Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Information Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seminole County adopts information‑security policy with new AI use rules
Summary
The Seminole County Board of County Commissioners approved updates to the county’s information security policy, including new guidelines for responsible use of artificial intelligence: only approved platforms, mandatory human review of AI content, vendor contract review, and a ban on submitting PII/HIPAA data to AI tools.
The Seminole County Board of County Commissioners on June 23 approved revisions to Admin Code section 26.5, updating information‑security rules and adding a new section on artificial intelligence.
Information Technology Director Joe Akalla told the board the changes remove outdated language, clarify the roles of the chief information officer and the Information Security Division manager, and explicitly reference state security‑training requirements under Florida statute 282.3185. Akalla said the new Section D sets clear guardrails for artificial‑intelligence use: only staff may use AI platforms approved by the county, all AI‑produced content must be reviewed by a human before publication, vendor contracts must be examined for data handling and security, and protected data such as Social Security numbers, credit‑card details, PII and HIPAA data are not permitted in AI tools.
“Most importantly here, review and approve all content created by AI,” Akalla said, emphasizing that humans must remain in the loop because “AI can make mistakes, it can hallucinate.” A motion to approve the policy as presented passed unanimously.
The board and staff also discussed next steps to implement the policy across departments. Commissioners urged an “extensive training program” so every department understands permitted AI uses and consistent messaging, and several members said they expect further amendments as technology and best practices evolve.
The policy change places the county’s AI guidance alongside existing vendor‑risk management and controls designed to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of county data. The board voted to adopt the policy and asked staff to report back with training plans and any recommended future revisions.
