Centre for Internet and Society

Multinational Cyber Security Forum at University of Haifa

Admin — 2017-11-27T14:34:59Z

Sunil Abraham participated in a meeting in Israel on Multinational Cyber Security Forum hosted by Center for Cyber, Law and Policy and University of Haifa in collaboration with the Hewlett Foundation Cyber Initiative.

The workshop was held from November 5 to 7, 2017. The objective of the workshop was to facilitate a free and open exchange among participants under the Chatham House Rules. The workshop sought to identify areas of agreement and dissent pertaining to cyber security regulation and to explore issues that require further research, clarification and development.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/multinational-cyber-security-forum-at-university-of-haifa

Don't dive headlong into money-making schemes on the internet

praskrishna — 2017-02-07T15:02:24Z

If you do fall victim to fraud, file your complaint at RBI's Sachet web site.

The article by Sanjay Kumar Singh was published in the Business Standard on February 7, 2017. Udbhav Tiwari was quoted.

By now you have surely read the news about a Noida-based company called Ablaze Info Solutions, which is said to have defrauded about 700,000 people of Rs 3,700 crore. In this scheme, participants first had to pay a substantial subscription fee to join it, after which they were compensated for clicking on links. There were also incentives for bringing in other members, which made it akin to a multi-level marketing (MLM) scheme. Experts advise that investors should do the due diligence before putting their money in such schemes. According to cyber experts, this scheme took off because the activity it was pursuing was a legitimate one per se. There is an entire industry on the Internet, wherein you can earn money by clicking on links: This improves the traffic on websites and allows them to demand higher advertising rates. Many websites outsource the task of improving traffic to third parties, which in turn recruit people in countries like India for the task. You can also earn money through activities like filling up forms, answering surveys, etc.

The mistake participants made in this case was to join the scheme without exploring other options. "Many players would have offered a similar level of compensation without demanding a subscription fee. Moreover, the very fact that the company was demanding a substantial subscription fee should have made people suspicious," says Udbhav Tiwari, policy officer, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. Before participating in such money-making schemes, spend time doing a detailed background check of the company's credentials, especially if the promised returns are realistic or not. "If the return offered by the company is high compared to the market rates of return, or the company is new, you should be extra cautious. Check various blogs and forums on the internet for possible complaints against the company and its key stakeholders," says Mukul Shrivastava, partner, fraud investigation and dispute services, EY India.

If you join such a programme, be warned the moment the company defaults on payments, delays them, or avoids your queries. Stop all interactions with it and lodge a complaint with the police. If the company had used forged documents, especially the ones claiming that the scheme had the approval of a regulator like Sebi, submit them.

You can also file a complaint at Sachet, a website set up by the Reserve Bank of India (see box). Another option is to contact the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. As the police take up a case usually when many complaints pour in against an entity, motivate other victims to complain, too. The state fights the case on your behalf. Your task after complaining is to cooperate with the investigation and depose in court. Nowadays victims can be compensated under the Criminal Procedure Code as well. They also have the option to file a civil suit for recovering their money.

Finally, there is a need for new laws to tackle online frauds. "There is a gap both in terms of legislation and effective enforcement. We only have a central 1978 Act for Prize Chits and allied rules in states, which need to be updated," says Nishant Joshi, partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.

Word box
Turn to Sachet

RBI has launched a website, sachet.rbi.org.in, where you can complain if you have been cheated by an entity that has illegally collected money from you
The website also provides information on legitimate entities that are authorised to collect money
Many regulators and enforcement agencies take up the complaints filed on this site
Investors don’t have to know the regulator under whose jurisdiction the company they want to complain against falls
You will get an email informing you about the regulator/entity that will take up your case

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-sanjay-kumar-singh-february-7-2017-dont-dive-headlong-into-money-making-schemes-on-the-internet

WWW: The Hackers’ Haven

praskrishna — 2015-02-05T02:20:04Z

In an increasingly connected world, it pays to be careful when sharing personal information

This story by Abraham C. Mathews was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 09-02-2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Last year, Whatsapp changed its encryption algorithm several times and, every time, it was breached,” says Saket Modi, hacker, entrepreneur and CEO of Lucideus Technologies, which just created an app that monitors wayward activity on your smartphone. That’s geekspeak for: “Your WhatsApp chats, including deleted ones, would have been accessible to any hacker worth his salt”. And we are talking about a company that was valued at $19 billion at some point during the year. Only in November 2014 did WhatsApp finally embrace end-to-end encryption, which will ostensibly address the issue.

Or take the sales claim that every smartphone purchaser has heard — “Android is safe from virus.” That’s not, however, what a joint study by security solutions company Kaspersky and Interpol found. In the first half of 2014, 1,75,442 unique malicious programmes targeted at Android were discovered. Clearly a tribute to the platform on which 85 per cent of smartphones run.

In a TEDx talk last year titled ‘What’s physically possible in the virtual world’, Modi demonstrated how, with access to your smartphone for barely 20 seconds, he can see everything that has ever happened on your phone — text messages, call log, browsing history, and so on. He also showed how fraudulent emails could be disguised so as to appear to have come from a yahoo.com email address, and how you could be hacked even without being connected to the Internet. “There are only two kinds of people in the world,” he says. “Those who know they have been hacked and those who don’t.”

Epidemic Proportions
For cyber security, 2014 was annus horribilis. From celebrities whose intimate pictures were dumped on the Internet, to corporates such as Sony, JP Morgan and Target whose records were hacked into and personal information of millions of their customers compromised, it was the year when the proverbial shit hit the fan. Details (names, numbers, even favourite pizza toppings) of six lakh customers of Domino’s Pizza in France and Belgium were stolen for a $40,000 ransom. One hundred and ten million records (credit card details, social security numbers, along with addresses) from Target were stolen. The company later admitted that its sales were “meaningfully weaker” after the data theft was disclosed. One hundred and forty-five million records were stolen from eBay, 109 million from Home Depot and 83 million from JP Morgan during the year.

In 2013, a group that calls itself the Syrian Electronic Army hacked into Swedish company TrueCaller’s database. TrueCaller, an app, allows you to identify phone numbers. The data is collected from the contact list of those who download the app, which means, it even has details of those who haven’t downloaded or used the app in any way. Estimates put the number of Indians whose numbers could have been stolen at a million.

Cyber security is not yet a boardroom topic, says Anil Bhasin, MD, India & Saarc, Palo Alto Networks, which claims to create comprehensive security solutions for users but is fast becoming one with the increase in security breach incidents. Enterprises still use legacy technology that at times is 20 years old, he says, giving the example of banks that sometimes have a layer-3 staple inspection firewall, when they should ideally be running on layer-7.

When companies store your information, you also benefit. For example, when an e-commerce company does so, online shopping becomes faster and easier. But these companies should invest in measures to protect the information, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore. But then again, he says, a lot of breaches, like the celebrity iCloud hack, happen because users are negligent with measures designed to protect them. Passwords, for instance.

A Pew Research report found that only four out of 10 Internet users changed passwords after the ‘heartbleed’ virus (which found a way to unlock encrypted data) was uncovered in April 2014. Only 6 per cent thought their information was stolen. But, in August, it emerged that a Russian crime ring had amassed 1.2 billion user name-password combinations of 500 million email addresses from 4,20,000 websites. A Kaspersky study found that the number of malicious programmes detected rose 10 times in just six months to 6,44,000 in March 2014. This shows the call for vigil cannot not be more critical.

Interestingly, your online financial payments may be relatively more secure, thanks to Reserve Bank of India’s dogged persistence in continuing with the two-step verification process for electronic payments (a one-time password and PIN verification). The central bank drew a lot of flak for barring taxi app Uber from storing payment information and automatically deducting charges at the end of a ride. But Modi isn’t impressed. He likens the two-step verification to a batsman going onto the pitch wearing just a helmet. “The rest of your body is still exposed,” he says.

Easy Targets
Here’s one easy hack that Modi describes. Any app that you download from the app store on your phone asks for a set of permissions, which mostly come as an ‘all or nothing’ option. You either grant all the access it asks for, or you can’t download the app. Suppose, you grant a scrabble app access to your text messages. Your number can then be accessed by the app provider. Now think about how your banking transactions are verified — with a one-time password sent as a text message. With access to your text messages, entering that password would hardly be a challenge for hackers, says Modi. Or, suppose you were to set up a new WhatsApp account with that same number. The verification, like we all know, comes through a one-time password sent to your number. With access to your text messages, the hacker is given a virtual key to your entire WhatsApp history.

Or, take for instance, an app that requests access to your SD card (the storage card in your phone). With that permission, the app gets access to everything on your SD card, including your most private photos. Modi’s company Lucideus recently came out with an app, UnHack, that scans your phone to see which apps can access what data. If you use the app, you will find that not only can Facebook access the call logs on your phone, but apps like Wunderlist (which organises to-do lists) and Pocket (which stores articles for future offline reading) can access your contacts as well. The apps from TED (of TED Talks fame) as well as Flipkart can see as well as edit your personal photos and documents.

Companies —Uber, for instance — have in the past been found to be frivolous with data collected. Late last year, Uber greeted a Buzzfeed reporter who had arrived at the company’s New York headquarters with “There you are — I was tracking you”. No prior permission was sought. A venture capitalist, Peter Sims, had written earlier that his exact whereabouts in New York were displayed to a room full of people as part of a demonstration at a company event in Chicago.

Information Overload
Adam Tanner, a Harvard fellow and a Forbes columnist, was at an annual conference of the Direct Marketers Association, where he noticed a list of names of 1.8 million people with erectile dysfunction (ED), along with their email addresses and numbers. The organisers claimed the details were volunteered by the people themselves. Knowing that ED is something that men rarely admit to, he made the organisers an offer — “Let me purchase a list of a thousand people, and write to them to see if they know that they are on such a list.” The organisers refused, saying it would be an immoral use of their data. From this, one can tell that the information came from websites that took their details, promising a cure.

This, and other similar anecdotes made their way to his recent book, What Stays in Vegas, which deals with the world of personal data and the end of privacy as we know it. When Tanner meets Indians, he brings up matrimonial websites. What surprises him is the volume of information that people disclose. To westerners, details such as sub-caste or blood type, as well as in many cases the admission that a person is HIV+ is an outright breach of privacy. That people would volunteer to put this out in public is shocking. “When you are looking for a suitable match, giving the information may be important at the moment, but you must not forget that once something is on the Internet, it can never be completely deleted,” he warns.

But what is the problem if somebody has all the details, you may ask. Is the potential risk greater than the possibility of a perfect match? A PTI report from 2009 talks about a confession by an Indian Mujahideen operative who used information from such sites to get a student identity card as well as a driving licence. Mukul Shrivastava, a partner in the forensic practice at EY, gives you another alarming scenario. Let’s say somebody trawls your Facebook, what is the amount of information that such a person can get access to? Your daily routine, your physical movement, your favourite restaurant or whether you will be at home at a certain time (from a status message like “Can’t wait to watch the Devils trouncing Liverpool at ManU Café tonight!”). Even if a physical attack is not on the agenda, much of the information can be used to guess security questions (favourite cat, first school) and find out required details for phone banking (date of birth, email address, mother’s name). An HDFC Bank official says there is a rise in vishing (the voice equivalent of phishing) attacks, where people with access to bank account numbers as well as personal details pose as bank executives and lure customers with special benefits and convince them to divulge their banking passwords.

Security is an individual’s responsibility, says Sunil Abraham. “You have to remember that you have volunteered to put the information online,” he says. Information once put online is not private anymore. It’s like making an announcement in a large hall that is broadcast on TV. That’s what the Internet is. And once the Internet gets to know, it can never really be forgotten, says Vishnu Gopal, chief technology officer at MobME, a mobile value-added services provider. It will be available on some weblink or at least on archive.org, which claims to have ‘435 billion pages saved over time’.

While reclaiming lost information might be difficult, one can still reclaim privacy. Both Facebook and Gmail have options to disable monitoring by other applications. It might be worthwhile to pay the permissions page a visit. Routine password changes, as well as keying them in every time (rather than saving them on the system) might be worth the trouble. That said, nothing works like caution.

An Attacking Refrigerator!
A year ago, Proofpoint, a US-based security solutions provider, noticed an unusual type of cyber attack. Emails were sent in batches of about a lakh, thrice a day, aimed at slowing down large enterprises. What was unique about this attack was that upto 25 per cent of the volume was sent by devices other than computers, laptops, mobile phones or such devices. Instead, the emails came from everyday consumer electronic items like network routers, televisions, and at least one refrigerator, according to the company, with not more than 10 emails from any one device, making the attack difficult to block. This is now known as the first Internet of Things or IoT-based attack, where connected everyday-use devices are hacked into and used as cyber weaponry.

With the IoT, you have devices talking to one another, opening up multiple places to be breached, says MobME’s Gopal. From your shoe to T-shirt, everything becomes a potential bot. India should be concerned. Research by securities provider Symantec says India tops the list of countries wherein Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks originate. DDoS attacks are those where hundreds of bots target a website (say, an e-commerce company) on its big discount day, thereby slowing down traffic to the site. The report says a bot’s services can be bought for as low as Rs 300 to bring down a site for a few minutes. Monthly subscription plans are available for lengthier attacks.

Corporates can never be too careful, feels Shrivastava who, as part of his investigations, comes across several instances where companies are hacked into because of lack of best practices. How many companies have blocked pen drives on office machinery, he asks. In a tiny device, a humungous amount of data can be stolen. Till the first incident happens, nobody realises the importance of security, he says. For example, at EY, the IT security does not permit copying of the text of emails by the recipient. Recent reports suggest that the JP Morgan security breach was the result of neglect of one of its servers in terms of a security upgrade.

According to a study by Microsoft, the estimated loss to enterprises from lost data in 2014 was $491 billion.

You Against The Mafia
The fight really is about who’s weaker, says Altaf Halde, managing director, Kaspersky Lab-South Asia. “The problem here is the consumer.” Nothing excuses us from not protecting ourselves. That includes getting an anti-virus installed, but most people often disable it when it flags a particular activity that we want to pursue online.

Halde also brings up the BYOD (bring your own device) culture that is taking root. Asking employees to bring their own devices could help cut costs for a company, but that also brings in their inadequate protection, which could potentially translate into a much higher cost to the company, he says.

On the other side of the ring is the virtual underground mafia that profits from all types of data that get compromised — details of one’s sexual preferences, favourite restaurants or credit card details. Modi says in underground circles, the going rate for a stolen credit card number is $2.2 for a Visa, $2.5 for a MasterCard and $3 for an AmEx number. Transactions are made through crypto-currencies such as bitcoins, making them virtually untraceable.

As Modi says, the ideal scenario would be for all of us to throw away our smartphones and live an entirely offline existence. “But since that isn’t feasible, let’s embrace the risk, but with adequate measures to ensure that we are not affected.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-world-9-2-2015-abraham-c-mathews-www-the-hackers-haven

Developer team fixed vulnerabilities in Honorable PM's app and API

pranesh — 2016-12-04T19:08:56Z

The official app of Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, was found to contain a security flaw in 2015 that exposed millions of people's personal data. A few days ago a very similar flaw was reported again. This post by Bhavyanshu Parasher, who found the flaw and sought to get it fixed last year, explains the technical details behind the security vulnerability.

This blog post has been authored by Bhavyanshu Parasher. The original post can be read here.

What were the issues?

The main issue was how the app was communicating with the API served by narendramodi.in.

I was able to extract private data, like email addresses, of each registered user just by iterating over user IDs.
There was no authentication check for API endpoints. Like, I was able to comment as any xyz user just by hand-crafting the requests.
The API was still being served over HTTP instead of HTTPS.

Fixed

The most important issue of all. Unauthorized access to personal info, like email addresses, is fixed. I have tested it and can confirm it.
A check to verify if a valid user is making the request to API endpoint is fixed. I have tested it and can confirm it.
Blocked HTTP. Every response is served over HTTPS. The people on older versions (which was serving over HTTP) will get a message regarding this. I have tested it. It says something like “Please update to the latest version of the Narendra Modi App to use this feature and access the latest news and exciting new features”. It’s good that they have figuered out a way to deal with people running older versions of the app. Atleast now they will update the app.

Detailed Vulnerability Disclosure

Found major security loophole in how the app accesses the “api.narendramodi.in/api/” API. At the time of disclosure, API was being served over “HTTP” as well as “HTTPS”. People who were still using the older version of the app were accessing endpoints over HTTP. This was an issue because data (passwords, email addresses) was being transmitted as plain text. In simple terms, your login credentials could easily be intercepted. MITM attack could easily fetch passwords and email addresses. Also, if your ISP keeps log of data, which it probably does, then they might already have your email address, passwords etc in plain text. So if you were using this app, I would suggest you to change your password immediately. Can’t leave out a possibility of it being compromised.

Another major problem was that the token needed to access API was giving a false sense of security to developers. The access token could easily be fetched & anyone could send hand-crafted HTTP requests to the server. It would result in a valid JSON response without authenticating the user making the request. This included accessing user-data (primarily email address, fb profile pictures of those registered via fb) for any user and posting comments as any registered user of the app. There was no authentication check on the API endpoint. Let me explain you with a demo.

The API endpoint to fetch user profile information (email address) was getprofile. Before the vulnerability was fixed, the endpoint was accessible via “http://www.narendramodi.in/api/getprofile?userid=useridvalue&token=sometokenvalue”. As you can see, it only required two parameters. userid, which we could easily iterate on starting from 1 & token which was a fixed value. There was no authentication check on API access layer. Hand-crafting such requests resulted in a valid JSON response which exposed critical data like email addresses of each and every user. I quickly wrote a very simply script to fetch some data to demonstrate. Here is the sample output for xrange(1,10).

Not just email addresses, using this method you could spam on any article pretending to be any user of the app. There was no authentication check as to who was making what requests to the API. See,

They have fixed all these vulnerabilities. I still believe it wouldn’t have taken so long if I would have been able to get in touch with team of engineers directly right from the beginning. In future, I hope they figure out an easier way to communicate. Such issues must be addressed as soon as they are found but the communication gap cost us lot of time. The team did a great job by fixing the issues and that’s what matters.

Disclosure to officials

The email address provided on Google play store returned a response stating “The email account that you tried to reach is over quota”. Had to get in touch with authorities via twitter.

Vulnerability disclosed to authorities on 30th sep, 2015 around 5:30 AM

After about 30 hours of reporting the vulnerabillity

Proposed Solution

Consulted @pranesh_prakash as well regarding the issue.

After this, I mailed them a solution regarding the issues.

Discussion with developer

Received phone call from a developer. Discussed possible solutions to fix it.

The solution that I proposed could not be implemented since the vulnerability is caused by a design flaw that should have been thought about right from the beginning when they started developing the app. It just proved how difficult it is to fix such issues for mobile apps. For web apps, it’s lot easier. Why? Because for mobile apps, you need to consider backward compatibility. If they applied my proposed solution, it would crash app for people running the older versions. Main problem is that people don’t upgrade to latest versions leaving themselves vulnerable to security flaws. The one I proposed is a better way of doing it I think but it will break for people using older versions as stated by the developer. Though, they (developers) have come up with solutions that I think would fix most of the issues and can be considered an alternative.

On Oct 3rd, I received mail from one of the developers who informed me they have fixed it. I could not check it out at that time as I was busy but I checked it around 5 PM. I can now confirm they have fixed all three issues.

Update 12/02/2016

This vulnerability in NM app is similar to the one I got fixed last year. Like I said before also, the vulnerability is because of how the API has been designed. They released the same patch which they did back then. Removing email addresses from the JSON output is not really a patch. I wonder why would they introduce personal information in JSON output again if they knew that’s a privacy problem and has been reported by me a year back. He showed how he was able to follow any user being any user. Similarly, I was able to comment on any post using account of any user of the app. When I talked to the developer back then he mentioned it will be difficult to migrate users to a newer/secure version of the app so they are releasing this patch for the meantime. It was more of a backward compatibility issue because of how API was designed. The only solution to this problem is to rewrite the API from scratch and add standard auth methods for API. That should take care of most of vulnerabilities.

International Cooperation in Cybercrime: The Budapest Convention

vipul — 2019-04-29T22:35:37Z

In today’s increasingly digitized world where an increasing volume of information is being stored in the digital format, access to data generated by digital technologies and on digital platforms is important in solving crimes online and offline.

Click to download the file here

However, the global nature of the internet challenges traditional methods of law enforcement by forcing states to cooperate with each other for a greater variety and number of cases than ever before in the past. The challenges associated with accessing data across borders in order to be able to fully investigate crimes which may otherwise have no international connection forces states to think of easier and more efficient ways of international cooperation in criminal investigations. One such mechanism for international cooperation is the Convention on Cybercrime adopted in Budapest (“Budapest Convention”). Drafted by the Council of Europe along with Canada, Japan, South Africa and the United States of America it is the first and one of the most important multilateral treaties addressing the issue of cybercrime and international cooperation.^{^[1]}

Extradition

Article 24 of the Budapest Convention deals with the issue of extradition of individuals for offences specified in Articles 2 to 11 of the Convention. Since the Convention allows Parties to prescribe different penalties for the contraventions contained in Articles 2-11, it specifies that extradition cannot be asked for unless the crime committed by the individual carries a maximum punishment of deprivation of liberty for atleast one year.^{^[2]} In order to not complicate issues for Parties which may already have extradition treaties in place, the Convention clearly mentions that in cases where such treaties exist, extradition will be subject to the conditions provided for in such extradition treaties.^{^[3]} Although extradition is also subject to the laws of the requested Party, if the laws provide for the existence of an extradition treaty, such a requirement shall be deemed to be satisfied by considering the Convention as the legal basis for the extradition.^{^[4]} The Convention also specifies that the offences mentioned in Articles 2 to 11 shall be deemed to be included in existing extradition treaties and Parties shall include them in future extradition treaties to be executed.^{^[5]}

The Convention also recognises the principle of "aut dedere aut judicare" (extradite or prosecute) and provides that if a Party refuses to extradite an offender solely on the basis that it shall not extradite their own citizens,^{^[6]} then, if so requested, such Party shall prosecute the offender for the offences alleged in the same manner as if the person had committed a similar offence in the requested Party itself.^{^[7]} The Convention also requires the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to maintain an updated register containing the authorities designated by each of the Parties for making or receiving requests for extradition or provisional arrest in the absence of a treaty.^{^[8]}

Mutual Assistance Requests

The Convention imposes an obligation upon the Parties to provide mutual assistance “to the widest extent possible” for investigations or proceedings of criminal offences related to computer systems and data.^{^[9]} Just as in the case of extradition, the mutual assistance to be provided is also subject to the conditions prescribed by the domestic law of the Parties as well as mutual assistance treaties between the Parties.^{^[10]} However, it is in cases where no mutual assistance treaties exist between the Parties that the Convention tries to fill the lacuna and provide for a mechanism for mutual assistance.

The Convention requires each Party to designate an authority for the purpose of sending and answering mutual assistance requests from other Parties as well as transmitting the same to the relevant authority in their home country. Similar to the case of authorities for extradition, the Secretary General is required to maintain an updated register of the central authorities designated by each Party.^{^[11]} Recognising the fact that admissibility of the evidence obtained through mutual assistance in the domestic courts of the requesting Party is a major concern, the Convention provides that the mutual assistance requests are to be executed in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the requesting Party unless such procedures are incompatible with the laws of the requested Party.^{^[12]}

Parties are allowed to refuse a request for mutual assistance on the grounds that (i) the domestic laws of the requested party do not allow it to carry out the request;^{^[13]} (ii) the request concerns an offence considered as a political offence by the requested Party;^{^[14]} or (iii) in the opinion of the requested Party such a request is likely to prejudice its sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests.^{^[15]} The requested Party is also allowed to postpone any action on the request if it thinks that acting on the request would prejudice criminal investigations or proceedings by its own authorities.^{^[16]} In cases where assistance would be refused or postponed, the requested Party may consult with the other Party and consider whether partial or conditional assistance may be provided.^{^[17]}

In practice it has been found that though States refuse requests on a number of grounds,^{^[18]} some states even refuse cooperation in the event that the case is minor but requires an excessive burden on the requested state.^{^[19]} A case study of a true instance recounted below gives an idea of the effort and resources it may take for a requested state to carry out a mutual assistance request:

“In the beginning of 2005, a Norwegian citizen (let’s call him A.T.) attacked a bank in Oslo. He intended to steal money and he did so effectively. During his action, a police officer was killed. A.T. ran away and could not be found in Norway. Some days later, police found and searched his home and computer and discovered that A.T. was the owner of an email account from a provider in the United Kingdom. International co-operation was required from British authorities which asked the provider to put his email account under surveillance. One day, A.T. used his email account to send an email message. In the United Kingdom, police asked the ISP information about the IP address where the communication came from and it was found that it came from Spain.

British and Spanish authorities installed an alert system whose objective was to know, each time that A.T. used his email account, where he was. Thus, each time A.T. used his account, British police obtained the IP address of the computer in the origin of the communication and provided it immediately to Spanish police. Then, Spanish police asked the Spanish ISPs about the owner or user of the IP address. All the connexions were made from cybercafés in Madrid. Even proceeding to that area very quickly, during a long period of time it was not possible to arrive at those places before A.T. was gone.

Later, A.T. began to use his email account from a cybercafé in Malaga. This is a smaller town than Madrid and there it was possible to put all the cybercafés from a certain area permanently under physical surveillance. After some days of surveillance, British police announced that A.T. was online, using his email account, and provided the IP address. Very rapidly, the Spanish ISP informed Spanish police from the concrete location of the cybercafé what allowed the officers in the street to identify and arrest A.T. in place.

A.T. was extradited to Norway and prosecuted.”^{^[20]}

It is clear from the above that although the crime occurred in Norway, a lot of work was actually done by the authorities in the United Kingdom and Spain. In a serious case such as this where there was a bank robbery as well as a murder involved, the amount of effort expended by authorities from other states may be appropriate but it is unlikely that the authorities in Britain and Spain would have allocated such resources for a petty crime.

In sensitive cases where the requests have to be kept secret or confidential for any reason, the requesting Party has to specify that the request should be kept confidential except to the extent required to execute the request (such as disclosure in front of appropriate authorities to obtain the necessary permissions). In case confidentiality cannot be maintained the requested Party shall inform the requesting Party of this fact, which shall then take a decision regarding whether to withdraw the request or not.^{^[21]} On the other hand the requested Party may also make its supply of information conditional to it being kept confidential and that it not be used in proceedings or investigations other than those stated in the request.^{^[22]} If the requesting Party cannot comply with these conditions it shall inform the requested Party which will then decide whether to supply the information or not.^{^[23]}

In the normal course the Convention envisages requests being made and executed through the respective designated central authorities, however it also makes a provision, in urgent cases, for requests being made directly by the judicial authorities or even the Interpol.^{^[24]} Even in non urgent cases, if the authority of the requested Party is able to comply with the request without making use of coercive action, requests may be transmitted directly to the competent authority without the intervention of the central authority.^{^[25]}

The Convention clarifies that through these mutual assistance requests a Party may ask another to (i) either search, seize or disclose computer data within its territory,^{^[26]} (ii) provide real time collection of traffic data with specified communications in its territory;^{^[27]} and (iii) provide real time collection or recording of content data of specified communications.^{^[28]} The provision of mutual assistance specified above has to be in accordance with the domestic laws of the requested Party.

The procedure for sending mutual assistance requests under the Convention is usually the following:

Preparation of a request for mutual assistance by the prosecutor or enforcement agency which is responsible for an investigation.
Sending the request by the prosecutor or enforcement agency to the Central Authority for verification (and translation, if necessary).
The Central Authority then submits the request either, (i) to the foreign central authority, or (ii) directly to the requested judicial authority.

The following procedure is then followed in the corresponding receiving Party:

Receipt of the request by the Central Authority.
Central Authority then examines the request against formal and legal requirements (and translates it, if necessary).
Central Authority then transmits the request to the competent prosecutor or enforcement agency to obtain court order (if needed).
Issuance of a court order (if needed).
Prosecutor orders law enforcement (e.g. cybercrime unit) to obtain the requested data.
Data obtained is examined against the MLA request, which may entail translation or

using a specialist in the language.

The information is then transmitted to requesting State via MLA channels.^{^[29]}

In practice, the MLA process has generally been found to be inefficient and this inefficiency is even more pronounced with respect to electronic evidence. The general response times range from six months to two years and many requests (and consequently) investigations are often abandoned.^{^[30]} Further, the lack of awareness regarding procedure and applicable legislation of the requested State lead to formal requirements not being met. Requests are often incomplete or too broad; do not meet legal thresholds or the dual criminality requirement.^{^[31]}

Preservation Requests

The Budapest Convention recognises the fact that computer data is highly volatile and may be deleted, altered or moved, rendering it impossible to trace a crime to its perpetrator or destroying critical proof of guilt. The Convention therefore envisioned the concept of preservation orders which is a limited, provisional measure intended to take place much more rapidly than the execution of a traditional mutual assistance. Thus the Convention gives the Parties the legal ability to obtain the expeditious preservation of data stored in the territory of another (requested) Party, so that the data is not altered, removed or deleted during the time taken to prepare, transmit and execute a request for mutual assistance to obtain the data.

The Convention therefore provides that a Party may request another Party to obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer data in respect of which such Party intends to submit a mutual assistance request. Once such a request is received the other Party has to take all appropriate measures to ensure compliance with such a request. The Convention also specifies that dual criminality is not a condition to comply with such requests for preservation of data since these are considered to be less intrusive than other measures such as seizure, etc.^{^[32]} However in cases where parties have a dual criminality requirement for providing mutual assistance they may refuse a preservation request on the ground that at the time of providing the data the dual criminality condition would not be met, although in regard to the offences covered under Articles 2 to 11 of the Convention, the requirement of dual criminality will be deemed to have been satisfied.^{^[33]} In addition to dual criminality a preservation request may also be refused on the grounds that (i) the offence alleged is a political offence; and (ii) execution of the request would likely to prejudice the sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests of the requested Party.^{^[34]}

In case the requested Party feels that preservation will not ensure the future availability of the data or will otherwise prejudice the investigation, it shall promptly inform the requesting Party which shall then take a decision as to whether to ask for the preservation irrespective.^{^[35]} Preservation of the data pursuant to a request will be for a minimum period of 60 days and upon receipt of a mutual assistance request will continue to be preserved till a decision is taken on the mutual assistance request.^{^[36]} If the requested Party finds out in the course of executing the preservation request that the data has been transmitted through a third state or the requesting Party itself, it has a duty to inform the requesting Party of such facts as well as provide it with sufficient traffic data in order for it to be able to identify the service provider in the other state.^{^[37]}

Jurisdiction and Access to Stored Data

The problem of accessing data across international borders stems from the international law principle which provides that the authority to enforce (an action) on the territory of another State is permitted only if the latter provides consent for such behaviour. States that do not acquire such consent may therefore be acting contrary to the principle of non-intervention and may be in violation of the sovereignty of the other State.^{^[38]} The Convention specifies two situations in which a Party may access computer data stored in another Party’s jurisdiction; (i) when such data is publicly available; and (ii) when the Party has accessed such data located in another state through a computer system located in its own territory provided it has obtained the “lawful and voluntary consent of the person who has the lawful authority to disclose the data to the Party through that computer system”.^{^[39]} These are two fairly obvious situations where a state should be allowed to use the computer data without asking another state, infact if a state was required to take the permission of the state in the territory of which the data was physically located even in these situations, then it would likely delay a large number of regular investigations where the data would otherwise be available but could not be legally used unless the other country provided it under the terms of the Convention or some other legal instrument. At the time of drafting the Convention it appears that Parties could not agree upon any other situations where it would be universally acceptable for a state to unilaterally access data located in another state, however it must be noted that other situations for unilaterally accessing data are neither authorized, nor precluded.^{^[40]}

Since the language of the Budapest Convention stopped shy of addressing other situations law enforcement agencies had been engaged in unilateral access to data stored in other jurisdictions on an uncertain legal basis risking the privacy rights of individuals raising concerns regarding national sovereignty.^{^[41]} It was to address this problem that the Cybercrime Committee established the “ad-hoc sub-group of the T-CY on jurisdiction and transborder access to data and data flows” (the “Transborder Group”) in November 2011 which came out with a Guidance Note clarigying the legal position under Article 32.

The Guidance Note # 3 on Article 32 by the Cybercrime Committee specifies that Article 32(b) would not cover situations where the data is not stored in another Party or where it is uncertain where the data is located. A Party is also not allowed to use Article 32(b) to obtain disclosure of data that is stored domestically. Since the Convention neither authorizes nor precludes other situations, therefore if it is unknown or uncertain that data is stored in another Party, Parties may need to evaluate themselves the legitimacy of a search or other type of access in the light of domestic law, relevant international law principles or considerations of international relations.^{^[42]} The Budapest Convention does not require notification to the other Party but parties are free to notify the other Party if they deem it appropriate.^{^[43]} The “voluntary and lawful consent” of the person means that the consent must be obtained without force or deception. Giving consent in order to avoid or reduce criminal charges would also constitute lawful and voluntary consent. If cooperation in a criminal investigation requires explicit consent in a Party, this requirement would not be fulfilled by agreeing to the general terms and conditions of an online service, even if the terms and conditions indicate that data would be shared with criminal justice authorities.^{^[44]}

The person who is lawfully authorized to give consent is unlikely to include service providers with respect to their users’ data. This is because normally service providers would only be holders of the data, they would not own or control the data and therefore cannot give valid consent to share the data.^{^[45]} The Guidance Note also specifies that with respect to the location of the person providing access or consent, while the standard assumption is that the person would be physically located in the requesting Party however there may be other situations, “It is conceivable that the physical or legal person is located in the territory of the requesting law enforcement authority when agreeing to disclose or actually providing access, or only when agreeing to disclose but not when providing access, or the person is located in the country where the data is stored when agreeing to disclose and/or providing access. The person may also be physically located in a third country when agreeing to cooperate or when actually providing access. If the person is a legal person (such as a private sector entity), this person may be represented in the territory of the requesting law enforcement authority, the territory hosting the data or even a third country at the same time.” Parties are also required to take into account the fact that third Parties may object (and some even consider it a criminal offence) if a person physically located in their territory is directly approached by a foreign law enforcement authority to seek his or her cooperation.^{^[46]}

Production Order

A similar problem arises in case of Article 18 of the Convention which requires Parties to put in place procedural provisions to compel a person in their territory to provide specified stored computer data, or a service provider offering services in their territory to submit subscriber information.^{^[47]} It must be noted here, that the data in question must be already stored or existing data, which implies that this provision does not cover data that has not yet come into existence such as traffic data or content data related to future communications.^{^[48]} Since the term used in this provision is that the data must be within the “possession or control” of the person or the service provider, therefore this provision is also capable of being used to access data stored in the territory of a third party as long as the data is within the possession and control of the person on whom the Production Order has been served. In this regard it must be noted that the Article makes a distinction between computer data and subscriber information and specifies that computer data can only be asked for from a person (including a service provider) located within the territory of the ordering Party even if the data is stored in the territory of a third Party.^{^[49]} However subscriber information^{^[50]} can be ordered only from a service provider even if the service provider is not located within the territory of the ordering Party as long as it is offering its services in the territory of that Party and the subscriber information relates to the service offered in the ordering Party’s territory.^{^[51]}

Since the power under Article 18 is a domestic power which potentially can be used to access subscriber data located in another State, the use of this Article may raise complicated jurisdictional issues. This combined with the growth of cloud computing and remote data storage also raises concerns regarding privacy and data protection, the jurisdictional basis pertaining to services offered without the service provider being established in that territory, as well as access to data stored in foreign jurisdictions or in unknown or multiple locations “within the cloud”.^{^[52]} Even though some of these issues require further discussions and a more nuanced treatment, the Cybercrime Committee felt the need to issue a Guidance Note to Article 18 in order to avoid some of the confusion regarding the implementation of this provision.

Article 18(1)(b) may include a situation where a service provider is located in one jurisdiction, but stores the data in another jurisdiction. Data may also be mirrored in several jurisdictions or move between jurisdictions without the knowledge or control of the subscriber. In this regard the Guidance Note points out that legal regimes increasingly recognize that, both in the criminal justice sphere and in the privacy and data protection sphere, the location of the data is not the determining factor for establishing jurisdiction.^{^[53]}

The Guidance Note further tries to clarify the term “offering services in its territory” by saying that Parties may consider that a service provider is offering services if: (i) the service provider enables people in the territory of the Party to subscribe to its services (and does not, for example, block access to such services); and (ii) the service provider has established a real and substantial connection that Party. Relevant factors to determine whether such a connection has been established include “the extent to which a service provider orients its activities toward such subscribers (for example, by providing local advertising or advertising in the language of the territory of the Party), makes use of the subscriber information (or associated traffic data) in the course of its activities, interacts with subscribers in the Party, and may otherwise be considered established in the territory of a Party”.^{^[54]} A service provider will not be presumed to be offering services within the territory of a Party just because it uses a domain name or email address connected to that country.^{^[55]} The Guidance Note provides a very elegant tabular illustration of its requirements to serve a valid Production Order on a service provider:^{^[56]}

PRODUCTION ORDER CAN BE SERVED
IF The criminal justice authority has jurisdiction over the offence
AND The service provider is in possession or control of the subscriber information
AND
The service provider is in the territory of the Party (Article 18(1)(a))	Or	A Party considers that a service provider is “offering its services in the territory of the Party” when, for example: - the service provider enables persons in the territory of the Party to subscribe to its services (and does not, for example, block access to such services); and - the service provider has established a real and substantial connection to a Party. Relevant factors include the extent to which a service provider orients its activities toward such subscribers (for example, by providing local advertising or advertising in the language of the territory of the Party), makes use of the subscriber information (or associated traffic data) in the course of its activities, interacts with subscribers in the Party, and may otherwise be considered established in the territory of a Party. (Article 18(1)(b))
AND
		the subscriber information to be submitted is relating to services of a provider offered in the territory of the Party.

The existing processes for accessing data across international borders, whether through MLATs or through the mechanism established under the Budapest Convention are clearly too slow to be a satisfactory long term solution. It is precisely for that reason that the Cybercrime Committee has suggested alternatives to the existing mechanism such as granting access to data without consent in certain specific emergency situations;^{^[57]} or access to data stored in another country through a computer in its own territory provided the credentials for such access are obtained through lawful investigative activities.^{^[58]} Another option suggested by the Cybercrime Committee is to look beyond the principle of territoriality, specially in light of the recent developments in cloud computing where the location of the data may not be certain or data may be located in multiple locations,^{^[59]} and look at a connecting legal factor as an alternative such as the “power of disposal”. This option implies that even if the location of the data cannot be determined it can be connected to the person having the power to “alter, delete, suppress or render unusable as well as the right to exclude other from access and any usage whatsoever”.^{^[60]}

Language of Requests

It was found from practice that the question of the language in which the mutual assistance requests were made was a big issue in most States since it created problems such as delays due to translations, costly translations, quality of translations, etc. The Cybercrime Committee therefore suggested that an additional protocol be added to the Budapest Convention to stipulate that requests sent by Parties should be accepted in English atleast in urgent cases since most States accepted a request in English.^{^[61]} Due to these problems associated with the language of assistance requests, the Cybercrime Convention Committee has already released a provisional draft Additional Protocol to address the issue of language of mutual assistance requests for public comments.^{^[62]}

24/7 Network

Parties are required to designate a point of contact available on a twenty-four hour, seven-day-a week basis, in order to ensure the provision of immediate assistance for the purpose of investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offences related to computer systems and data, or for the collection of evidence, in electronic form, of a criminal offence. The point of contact for each Party is required to have the capacity to carry out communications with the points of contact for any other Party on an expedited basis. It is the duty of the Parties to ensure that trained and properly equipped personnel are available in order to facilitate the operation of the network.^{^[63]} The Parties recognized that establishment of this network is among the most important means provided by the Convention of ensuring that Parties can respond effectively to the law enforcement challenges posed by computer-or computer-related crimes.^{^[64]} In practice however it has been found that in a number of Parties there seems to be a disconnect between the 24/7 point of contact and the MLA request authorities leading to situations where the contact points may not be informed about whether preservation requests are followed up by MLA authorities or not.^{^[65]}

Drawbacks and Improvements

The Budapest Convention, whilst being the most comprehensive and widely accepted document on international cooperation in the field of cybercrime, has its own share of limitations and drawbacks. Some of the major limitations which can be gleaned from the discussion above (and potential recommendations for the same) are listed below:

Weakness and Delays in Mutual Assistance: In practice it has been found that though States refuse requests on a number of grounds,^{^[66]} some states even refuse cooperation in the event that the case is minor but requires an excessive burden on the requested state. Further, the delays associated with the mutual assistance process are another major hurdle, and are perhaps the reason by police-to-police cooperation for the sharing of data related to cybercrime and e-evidence is much more frequent than mutual legal assistance.^{^[67]} The lack of regulatory and legal awareness often leads to procedural lapses due to which requests do not meet legal thresholds. More training, more information on requirements to be met and standardised and multilingual templates for requests may be a useful tool to address this concern.

Access to data stored outside the territory: Access to data located in another country without consent of the authorities in that country poses another challenge. The age of cloud computing with processes of data duplication and delocalisation of data have added a new dimension to this problem.^{^[68]} It is precisely for that reason that the Cybercrime Committee has suggested alternatives to the existing mechanism such as granting access to data without consent in certain specific emergency situations;^{^[69]} or access to data stored in another country through a computer in its own territory provided the credentials for such access are obtained through lawful investigative activities.^{^[70]} Another option suggested by the Cybercrime Committee is to look beyond the principle of territoriality and look at a connecting legal factor as an alternative such as the “power of disposal”.

Language of requests: Language of requests create a number of problems such as delays due to translations, cost of translations, quality of translations, etc. Due to these problems, the Cybercrime Convention Committee has already released for public comment, a provisional draft Additional Protocol to address the issue.^{^[71]}

Bypassing of 24/7 points of contact: Although 24/7 points have been set up in most States, it has been found that there is often a disconnect between the 24/7 point of contact and the MLA request authorities leading to situations where the contact points may not be informed about whether preservation requests are followed up by MLA authorities or not.^{^[72]}

India and the Budapest Convention

Although countries outside the European Union have the option on signing the Budapest Convention and getting onboard the international cooperation mechanism envisaged therein, India has so far refrained from signing the Budapest Convention. The reasons for this refusal appear to be as follows:

India did not participate in the drafting of the treaty and therefore should not sign. This concern, while valid is not a consistent foreign policy stand that India has taken for all treaties, since India has signed other treaties, where it had no hand in the initial drafting and negotiations.^{^[73]}
Article 32(b) of the Budapest Convention involves tricky issues of national sovereignty since it allows for cross border access to data without the consent of the other party. Although, as discussed above, the Guidance Note on Article 32 clarified this issue to an extent, it appears that arguments have been raised in some quarters of the government that the options provided by Article 32 are too limited and additional means may be needed to deal with cross border data access.^{^[74]}
The mutual legal assistance framework under the Convention is not effective enough and the promise of cooperation is not firm enough since States can refuse to cooperate on a number of grounds.^{^[75]}
It is a criminal justice treaty and does not cover state actors; further the states from which most attacks affecting India are likely to emanate are not signatories to the Convention either.^{^[76]}
Instead of joining the Budapest Convention, India should work for and promote a treaty at the UN level.^{^[77]}

Although in January 2018 there were a number of news reports indicating that India is seriously considering signing the Budapest Convention and joining the international cooperation mechanism under it, there have been no updates on the status of this proposal.^{^[78]}

Conclusion

The Budapest Convention has faced a number of challenges over the years as far as provisions regarding international cooperation are concerned. These include delays in getting responses from other states, requests not being responded to due to various reasons (language, costs, etc.), requests being overridden by mutual agreements, etc. The only other alternative which is the MLAT system is no better due to delays in providing access to requested data.^{^[79]} This however does not mean that international cooperation through the Budapest Convention is always late and inefficient, as was evident from the example of the Norwegian bank robber-murderer given above. There is no doubt that the current mechanisms are woefully inadequate to deal with the challenges of cyber crime and even regular crimes (specially in the financial sector) which may involve examination of electronic evidence. However that does not mean the end of the road for the Budapest Convention, one has to recognize the fact that it is the pre-eminent document on international cooperation on electronic evidence with 62 State Parties as well as another 10 Observer States. Any mechanism which offers a solution to the thorny issues of international cooperation in the field of cyber crime would require most of the nations of the world to sign up to it; till such time that happens, expanding the scope of the Budapest Convention to address atleast some of the issues discussed above by leveraging the work already done by the Cybercrime Committee through various reports and Guidance Notes (some of which have been referenced in this paper itself) may be a good option as this could be an incentive for non signatories to become parties to a better and more efficient Budapest Convention providing a more robust international cooperation regime.

^{^[1]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 304.

^{^[2]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(1)(a). Except in cases where a different minimum threshold has been provided by a mutual arrangement, in which case such other minimum threshold shall be applied.

^{^[3]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(5).

^{^[4]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(3).

^{^[5]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(2).

^{^[6]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 251.

^{^[7]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(6).

^{^[8]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(7).

^{^[9]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 25(1).

^{^[10]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 25(4).

^{^[11]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(2).

^{^[12]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(3) read with para 267 of the Explanatory Note to the Budapest Convention.

^{^[13]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 25(4).

^{^[14]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(4)(a).

^{^[15]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(4)(b).

^{^[16]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(5).

^{^[17]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(6).

^{^[18]} Some of the grounds listed by Parties for refusal are: (i) grounds listed in Article 27 of the Convention, (ii) the request does not meet formal or other requirements, (iii) the request is motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion or similar, (iv) the request concerns a political or military offence, (v) Cooperation may lead to torture or death penalty, (vi) Granting the request would prejudice sovereignty, security, public order or national interest or other essential interests, (vii) the person has already been punished or acquitted or pardoned for the same offence “Ne bis in idem”, (viii) the investigation would impose an excessive burden on the requested State or create practical difficulties, (ix) Granting the request would interfere in an ongoing investigation (in which case the execution of the request may be postponed). Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 34.

^{^[19]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 34.

^{^[20]} Pedro Verdelho, Discussion Paper: The effectiveness of international cooperation against cybercrime: examples of good practice, 2008, pg. 5, https://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/economiccrime/cybercrime/T-CY/DOC-567study4-Version7_en.PDF, accessed on March 28, 2019.

^{^[21]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(8).

^{^[22]} However, disclosure of the material to the defence and the judicial authorities is an implicit exception to this rule. Further the ability to use the material in a trial (which is generally a public proceeding) is also a recognised exception to the right to limit usage of the material. See para 278 of the the Explanatory Note to the Budapest Convention.

^{^[23]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 28.

^{^[24]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(9)(a) and (b).

^{^[25]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(9)(d) read with para 274 of the Explanatory Note to the Budapest Convention.

^{^[26]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 31.

^{^[27]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 33.

^{^[28]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 34.

^{^[29]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 37.

^{^[30]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 123.

^{^[31]} Ibid at 124.

^{^[32]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(3) read with para 285 of the Explanatory Note to the Budapest Convention.

^{^[33]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(4).

^{^[34]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(5).

^{^[35]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(6).

^{^[36]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(7).

^{^[37]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 30.

^{^[38]} Anna-Maria Osula, Accessing Extraterritorially Located Data: Options for States, http://ccdcoe.eu/uploads/2018/10/Accessing-extraterritorially-located-data-options-for-States_Anna-Maria_Osula.pdf, accessed on March 28, 2019.

^{^[39]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 32.

^{^[40]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 293.

^{^[41]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Report of the Transborder Group, Transborder access and jurisdiction: What are the options?, December 2012, para 310.

^{^[42]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.2.

^{^[43]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.3.

^{^[44]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.4.

^{^[45]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.6.

^{^[46]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.8.

^{^[47]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 18.

^{^[48]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 170.

^{^[49]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 173.

^{^[50]} Defined in Article 18(3) as “any information contained in the form of computer data or any other form that is held by a service provider, relating to subscribers of its services other than traffic or content data and by which can be established:

a. the type of communication service used, the technical provisions taken thereto and the period of service;

b. the subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic address, telephone and other access number, billing and payment information, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement;

c. any other information on the site of the installation of communication equipment, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement.

^{^[51]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 173.

^{^[52]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note #10, Production orders for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), at pg.3.

^{^[53]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note #10, Production orders for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), para 3.5 at pg. 7.

^{^[54]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note #10, Production orders for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), para 3.6 at pg. 8.

^{^[55]} Id.

^{^[56]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note #10, Production orders for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), para 3.8 at pg. 9.

^{^[57]} Situations such as preventions of imminent danger, physical harm, the escape of a suspect or similar situations including risk of destruction of relevant evidence.

^{^[58]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Subgroup on Transborder Access, (Draft) Elements of an Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime Regarding Transborder Access to Data, April 2013, pg. 49.

^{^[59]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Cloud Evidence Group, Criminal justice access to data in the cloud: challenges (Discussion paper), May 2015, pgs 10-14.

^{^[60]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Subgroup on Transborder Access, (Draft) Elements of an Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime Regarding Transborder Access to Data, April 9, 2013, pg. 50.

^{^[61]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 35.

^{^[62]} https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/-/towards-a-protocol-to-the-budapest-convention-further-consultatio-1

^{^[63]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 35.

^{^[64]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 298.

^{^[65]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 86.

^{^[66]} Some of the grounds listed by Parties for refusal are: (i) grounds listed in Article 27 of the Convention, (ii) the request does not meet formal or other requirements, (iii) the request is motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion or similar, (iv) the request concerns a political or military offence, (v) Cooperation may lead to torture or death penalty, (vi) Granting the request would prejudice sovereignty, security, public order or national interest or other essential interests, (vii) the person has already been punished or acquitted or pardoned for the same offence “Ne bis in idem”, (viii) the investigation would impose an excessive burden on the requested State or create practical difficulties, (ix) Granting the request would interfere in an ongoing investigation (in which case the execution of the request may be postponed). Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 34.

^{^[67]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 7.

^{^[68]} Giovanni Buttarelli, Fundamental Legal Principles for a Balanced Approach, Selected papers and contributions from the International Conference on “Cybercrime: Global Phenomenon and its Challenges”, Courmayeur Mont Blanc, Italy available at ispac.cnpds.org/download.php?fld=pub_files&f=ispacottobre2012bassa.pdf

^{^[69]} Situations such as preventions of imminent danger, physical harm, the escape of a suspect or similar situations including risk of destruction of relevant evidence.

^{^[70]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Subgroup on Transborder Access, (Draft) Elements of an Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime Regarding Transborder Access to Data, April 2013, pg. 49.

^{^[71]} https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/-/towards-a-protocol-to-the-budapest-convention-further-consultatio-1

^{^[72]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 86.

^{^[73]} Dr. Anja Kovaks, India and the Budapest Convention - To Sign or not? Considerations for Indian Stakeholders, available at https://internetdemocracy.in/reports/india-and-the-budapest-convention-to-sign-or-not-considerations-for-indian-stakeholders/

^{^[74]} Alexander Seger, India and the Budapest Convention: Why not?, Digital Debates: The CyFy Journal, Vol III, available at https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/india-and-the-budapest-convention-why-not/

^{^[75]} Id.

^{^[76]} Id.

^{^[77]} Id.

^{^[78]} https://indianexpress.com/article/india/home-ministry-pitches-for-budapest-convention-on-cyber-security-rajnath-singh-5029314/

^{^[79]} Elonnai Hickok and Vipul Kharbanda, Cross Border Cooperation on Criminal Matters - A perspective from India, available at https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cross-border-cooperation-on-criminal-matters

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vipul-kharbanda-april-29-2019-international-cooperation-in-cybercrime-the-budapest-convention

The thrill of saving India from cybercrime

praskrishna — 2016-11-21T02:42:48Z

Geeks seize the chance to help the government, defence forces and banks draw up fences against tech crimes.

The article by Peerzada Abrar was published in the Hindu on November 20, 2016.

Saket Modi loves long flights. The 26-year-old hacker likes to do most of his reasoning while criss-crossing the world. It was on one such flight from the United States to India that the co-founder of cybersecurity start-up Lucideus Tech read about India's largest data security breaches. While surfing the in-flight Internet he came to know that the security of about 3.2 million debit cards had been compromised.

“I was not surprised but I started thinking about how it would have happened. What was the ‘exploit’ used, how long was it there,” said Mr. Modi. Soon after reaching New Delhi, he received multiple requests from several banks and organisations to protect them from the hacking incident, which is just one of the thousands of cybercrimes that the country is facing.

In India, there has been a surge of approximately 350 per cent of cybercrime cases registered under the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 from the year of 2011 to 2014, according to a joint study by The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India and consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has also reported a surge in the number of incidents handled by it, with close to 50,000 security incidents in 2015, noted the Assocham-PwC joint study.

Ethical hackers

Mr. Modi is among a new breed of ethical hackers-turned-entrepreneurs who are betting big on this opportunity. An ethical hacker is a computer expert who hacks into a computer network on the behalf of its owner in order to test or evaluate its security, rather than with malicious or criminal intent.

“You cannot live in a world where you think that you can't be hacked. It doesn’t matter who you are,” said Mr. Modi who cofounded Lucideus four years ago. The company clocked revenues of Rs.4 crore in the last fiscal. This compares with the Rs.2.5 lakh revenues in the first year. The New Delhi-based firm now counts Reserve Bank of India, Ministry of Defence and Standard Chartered among its top clients.

Mr. Modi, who is also a pianist, discovered his skills for hacking into secure computer systems while preparing for his board exams. He hacked into his school computer and stole the chemistry question paper, after realising that he would not be able to clear the test conducted by his school. However, a guilty conscience compelled him to confess to his teacher who permitted him to still take the test. The incident transformed him to use his skills to protect and not misuse them. This year, Lucideus was hired by National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) along with other information security specialists to protect its most ambitious project, the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) platform, from cyber attacks. UPI aims to bring digital banking to 1.2 billion people in the country. Lucideus has a team of 70 people mostly fresh college graduates who do hacking with authorisation.

“The reason behind choosing Lucideus was their young, energetic and knowledgeable team," said Bhavesh Lakhani, chief technology officer of DSP BlackRock, one of the premier asset management companies. Mr. Lakhani said that India is currently the epicentre of financial and technological advancements which make it a probable target of cyber-attacks.

Hacking lifeline

Indeed, a new breed of cyber criminals has emerged, whose main aim is not just financial gains but also cause disruption and chaos to businesses in particular and the nation at large, according to the Assocham-PwC study. Attackers can gain control of vital systems such as nuclear plants, railways, transportation and hospitals. This can subsequently lead to dire consequences such as power failures, water pollution or floods, disruption of transportation systems and loss of life, noted the study.

“The hacker doesn’t care whether he is attacking an Indian or a U.S. company. It is bread and butter for him and he wants to eat it wherever he gets it from,” said Trishneet Arora, a 22-year-old ethical hacker. In an office tucked away in Mohali, a commercial hub lying adjacent to the city of Chandigarh in Punjab, Mr.Arora fights these cyberattacks on a daily basis to protect his clients. His start-up TAC Security provides an emergency service to customers who have been hacked or are anticipating a cyberattack. It alerted a hospital in the U.S. after detecting vulnerabilities in their computer network.

Mr.Arora said that the hackers could have easily shut down the intensive care unit which was connected to it and remotely killed the patients. TAC said the data server of a bank in the UAE containing critical information got hacked recently. The bank also lost access to the server. TAC said that it not only helped the organisation to get back access to the server but also traced the hacker’s identity.

A school drop out, Mr.Arora founded TAC three years ago. But he initially found it tough to convince enterprises about his special skills. “I was a backbencher in the classroom and not good in studies, but I loved playing video games and hacking,” he said. He conducted workshops on hacking and provided his expertise to law enforcement agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and various State police departments. His firm now provides its services to customers such as Reliance Industries, dairy brand Amul and tractor manufacturer Sonalika.

“We were surprised by their expertise,” said R.S. Sodhi, managing director of Amul. “We wanted to be sure that the company’s vital IT infrastructure is in the right hands – the big question was, ‘Who can that be?’ In TAC, we found that team.”

TAC expects to cross revenues of $5 million (Rs.33 crore) and employ about 100 ethical hackers by next year.

Budget woes

Security watchers such as Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based think tank Centre for Internet and Society said that India’s cybersecurity budget is woefully inadequate when compared to the spending by other countries. In 2014-15, the government doubled its cybersecurity budget by earmarking Rs.116 crore. “We require a budget of $1 billion per annum or every two years to build the cybersecurity infrastructure. The current cyber security policy has no such budget,” said Mr. Abraham.

According to Data Security Council of India (DSCI), India's cybersecurity market is expected to grow nine-fold to $35 billion by 2025, from about $4 billion. This would mainly be driven by an ecosystem to promote the growth of indigenous security product and services start-up companies.

The Cyber Security Task Force (CSTF) set up by DSCI and industry body Nasscom expects to create a trained base of one million certified and skilled cybersecurity professionals. It also aims to build more than 100 successful security product companies from India. Investors who normally focus on e-commerce ventures or public markets are now taking note of this opportunity and are betting on such ventures. Amit Choudhary, director, MotilalOswal Private Equity and an investor in Lucideus, said he saw tremendous opportunity in the cybersecurity market as hackers are shifting their focus from developed countries to emerging countries like India.

“There is a huge opportunity. The recent security breaches of a few Indian banks are an example,” said Vijay Kedia an ace stock picker and an investor in TAC Security. He said that organisations are still unaware of the widespread damage that can be caused by hackers. “The next war will be a ‘cyberwar’,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-peerzada-abrar-november-20-2016-the-thrill-of-saving-india-from-cybercrime

Incident Response Requirements in Indian Law

vipul — 2016-12-28T01:19:28Z

Cyber incidents have serious consequences for societies, nations, and those who are victimised by them. The theft, exploitation, exposure or otherwise damage of private, financial, or other sensitive personal or commercial data and cyber attacks that damage computer systems are capable of causing lasting harm.

A recent example of such an attack that we have seen from India is the recent data breach involving an alleged 3.2 million debit cards in India.^[1] In the case of this hack the payment processing networks such as National Payments Corporation of India, Visa and Mastercard, informed the banks regarding the leaks, based on which the banks started the process of blocking and then reissuing the compromised cards. It has also been reported that the banks failed to report this incident to the Computer Emergency Response Team of India (CERT-In) even though they are required by law to do so.^[2] Such risks are increasingly faced by consumers, businesses, and governments. A person who is a victim of a cyber incident usually looks to receive assistance from the service provider and government agencies, which are prepared to investigate the incident, mitigate its consequences, and help prevent future incidents. It is essential for an effective response to cyber incidents that authorities have as much knowledge regarding the incident as possible and have that knowledge as soon as possible. It is also critical that this information is communicated to the public. This underlines the importance of reporting cyber incidents as a tool in making the internet and digital infrastructure secure.. Like any other crime, an Internet-based crime should be reported to those law enforcement authorities assigned to tackle it at a local, state, national, or international level, depending on the nature and scope of the criminal act. This is the first in a series of blog posts highlighting the importance of incident reporting in the Indian regulatory context with a view to highlight the Indian regulations dealing with incident reporting and the ultimate objective of having a more robust incident reporting environment in India.

Incident Reporting under CERT Rules

In India, section 70-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the “IT Act”) gives the Central Government the power to appoint an agency of the government to be called the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team. In pursuance of the said provision the Central Government issued the Information Technology (The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team and Manner of Performing Functions and Duties) Rules, 2013 (the “CERT Rules”) which provide the location and manner of functioning of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). Rule 12 of the CERT Rules gives every person, company or organisation the option to report cyber security incidents to the CERT-In. It also places an obligation on them to mandatorily report the following kinds of incidents as early as possible:

Targeted scanning/probing of critical networks/systems;
Compromise of critical systems/information;
Unauthorized access of IT systems/data;
Defacement of website or intrusion into a website and unauthorized changes such as inserting malicious code, links to external websites, etc.;
Malicious code attacks such as spreading of virus/worm/Trojan/botnets/spyware;
Attacks on servers such as database, mail, and DNS and network devices such as routers;
Identity theft, spoofing and phishing attacks;
Denial of Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks;
Attacks on critical infrastructure, SCADA systems and wireless networks;
Attacks on applications such as e-governance, e-commerce, etc.

The CERT Rules also impose an obligation on service providers, intermediaries, data centres and body corporates to report cyber incidents within a reasonable time so that CERT-In may have scope for timely action. This mandatory obligation of reporting incidents casts a fairly wide net in terms of private sector entities, however it is notable that prima facie the provision does not impose any obligation on government entities to report cyber incidents unless they come under any of the expressions “service providers”, “data centres”, “intermediaries” or “body corporate”. This would mean that if the data kept with the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India is hacked in a cyber incident, then there is no statutory obligation under the CERT Rules on it to report the incident. It is pertinent to mention here that although there is no obligation on a government department under law to report such an incident, such an obligation may be contained in its internal rules and guidelines, etc. which are not readily available.

It is pertinent to note that although the CERT Rules provide for a mandatory obligation to report the cyber incidents listed therein, the Rules themselves do not provide for any penalty for non compliance. However this does not mean that there are no consequences for non compliance, it just means that we have to look to the parent legislation i.e. the IT Act for the appropriate penalties for non compliance. Section 70B(6) gives the CERT-In the power to call for information and give directions for the purpose of carrying out its functions. Section 70B(7) provides that any service provider, intermediary, data center, body corporate or person who fails to provide the information called for or comply with the direction under sub-section (6), shall be liable to imprisonment for a period up to 1 (one) year or fine of up to 1 (one) lakh or both.

It is possible to argue here that sub-section (6) only talks about calls for information by CERT-In and the obligation under Rule 12 of the CERT Rules is an obligation placed by the central government and not CERT-In. It can also be argued that sub-section (6) is only meant for specific requests made by CERT-In for information and sub-section (7) only penalises those who do not respond to these specific requests. However, even if these arguments were to be accepted and we were to conclude that a violation of the obligation imposed under Rule 12 would not attract the penalty stipulated under sub-section (7) of section 70B, that does not mean that Rule 12 would be left toothless. Section 44(b) of the IT Act provides that where any person is required under any of the Rules or Regulations under the IT Act to furnish any information within a particular time and such person fails to do so, s/he may be liable to pay a penalty of upto Rs. 5,000/- for every day such failure continues. Further section 45 provides for a further penalty of Rs.25,000/- for any contravention of any of the rules or regulations under the Act for which no other penalty has been provided.

Incident Reporting under Intermediary Guidelines

Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act defined the term “intermediary” in the following manner;

“intermediary” with respect to any particular electronic record, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes.

Rule 3(9) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (the “Intermediary Guidelines”) also imposes an obligation on any intermediary to report any cyber incident and share information related to cyber security incidents with the CERT-In. Since neither the Intermediary Guidelines not the IT Act specifically provide for any penalty for non conformity with Rule 3(9) therefore any enforcement action against an intermediary failing to report a cyber security incident would have to be taken under section 45 of the IT Act containing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.

Incident Reporting under the Unified License

Clause 39.10(i) of the Unified License Agreement obliges the telecom company to create facilities for the monitoring of all intrusions, attacks and frauds on its technical facilities and provide reports on the same to the Department of Telecom (DoT). Further clause 39.11(ii) provides that for any breach or inadequate compliance with the terms of the license, the telecom company shall be liable to pay a penalty amount of Rs. 50 crores (Rs. 50,00,00,000) per breach.

Conclusion

It is clear from the above discussion that there is a legal obligation service providers to report cyber incidents to the CERT-In. Presently, the penalty prescribed under Indian law may not be enough to incentivise companies to adopt comprehensive and consistent incident response programmes. , except in cases of telecom companies under the Unified License Agreement. A fine of Rs. 25,000/- appears to be inconsequential when compared to the possible dangers and damages that may be caused due to a security breach of data containing, for example, credit card details.. Further, it is also imperative that apart from the obligation to report the cyber incident to the appropriate authorities (CERT-In) there should also be a legal obligation to report it to the data subjects whose data is stolen or is put at risk due to the said breach. A provision requiring notice to the data subjects could go a long way in ensuring that service providers, intermediaries, data centres and body corporates implement the best data security practices since a breach would then be known by general consumers leading to a flurry of bad publicity which could negatively impact the business of the data controller, and for a business entity an economic stimulus may be an effective way to ensure compliance.

As we continue to research incident response, the questions and areas we are exploring include the ecosystem of incidence response including what is reported, how, and when, appropriate incentives to companies and governments to report incidents, various forms of penalties, the role of cross border sharing of information and jurisdiction and best practices for incident reporting and citizen awareness.

Published under Creative Commons License CC BY-SA. Anyone can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this document, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the creator of this document and license their new creations under the terms identical to the license governing this document

^[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/10/21/atm-card-hack-what-banks-are-saying-about-india-s-biggest-data/

^[2] http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/cert-in-had-warned-banks-on-oct-7-about-expected-targeted-attacks-from-pakistan/54991025

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/incident-response-requirements-in-indian-law

Mapping of Sections in India’s MLAT Agreements

Leilah Elmokadem and Saumyaa Naidu — 2016-12-31T06:52:46Z

This set of infographics by Leilah Elmokadem and Saumyaa Naidu maps out and compares the various sections that exist in the 39 MLATs (mutual legal assistance treaty) between India and other countries. An MLAT is an agreement between two or more countries, drafted for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws.

Download: Infographic (PDF) and data (XLSX)

We have found that India’s 39 MLAT documents are worded, formatted and sectioned differently. At the same time, many of the same sections exist across several MLATs. This diagram lists the sections found in the MLAT documents and indicates the treaties in which they were included or not included. To keep the list of sections concise and to more easily pinpoint the key differences between the agreements, we have merged sections that are synonymous in meaning but were worded slightly differently. For example: we would combine “Entry into force and termination” with “Ratification and termination” or “Expenses” with “Costs”.

At the same time, some sections that seemed quite similar and possible to merge were kept separate due to potential key differences that could be overlooked as a result. For example: “Limitation on use” vs. “Limitation on compliance” or “Serving of documents” vs. “Provision of (publicly available) documents/records/objects” remained separate for further analysis and comparison.

These differences in sectioning can be analysed to facilitate a thorough comparison between the effectiveness, efficiency, applicability and enforceability of the various provisions across the MLATs. The purpose of this initial mapping is to provide an overall picture of which sections exist in which MLAT documents. There will be further analysis of these sections to produce a more holistic content-based comparison of the MLATs.

Aggregated Analysis of Sections of MLAT Agreements

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-mlat-agreements-sections-map-dec-2016

CIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 14) – Menaka Guruswamy

purba — 2014-07-21T10:39:03Z

CIS interviews Menaka Guruswamy, lawyer at the Supreme Court of India, as part of the Cybersecurity Series.

"The courts have rarely used privacy to stop the Indian state from getting into someone's business. So jurisprudentially, it is a weak challenge when you mount a rights based or a privacy right challenge against surveillance by the state. Because the answer of the state to that has always been, and as has been Obama's answer in the United States, that there are national security concerns. And usually national security will trump individual privacy."

Centre for Internet and Society presents its fourteenth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.

The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.

Menaka Guruswamy practices law at the Supreme Court of India. She was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, and a Gammon Fellow at Harvard Law School, and a gold medalist from the National Law School of India. She has law degrees from all three schools, with a focus on Constitutional Law and Public International Law. Guruswamy has worked at the Office of the Attorney General of India, the highest office that represents the federal government of India in the Supreme Court of India.

http://youtu.be/GCDD6Z-UrGI

This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-14-2013-menaka-guruswamy

Cyber 360

praskrishna — 2015-10-14T02:22:27Z

Synergy Foundation organized the Cyber 360 conference in Bangalore on September 29 and 30, 2015. Sunil Abraham participated in the event.

As part of Cyber 360 Degree, a two-day conference on cyber security continuing Wednesday in Bangalore, experts from around the world gathered to discuss global threats to information security, particularly focusing on open wifi, which poses a huge threat to information security. The conference aimed to bring together strategic security practitioners, policymakers, media and business enterprises on a single platform to obtain a 360o perspective on cybersecurity. It was an endeavour to create a holistic security strategy that will help to achieve resilience against modern cyber-threats. A range of keynote presentations and panel discussions will give participants a rare chance to interact and learn from leading cyber security experts and solution providers from around the world.

The Participants

 CEOs, Members of Board and CIOs of more than 60 companies
 Security practitioners
 Policy-makers
 Leading Academia
 International think tanks & media

Download the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cyber-360

Cyber Security Policy Research

praskrishna — 2015-10-16T16:47:12Z

Tim Maurer will give a presentation on cybersecurity policy research at the Centre for Internet & Society's New Delhi office on October 18, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Geetha Hariharan and Sunil Abraham will participate in this event.

Tim Maurer's talk will give an outline of the definitional issues involved, the various threats to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and underlying infrastructure, the actors involved and international efforts to address cybersecurity. The talk will also provide an overview of existing and ongoing cyber security policy research.

Tim Maurer

Tim Maurer is an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His work focuses on cyberspace and international affairs, with a concentration on global cybersecurity norms, human rights online, Internet governance, and their interlinkages. He is writing a book on cybersecurity and proxy actors.

Maurer serves as a member of the Research Advisory Network of the Global Commission on Internet Governance, the Freedom Online Coalition’s cybersecurity working group “An Internet Free and Secure,” and co-chaired the Civil Society Advisory Board of the Global Conference on CyberSpace. In 2014, he developed the Global Cyber Definitions Database for the chair of the OSCE to support the implementation of the OSCE’s cyber confidence-building measures. In 2013 and 2014, Maurer spoke about cybersecurity at the United Nations in New York and Geneva and co-authored “Tipping the Scale: An Analysis of Global Swing States in the Internet Governance Debate,” published by the Global Commission on Internet Governance. His work has also been published by Jane’s Intelligence Review, TIME, Foreign Policy, CNN, Slate, and other academic and media venues.

Prior to joining Carnegie, Maurer was the director of the Global Cybersecurity Norms and Resilience Project at New America and head of research of New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative. He also gained experience with the United Nations in Rwanda, Geneva, and New York focusing on humanitarian assistance and the coordination of the UN system.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/cyber-security-policy-research

Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC)

Admin — 2017-11-23T14:38:12Z

The Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace organized a meeting on November 21, 2017 in New Delhi. The meeting took place at Taj Diplomatic Enclave Hotel on the sidelines of the 5th Global Conference on Cyberspace. Pranesh Prakash participated in the event.

GSC commissioners engaged in discussions with leading experts on cyber diplomacy, cyber norms and counter-proliferation. See the Draft Agenda here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-commission-on-the-stability-of-cyberspace-gcsc

Financial CERT to combat cyber threats, says MoS home affairs

Admin — 2017-11-23T16:07:21Z

To tackle cyber threats to India’s financial institutions, the central government is mulling to establish a financial Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT).

This was published by CISO MAG on November 17, 2017

Addressing the 15th Asia Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team (APCERT) Open Conference in New Delhi on November 15, 2017, IT Secretary Ajay Prakash Sawhney said, “right now, the one which is directly being worked on is the financial CERT. We are getting the framework in place and once that is there, we will look at other sectors. It will oversee the entire financial sector including banks and financial institutions.”

In March this year, the power ministry had announced to create four sectoral CERTs for cybersecurity in power systems: CERT (Transmission), CERT (Thermal), CERT (Hydro), and CERT (Distribution).

Udbhav Tiwari, program manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank, highlighted the responsibilities of the financial CERT in a conversation with Live Mint. “The biggest task of sectoral CERT is to share information with the others in the industry. For example, if a bank undergoes an attack, normally the bank will perform all the necessary actions to limit the attack and to prevent it from happening in the future. But the obligation of sharing how the attack happened with all the other banks in India to make sure that they can protect their respective systems from such an attack, can be carried out by a financial CERT,” he said.

Cybersecurity Chief Gulshan Rai, who was also present at the event, said “from April to October 2017, around 50,000 cyber security incidents have been handled by CERT-In; including phishing, malware attacks, attacks on digital payments and targeted attacks on some of the critical industries.”

On August 1, 2017, MoS home affairs Hansraj Gangaram Ahir had said “as per the information by the Indian computer emergency response team (CERT-In), 50 incidents affecting 19 financial organizations have been reported during the period of November, 2016 to June, 2017.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ciso-mag-financial-cert-to-combat-cyber-threats-says-mos-home-affairs

Cyberattacks a significant threat to democracy: Modi

Admin — 2017-11-24T13:29:17Z

We have to ensure that cyberspace does not become a playground for dark horses of radicalism, says PM Narendra Modi at the fifth Global Conference on Cyber Space in Delhi.

The article by Komal Gupta was published in Livemint on November 24, 2017.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said creating a safe and secure cyberspace is on the primary agenda of the government as cyberattacks were a threat to democracy.

Modi’s assurance of decisively dealing with cyberattacks comes at a time when policymakers are making an unprecedented push to popularize digital transactions and cut down use of cash in order to have a more transparent and accountable economic environment. The government is at present working on a draft policy for tackling ransomware, a malicious software.

“We have to ensure that cyberspace does not become a playground for dark horses of radicalism,” Modi said, while inaugurating the fifth Global Conference on Cyber Space (GCCS) in the national capital.

A total of 50 incidents of cyberattacks affecting 19 financial organizations were reported from 2016 until June 2017, PTI reported in August.

With multiple cyberattacks affecting key infrastructure assets like ports and major payment companies recently, the government has decided to come out with a draft policy for tackling ransomware, a senior government official told Mint during the conference. “CERT-In (The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team) is working on a draft policy for tackling ransomware which will be put up for consultation by various stakeholders, including organized enterprise users of IT (Information Technology), solution providers and internet service providers (ISPs),” Ajay Kumar, additional secretary in the ministry of electronics and information technology said.

Kumar said the draft policy will focus on the proprietary steps the country will take in case of a ransomware attack. This will include the steps for the sharing of information to try and restrict the loss as much as possible. A centre of excellence will be set up to find solutions to attacks or neutralise the malware, he added.

The need to set up a safe and secure cyberspace is one the major concerns of the government as it is moving to create a ‘less-cash’ economy. Earlier this year, the government announced the “DigiDhan Mission” to achieve a 25 billion digital transactions target, outlined in the Union budget for this fiscal.

Modi said empowerment through digital access is the aim of the government and digital technology has saved around $10 billion so far by eliminating middlemen.

The MyGov platform is a prime example of how technology strengthens offices. PRAGATI has resulted in faster governance decisions through general consensus, he added.

PRAGATI (Pro-Active Governance And Timely Implementation) is an interactive platform aimed at addressing the common man’s grievances and monitoring and reviewing programmes and projects of the central and state governments.

Umang stands for Unified Mobile Application for New-age Governance. It provides all pan India e-Gov services ranging from central to local government bodies and other citizen-centric services like Aadhaar and Digilocker on one single platform or mobile app.

Modi said, “the app will provide over hundred citizen-centric services. It will automatically add pressure among peers and result in a better performance.”

Law and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, speaking at the event, said privacy of individuals was of utmost importance but “privacy cannot withhold innovation.” He further said the citizens’ right of accessing the internet is “non-negotiable” and the government will not allow any company to restrict people’s entry to the worldwide web.

Speaking on Facebook’s Free Basics programme, Prasad said the government did not allow social networking giant’s programme because it offered access to select internet services. Facebook had introduced its Free Basics programme in India in 2015 to offer free basic internet access to people in partnership with telecom operators. Prasad said the idea behind Free Basics was that everything will be free, namely eduction, health, entertainment and others, if one enters the Net through one gate (Facebook’s).

“I said India is a democracy, we don’t believe in one gate. We believe in multiple gates. Therefore, this gate locking for India will not be accepted and I did not allow it. This stems (from) our commitment that internet must be accessible to all,” he added.

Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was present at the event, said there was no legal framework on cyberspace and he hoped the conference would lead to a consensus to finalize the terms of the framework. “Our government has a lot more to do in net neutrality but we have taken progressive and revolutionary step in this regard,” added Wickremesinghe.

Wickremesinghe is on a four-day visit to India with the aim of boosting bilateral ties.

On the first day of the conference, India agreed to establish a joint working group with Iran to work in different IT areas.

India will provide technical advice to Mauritius for setting up the digilocker infrastructure. An MoU has been signed with Denmark for future cooperation in the IT sector.

“While a policy on ransomware is welcome, there is much more to be done. Implementation of the 2014 National Cybersecurity Policy has been very slow. Even the simplest bits, such as a secure process for receiving vulnerability disclosure has been lacking,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based think tank.

PTI contributed to this story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-november-24-2017-komal-gupta-cyberattacks-a-significant-threat-to-democracy-modi

CyFy 2017

Admin — 2017-11-26T09:36:25Z

CyFy is a conference on internet governance and cyber security organised by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in New Delhi between 2 and 4 October 2017. Sunil Abraham was a speaker.

Sunil Abraham was a speaker on a panel titled "Security Through Identity?" on the 4 October 2017 and chaired an invite only session titled "Encryption: The End of Surveillance?" on the 3rd of October, 2017. Saikat Dutta and Udbhav Tiwari also participated in the encryption session. Saikat was a speaker in a session titled "Digital Vulnerabilities: Capacity Building for Tackling Cyber Crime" on 3 October 2017. Udbhav Tiwari chaired a session titled "Dangerous Disclosures: Cyber Security Incident Reporting" on 4 October 2017.

Conference agenda here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cy-fy-2017