presented in its entirety as it will read after the amendment takes effect. This practice is fundamental to maintaining the integrity and understandability of the state’s codified laws.

The scenario describes a legislative drafting challenge within Arkansas, specifically concerning the integration of cloud service security controls, referencing ISO 27017:2015. The core issue is how to legally compel a cloud service provider (CSP), operating outside Arkansas but serving Arkansas citizens, to adhere to specific security standards that are not explicitly mandated by Arkansas law but are recommended by an international standard. The legislative drafter must consider the constitutional limits of state power over entities not physically located within the state’s borders and the practicalities of enforcement. Arkansas Code Title 1, Chapter 2, Subchapter 7, concerning electronic transactions and data security, provides a framework, but the direct applicability to a foreign-based CSP for ISO 27017 compliance is nuanced. The challenge lies in crafting language that establishes a nexus or a basis for jurisdiction and mandates compliance without exceeding the state’s authority. Option A proposes a direct mandate for all CSPs serving Arkansas residents, which might face extraterritoriality challenges and could be overly broad. Option B suggests a voluntary compliance framework, which doesn’t meet the goal of compelling adherence. Option C focuses on contractual requirements for state agencies, which is a valid but limited approach, only affecting state-level procurements. Option D, however, proposes a tiered approach tied to the CSP’s business activities within Arkansas, such as having a physical presence or significant data processing operations related to Arkansas residents. This approach leverages existing legal principles for asserting jurisdiction over out-of-state entities engaged in business within a state, making it the most legally sound and potentially enforceable method for compelling compliance with security standards like those in ISO 27017, even if not directly codified in Arkansas law. The drafter would need to define “significant business activities” and “data processing related to Arkansas residents” carefully to ensure enforceability.

The core principle tested here is the Arkansas General Assembly’s authority to delegate rulemaking power. While the legislature establishes broad policy through statutes, it cannot grant unfettered discretion to administrative agencies. Delegation must be accompanied by “standards” or “guidelines” that limit the agency’s discretion and ensure its rules are consistent with legislative intent. This concept is rooted in constitutional principles of separation of powers and due process. The Arkansas Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the scope of permissible delegation, requiring that the delegated authority be reasonably defined. When a bill attempts to grant an agency the power to enact rules on any matter deemed “necessary or convenient” without further specification, it likely exceeds the constitutionally permissible limits of legislative delegation. This is because “necessary or convenient” is an overly broad and vague standard, lacking the specificity required to guide the agency’s actions and prevent arbitrary rulemaking. Therefore, a legislative drafter must ensure that any delegation of rulemaking authority includes sufficient standards to constrain the agency’s discretion and align its actions with the legislative purpose. This prevents the executive branch from effectively legislating without legislative oversight.

The scenario describes a legislative drafter in Arkansas tasked with amending an existing statute concerning public access to electronic government records. The core issue is balancing the public’s right to information with the need to protect sensitive personal data held by state agencies. Arkansas Code Annotated (ACA) § 25-19-101 et seq., the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), governs public access to government records. However, specific statutes may create exemptions or provide detailed procedures for certain types of records, especially those in electronic format. When amending such a statute, a drafter must consider existing exemptions within the FOIA, such as those protecting personal privacy, law enforcement investigations, or proprietary business information. Additionally, the drafter must consider the practical implications of making records accessible, including the costs associated with redacting sensitive information and the technical feasibility of providing access in a usable format. The proposed amendment aims to clarify the process for requesting and receiving electronic records, specifying the types of redactions permissible and the timelines for agency response. The drafter must ensure the amendment aligns with both the spirit of the FOIA and any federal mandates related to data privacy and security, such as those derived from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) if health-related data is involved, or the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) if data pertaining to minors is handled by state agencies. The legislative intent is to enhance transparency while safeguarding individual privacy and sensitive governmental operations. The drafter’s role is to translate this intent into precise legal language, ensuring clarity, enforceability, and minimal ambiguity. This involves defining terms like “public record,” “electronic format,” and “sensitive personal information” within the context of the amendment.

The question probes the understanding of legislative drafting principles concerning the integration of external standards into Arkansas law, specifically through the lens of incorporating a recognized information security framework like ISO 27017:2015. When drafting legislation that references an external standard, the primary objective is to ensure clarity, enforceability, and the ability to manage future updates without requiring constant legislative amendment. Direct incorporation by reference, where the full text of the standard is appended or legally treated as part of the statute, is generally disfavored due to the administrative burden of updating the statute whenever the standard changes and the potential for ambiguity if the standard is not readily accessible to those affected. Instead, the preferred method is incorporation by reference, which allows the statute to point to the standard as it exists at a specific point in time or as it may be updated by the issuing body. However, for a standard to be effectively incorporated by reference in Arkansas law, the legislative drafter must ensure that the standard is publicly available and that the statute clearly identifies the specific version of the standard being adopted. This allows for a more dynamic and manageable legal framework that can adapt to evolving technological landscapes and security best practices without necessitating frequent legislative intervention. The Arkansas Code, particularly in areas of technology and data security, often utilizes this approach to maintain currency and relevance. The core challenge for a legislative drafter is to balance the need for precise legal requirements with the practicalities of managing rapidly changing technical specifications. Therefore, the most effective legislative approach is to reference the standard in a manner that allows for its periodic revision by the designated authority, ensuring the law remains current.

The question pertains to the application of ISO 27017:2015 controls within a specific legislative context, focusing on the division of responsibilities between a cloud service provider and a cloud service customer. In Arkansas, as in many jurisdictions, legislative drafting requires clarity on such delineations, particularly when dealing with data security and privacy. ISO 27017:2015 provides a framework for information security controls for cloud services. Clause 5.1.1, “Roles and responsibilities,” emphasizes the need to define and communicate roles and responsibilities for information security. When a cloud service customer utilizes a cloud service, the responsibilities for implementing and managing security controls are shared. The cloud service provider is typically responsible for the security *of* the cloud infrastructure (e.g., physical security of data centers, network security, hypervisor security), while the cloud service customer is responsible for security *in* the cloud (e.g., access management, data classification, configuration of virtual machines, application security). The specific control in question, related to monitoring and logging of cloud service usage, is a shared responsibility. The provider must ensure the underlying infrastructure logs are available and secure, while the customer must configure and monitor their own service instances and data access logs. Therefore, the control related to monitoring and logging of cloud service usage is a shared responsibility, with the provider securing the infrastructure logs and the customer securing their own service instance logs.

The question pertains to the implementation of controls within a cloud computing environment, specifically addressing the shared responsibility model and the application of ISO 27017:2015 standards. When drafting legislation or contractual clauses related to cloud security in Arkansas, a key consideration is clearly delineating responsibilities between the cloud service provider (CSP) and the cloud service customer (CSC). ISO 27017:2015, an international standard for information security controls for cloud services, provides guidance on this. Control A.8.1.3, “Inventory of information and other associated assets,” is particularly relevant. In a scenario where a CSC utilizes a cloud service for storing sensitive citizen data, the CSC remains ultimately responsible for the security of that data, even though the underlying infrastructure is managed by the CSP. The CSC must ensure it has a comprehensive inventory of the information assets it places in the cloud and understand which of these assets are subject to specific regulatory requirements within Arkansas, such as those governing public records or personal identifiable information. This inventory is crucial for risk assessment, incident response, and compliance auditing. The CSP, on the other hand, is responsible for the security of the cloud infrastructure itself and the services it provides. Therefore, a legislative drafting exercise would focus on ensuring the CSC’s obligation to maintain an accurate inventory of its data assets within the cloud environment, as this directly impacts the CSC’s ability to meet its own legal and regulatory obligations in Arkansas. The CSP’s role would be to provide the CSC with the necessary visibility and tools to facilitate this inventory, as outlined in contractual agreements and the CSP’s own security policies, which should align with ISO 27017 principles. The legislative intent would be to empower the CSC to fulfill its data stewardship duties effectively within the shared responsibility framework.

The question pertains to the application of security controls within cloud computing environments, specifically referencing ISO 27017:2015, which provides guidance on information security for cloud services. The scenario involves a cloud service provider (CSP) in Arkansas that is entering into a contract with a customer. The core issue is how to ensure the secure deletion of customer data upon contract termination. ISO 27017:2015, Clause 7.2.3, addresses “Secure deletion of customer data.” This clause emphasizes the responsibility of both the CSP and the customer to agree on the methods and timelines for data deletion. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that data is rendered irrecoverable. In this context, the most appropriate control for the CSP to implement, as mandated by the standard and best practice, is to establish a documented policy and procedure for secure data deletion that aligns with the contractual agreement with the customer. This policy should detail the cryptographic erasure methods, physical destruction of media if applicable, and verification processes. The policy should also specify the retention period for any necessary audit logs related to the deletion process. The CSP’s obligation is to facilitate this secure deletion in accordance with the agreed-upon terms, ensuring that the customer’s data is no longer accessible or recoverable after the contract ends. The other options represent either incomplete solutions or misinterpretations of the standard’s intent. Simply notifying the customer about deletion, or relying solely on the customer to manage the deletion on the CSP’s infrastructure, does not fulfill the CSP’s responsibility for secure data disposal. Encryption alone, without a robust deletion process, does not guarantee irrecoverability.

The scenario involves a legislative proposal in Arkansas aimed at regulating the use of artificial intelligence in administrative decision-making within state agencies. The core of the question revolves around ensuring that such AI systems are transparent and auditable, a key tenet of responsible AI deployment, particularly in public sector contexts. Arkansas Code Annotated § 1-2-101, while not directly addressing AI, establishes foundational principles for the interpretation of statutes, emphasizing clarity and ascertainability of legislative intent. When drafting legislation concerning emerging technologies like AI, drafters must consider how existing legal frameworks apply and where new provisions are needed. A critical aspect of AI governance is the ability to understand how a decision was reached, which is often referred to as explainability or transparency. This allows for accountability, error detection, and public trust. Therefore, a legislative requirement for AI systems used in administrative decisions to provide a detailed, human-readable explanation of their decision-making process, along with logs of data inputs and algorithmic parameters used, directly supports these goals. This approach aligns with the principle that administrative actions should be reviewable and justifiable. The Arkansas Legislative Drafting Manual also stresses the importance of precision and clarity in statutory language to avoid ambiguity and ensure effective implementation. Mandating a comprehensive audit trail and a clear explanation mechanism for AI-driven decisions is crucial for fulfilling these drafting principles in the context of new technological applications.

The scenario describes a legislative drafting challenge concerning the integration of cloud services within state government operations in Arkansas. The core issue is ensuring compliance with security standards, specifically referencing ISO 27017:2015, which provides guidelines for information security controls for cloud services. The question probes the understanding of how to translate these international standards into actionable legislative language that is both effective and legally sound within the Arkansas context. Drafting legislation requires careful consideration of existing state laws, the specific responsibilities of state agencies, and the nuances of cloud service agreements. A key aspect of drafting such legislation involves defining the scope of applicability, establishing clear requirements for cloud service providers, and outlining enforcement mechanisms. The legislative drafter must ensure that the proposed act empowers state agencies to procure and utilize cloud services securely while maintaining accountability and protecting sensitive state data. This involves understanding how to mandate adherence to specific security frameworks like ISO 27017:2015 without being overly prescriptive, allowing for flexibility as technology evolves. The drafter must also consider how to incorporate provisions for regular audits and assessments to verify compliance. The final legislative language should aim to create a robust framework for secure cloud adoption that aligns with both national cybersecurity best practices and Arkansas’s specific legal and governmental structure. The goal is to create a law that is enforceable, adaptable, and promotes the secure and efficient use of cloud technologies by Arkansas state government entities.

The scenario describes a legislative drafting situation in Arkansas where a new statute is being proposed to govern the use of blockchain technology in state land records. The core of the question revolves around identifying the most appropriate legislative mechanism to ensure the integrity and immutability of these digital records, aligning with principles of sound legislative drafting and the specific needs of a blockchain implementation. When drafting legislation for a novel technology like blockchain, especially for critical public records, it is paramount to establish clear legal frameworks that define the nature of the records, the responsibilities of custodians, and the methods for ensuring data integrity. The concept of immutability in blockchain is achieved through cryptographic hashing and distributed ledger technology. Legislatively, this translates to requiring specific technical standards and audit trails that are verifiable. Arkansas Code Annotated (ACA) Title 1, Chapter 2, Subchapter 1, which deals with public records, provides a foundational understanding of record management. However, for blockchain, a more specific approach is needed. The question probes the understanding of how to legally codify the technical assurances of blockchain. Option a) proposes requiring the use of cryptographic hashing and a distributed ledger system with consensus mechanisms, directly addressing the technical underpinnings of blockchain’s immutability and integrity. This aligns with the need for verifiable, tamper-evident records. Option b) suggests a simple digital signature, which is a component of security but does not fully capture the distributed and immutable nature of blockchain. Option c) focuses on centralized database encryption, which is contrary to the decentralized nature of blockchain. Option d) proposes periodic manual verification, which defeats the purpose of automated immutability provided by blockchain. Therefore, mandating the core technical components that ensure blockchain’s integrity is the most legally sound and technologically appropriate approach for immutable land records.

The scenario describes a legislative proposal in Arkansas aimed at regulating the use of cloud services by state agencies, specifically focusing on data protection and compliance with recognized security standards. The question probes the understanding of how a legislative draft would incorporate requirements for cloud service providers to adhere to a specific international standard, ISO 27017:2015, which provides guidelines for information security controls applicable to the provision and use of cloud services. In legislative drafting, when referencing external standards or documents, it is crucial to cite them precisely to ensure clarity and enforceability. This involves identifying the standard by its official designation and version. The core task is to determine the most appropriate legislative language to mandate adherence to ISO 27017:2015 for cloud service providers contracting with Arkansas state agencies. Option a) correctly identifies the standard by its full designation, including the year of publication, which is essential for accurate referencing in legal documents. This ensures that the specific version of the standard intended by the legislature is the one that providers must comply with. Options b), c), and d) present variations that are less precise or potentially ambiguous. Option b) omits the year, which could lead to issues if the standard is updated. Option c) uses a more general phrasing that might not capture the full scope of the standard. Option d) introduces a non-standard abbreviation and a potentially outdated reference, creating significant legal uncertainty. Therefore, precise citation is paramount in legislative drafting to avoid misinterpretation and ensure effective regulation.

The Arkansas legislature, when drafting laws, must consider the existing legal framework and potential impacts. A key aspect of legislative drafting in Arkansas, particularly concerning technology and data, involves aligning with federal mandates and best practices while also addressing specific state needs. When a state legislature enacts legislation that draws upon or references external standards or frameworks, such as ISO 27017:2015 for cloud security, the drafting process must ensure clarity regarding the adoption and application of these standards. Specifically, the legislation needs to define whether the standard is adopted in its entirety, with specific modifications, or as a guideline. The principle of incorporating by reference is a common legislative tool, but it requires careful articulation to avoid ambiguity. For instance, if a bill mandates that state agencies must comply with “cloud security best practices as defined by ISO 27017:2015,” the legislative intent is to impose the requirements of that standard. However, the drafting must be precise to indicate the version of the standard being referenced and how it is to be applied within the Arkansas legal context. This involves understanding that legislative intent is paramount. If the intent is to enforce the requirements of ISO 27017:2015 for cloud service providers contracting with the state, the drafting should clearly state this obligation, potentially by defining “cloud service provider” and outlining the scope of application. The legislative drafter’s role is to translate this intent into legally operative language that is enforceable and interpretable within the state’s judicial system, ensuring that the chosen standard serves the public interest and governmental objectives. The Arkansas Code, Title 1, Chapter 2, Section 106, addresses the incorporation by reference of federal or other standards, requiring specific legislative action to adopt such external documents into state law. Therefore, a bill referencing ISO 27017:2015 would need to follow these established procedures for incorporation to be legally effective and binding on state agencies or entities. The drafting must ensure that the referenced standard is publicly available and clearly identified to allow for compliance and oversight.