Centre for Internet and Society

Crypto Night

praskrishna — 2013-08-06T06:04:05Z

Challenging government snooping at an all-night cryptography party.

This article by Rahul M was published in the Caravan on August 1, 2013. Pranesh Prakash and Bernadette Langle are quoted.

Satyakam Goswami sat in a conference hall in the Institute of Informatics & Communication in Delhi University's South Campus, furiously typing code into his laptop. He typed the string “/var/log/tor#”, into a Linux terminal, then turned to me and said, “I am one step away, man.” It was around midnight on a muggy July Saturday, and Goswami had been here for six hours. He resumed typing—and cursing under his breath in Telugu as he realised that the online instructions he was following weren’t helping.

Around him, the room bustled with the activity of around 25 other people, all participants at a Cryptoparty, a cryptography event at which programmers and non-programmers meet to share information and expertise on tools that can help thwart government spying.

Goswami was one of the organisers of the event, which was led by Bernadette Längle, a German ‘hacktivist’ who is a member of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC), Europe’s largest association of hackers. Längle was one of the organisers of the CCC’s Chaos Communication Congress in 2012, an international hackers’ meet held in Hamburg that year. While processing participant applications for the Congress, she came across a group that wanted to organise what they called a “Cryptoparty” at the meet. “I thought Cryptoparty would be a bunch of guys coming together, learning crypto and having a party,” she told me. Only at the event did she realise that Cryptoparties are rather more political affairs, at which participants experiment with ways of combating governmental intrusions into privacy and freedom.

After she graduated, Längle decided she wanted to travel. “I hadn’t been to America or Asia, and I don’t think I want to enter America,” she said. “I thought India might be a good point to start.” While she was exploring her options, she met Goswami online. “I first met Bernadette on an IRC channel, ‘hasgeek’, where she expressed her interest to come to India,” Goswami said. “I suggested that she write a proposal to CIS [the Centre for Internet and Society, in Bangalore].” Längle applied, and was accepted to work with the organisation for six months.

When Längle was teaching a one-week course on email cryptography at a CIS event, a participant suggested to her that she organise a Cryptoparty in the city. “I thought I was travelling anyway, and I can make a Cryptoparty everywhere I go,” Längle said. This led to the Bangalore Cryptoparty on 30 June, followed by the Delhi edition on 6 July. Längle then held a Cryptoparty in Dharamsala in the second week of July, and plans to hold another in Mumbai in October. At each of these, she gave tutorials on specific aspects of cryptography, such as the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) encryption and decryption program, which Edward Snowden used to communicate with The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald during their now-famous collaboration. Participants would then experiment with these tools, sending emails and messages to each other using secure channels. The Delhi edition, which saw around 70 participants, continued late into the night, with the last exhausted stragglers shutting off their gadgets and heading home at 4 am.

I met Längle again the day after the Delhi event; with her was Pranesh Prakash, policy director at CIS, who is a commentator on issues related to surveillance and privacy. Both agreed that the Indian government’s Central Monitoring System programme, as well as Edward Snowden’s recent leaks, had resulted in a greater interest in cryptography in the country in recent months. “Without the PRISM stuff, there wouldn’t have been so many people attending,” Längle said. “People are concerned about that.” Prakash believes that the NSA leaks have served as a loud wake-up call about a longstanding state of affairs. “It’s this I-told-you-so moment for lots of people right now,” he said. “This isn’t the first time there have been revelations about the NSA spying beyond their authority. These revelations have been happening at least since 2006.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/caravan-magazine-august-1-2013-rahul-m-crypto-night

'Ethical Hacker' Saket Modi Calls for Stronger Cyber Security Discussions

kovey — 2013-08-05T13:11:08Z

Twenty-two year old Saket Modi is the CEO and co-founder of Lucideus, a leading cyber security company in India which claims to have worked with 4 out of 5 top global e-commerce companies, 4 out of 10 top IT companies in the world, and 3 out of 5 top banks of the Asia Pacific.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

At the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) conference on July 13, titled “ACT – Achieving Cyber-Security Together,” Modi as the youngest speaker on the agenda delivered an impromptu talk which lambasted the weaknesses of modern cyber security discussions, enlightened the audience on modern capabilities and challenges of leading cyber security groups, and ultimately received a standing ovation from the crowd. As a later speaker commented, Modi’s controversial opinions and practitioner insight had "set the auditorium ablaze for the remainder of the evening". Since then the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has had the pleasure of interviewing Saket Modi over Skype.

It is quite easy to find accounts of Saket Modi's introduction into hacking just by typing his name in the search engine. Faced with the pressure of failing, a teenage Saket discovered how to hack into his high school Chemistry teacher’s test and answer database. After successfully obtaining the answers, and revealing his wrong doings to his teacher, the young man grew intrigued by the possibilities of hacking. "I thought, if I could do this in a couple hours, four hours, then what might I be able to do in four days, four weeks, four months?"

Nowadays, Modi describes himself and his Lucideus team as "ethical hackers", a term recently espoused by hacker groups in the public eye. As opposed to "hacktivists", who utilize hacking methods (including attacks) to achieve or bring awareness to political issues, ethical hackers claim to exclusively use their computer skills to support defenses. At first, incorporation of ethics into a for-profit organization’s game plan may seem confusing, as it leaves room for key questions, like how does one determine which clients constitute ethical business? When asked, however, Modi clarifies by explaining how the ethics are not manifest in the entities Lucideus supports, but instead inherent in the choice of building defensive networks as opposed to using their skills for attack or debilitation. Nevertheless, considerations remain as to whether supporting the cyber security of some entities can lead to the insecurity of others, for example, strengthening the agencies which work in covert cyber espionage. On this point, Modi seems more ambivalent, saying "it depends on a case by case basis". But he still believes cyber security is a right that should be enjoyed by all, "entitled to [you] the moment you set foot on the internet".

As an experienced professional in the field who often gives input on major cyber policy decisions, Modi emphasizes the necessity of youth engagement in cyber security practice and policy. He calls his age bracket the “web generation,” those who have “grown with technology.” According to Modi, no one over 50 or 60 years of age can properly meet the current challenges of the cyber security realm. It is "a sad thing" that those older leaders carry the most power in policy making, and that they often have problems with both understanding and acceptability of modern technological capabilities. For the public, businesses, and also government, there are misconceptions about the importance of cyber security and the extent of modern cyber threats, threats which Modi and his company claim to combat regularly. "About 90 per cent of the crimes that take place in cyber space are because of lack of knowledge, rather than the expertise of the hacker,” he explains. Modi mentions a few basic misconceptions, as simple as, "if I have an anti-virus, my system is secured" or "if you have HTTPS certificate and SSL connection, your system is secured". “These are like wearing an elbow guard while playing cricket,” Modi tells. “If the ball comes at the elbow then you are protected, but what about the rest of the body?”

This highlights another problem evident in India’s current cyber security scene, the problem of lacking “quality institutes to produce good cyber security experts.” For example, Modi takes offence at there not being “a single institute which is providing cyber security at the undergraduate level [in India].” He alludes to the recently unveiled National Cyber Security Policy, specifically the call for five lakh cyber security experts in upcoming years. He calls this “a big figure,” but agrees that there needs to be a lot more awareness throughout the nation. “You really have to change a lot of things,” he says, “in order to get the right things in the right place here in India.”

When considering citizen privacy in relation to cyber security, and the relationship between the two (be it direct or inverse), Saket Modi says the important factor is the governing body, because the issue ultimately resolves to trust. Citizens must trust the “right people with the right qualifications” to store and protect their sensitive data, and to respect privacy. Modi is no novice to the importance of personal data protection, and his company works with a plethora of extremely sensitive information relating to both their clients and their clients’ clients data, so it operates with due care lest it create a “wikileaks part two.”

On internationalization and cyber security, he views the connection between the two as natural, intrinsic. “Cyberspace has added a new dimension to humanity,” says Modi, and tells how former constructs of physical constraints and linear bounds no longer apply. International cooperation is especially pertinent, according to Modi, because the greatest challenge for catching today’s criminal hackers is their international anonymity, “the ability to jump from one country to the other in a matter of milliseconds.”

With the extent of the challenges facing cyber defense specialists, and with the somewhat disorderly current state of Indian cyber security, it is curious to see that Saket Modi has devoted himself to the "ethical" side of hacking. Why hasn’t he or the rest of the Lucideus team resorted to offensive hacking, since Modi claims the majority of cyber attacks of the world who are committed by people also fall between the ages of 15 and 24? Apparently, the answer is simple. “We believe in the need for ethical hacking,” he defends. “We believe in the purpose of making the internet safer.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/saket-modi-calls-for-stronger-cyber-security-discussions

The Phishing Society: Why 'Facebook' is more Dangerous than the Government Spying on You - A Talk by Maria Xynou

maria — 2013-09-27T09:16:19Z

Next Wednesday, you are all invited to listen to Maria Xynou's crazy - or not-so-crazy theory of the "Phishing Society", in which surveillance, control and oppression is not imposed in a traditional top-down manner, but rather a personal and collective "choice"...come and engage in a heated debate!

We have read and heard a lot of theories on the contemporary "Surveillance Society"...but how much of that is about surveillance per se? Are we being spied on a top-down manner...or are we enabling our own surveillance? Have the masses ever directly or indirectly "pursued" their own surveillance in the past...or are we witnessing a new phenomenon in history?

Most geeks would probably agree that the term "phishing" is used to describe the act of attempting to acquire sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords, private encryption keys and credit card details, by masquerading as a trustworthy entity. In other words, "phishing" is commonly used to describe the acquisition of sensitive, personal data through the use of bait.

The aim of the talk on Wednesday is to discuss the possible existence of a "Phishing Society", through which the act of providing bait — whether it being security, commodities, services or relationships — is a common, contemporary practice on a social, political and economic level in the pursuit of the "Gold of the Digital Age": personal data. Through this discussion, the "Government spying vs. Corporate spying" debate will be looked at, in an attempt to understand why the dynamics of surveillance have changed over the last year.

Everyone with an open mind is welcome to attend this talk and to share all opinions, ideas and concerns!

Video

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/the-phishing-society-a-talk-by-maria-xynou

Guidelines for the Protection of National Critical Information Infrastructure: How Much Regulation?

jon — 2013-08-01T04:48:01Z

July has been a busy month for cyber security in India. Beginning with the release of the country’s first National Cyber Security Policy on July 2 and followed just this past week by a set of guidelines for the protection of national critical information infrastructure (CII) developed under the direction of the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), India has made respectable progress in its thinking on national cyber security.

Yet the National Cyber Security Policy, taken together with what little is known of the as-yet restricted guidelines for CII protection, raises troubling questions, particularly regarding the regulation of cyber security practices in the private sector. Whereas the current Policy suggests the imposition of certain preferential acquisition policies, India would be best advised to maintain technology neutrality to ensure maximum security.

According to Section 70(1) of the Information Technology Act, Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) is defined as a “computer resource, the incapacitation or destruction of which, shall have debilitating impact on national security, economy, public health or safety.” In one of the 2008 amendments to the IT Act, the Central Government granted itself the authority to “prescribe the information security practices and procedures for such protected system[s].” These two paragraphs form the legal basis for the regulation of cyber security within the private sector.

Such basis notwithstanding, private cyber security remains almost completely unregulated. According to the Intermediary Guidelines [pdf], intermediaries are required to report cyber security incidents to India’s national-level computer emergency response team (CERT-In). Other than this relatively small stipulation, the only regulation in place for CII exists at the sector level. Last year the Reserve Bank of India mandated that each bank in India appoint a chief information officer (CIO) and a steering committee on information security. The finance sector is also the only sector of the four designated “critical” by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT) Cyber Security Strategy to have established a sector-level CERT, which released a set of non-compulsory guidelines [pdf] for information security governance in late 201

The new guidelines for CII protection seek to reorganize the government’s approach to CII. According to a Times of India article on the new guidelines, the NTRO will outline a total of eight sectors (including energy, aviation, telecom and National Stock Exchange) of CII and then “monitor if they are following the guidelines.” Such language, though vague and certainly unsubstantiated, suggests the NTRO may ultimately be responsible for enforcing the “[mandated] security practices related to the design, acquisition, development, use and operation of information resources” described in the Cyber Security Policy. If so, operators of systems deemed critical by the NTRO or by other authorized government agencies may soon be subject to cyber security regulation—with teeth.

To be sure, some degree of cyber security regulation is necessary. After all, large swaths of the country’s CII are operated by private industry, and poor security practices on the part of one operator can easily undermine the security of the rest. To quote security expert Bruce Schneier, “the externalities in cybersecurity are so great that even the freest free market would fail.” In less academic terms, networks are only as secure as their weakest links. While it is true that many larger enterprises take cyber security quite seriously, small and medium-sized businesses either lack immediate incentives to invest in security (e.g. no shareholders to answer to) or more often lack the basic resources to do so. Some form of government transfer for cyber security related investments could thus go a long way toward shoring up the country’s overall security.

Yet regulation may well extend beyond the simple “fiscal schemes and incentives” outlined in section IV of the Policy and “provide for procurement of indigenously manufactured ICT products that have security implications.” Such, at least, was the aim of the Preferential Market Access (PMA) Policy recently put on hold by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Under pressure from international industry groups, the government has promised to review the PMA Policy, with the PMO indicating it may strike out clauses “regarding preference to domestic manufacturer[s] on security related products that are to be used by private sector.” If the government’s aim is indeed to ensure maximum security (rather than to grow an infant industry), it would be well advised to extend this approach to the Cyber Security Policy and the new guidelines for CII protection.

Although there is a national security argument to be made in favor of such policies—namely that imported ICT products may contain “backdoors” or other nefarious flaws—there are equally valid arguments to be made against preferential acquisition policies, at least for the private sector. First and foremost, it is unlikely that India’s nascent cyber security institutions will be able to regulate procurement in such a rapidly evolving market. Indeed, U.S. authorities have been at pains to set cyber security standards, especially in the past several years. Secondly, by mandating the procurement of indigenously manufactured products, the government may force private industry to forgo higher quality products. Absent access to source code or the ability to effectively reverse engineer imported products, buyers should make decisions based on the products’ performance records, not geo-economic considerations like country of origin. Finally, limiting procurement to a specific subset of ICT products likewise restricts the set of security vulnerabilities available to hackers. Rather than improve security, however, a smaller, more distinct set of vulnerabilities may simply make networks easier targets for the sorts of “debilitating” attacks the Policy aims to avert.

As India broaches the difficult task of regulating cyber security in the private sector, it must emphasize flexibility above all. On one hand, the government should avoid preferential acquisition policies which risk a) overwhelming limited regulatory resources, b) saddling CII operators with subpar products, and/or c) differentiating the country’s attack surface. On the other hand, the government should encourage certain performance standards through precisely the sort of “fiscal schemes and incentives” alluded to in the Cyber Security Policy. Regulation should focus on what technology does and does not do, not who made it or what rival government might have had their hands in its design. Ultimately, India should adopt a policy of technology neutrality, backed by the simple principle of trust but verify. Only then can it be truly secure.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/guidelines-for-protection-of-national-critical-information-infrastructure

More than a Hundred Global Groups Make a Principled Stand against Surveillance

elonnai — 2013-07-31T14:26:38Z

For some time now there has been a need to update understandings of existing human rights law to reflect modern surveillance technologies and techniques.

Nothing could demonstrate the urgency of this situation more than the recent revelations confirming the mass surveillance of innocent individuals around the world.

To move toward that goal, today we’re pleased to announce the formal launch of the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. The principles articulate what international human rights law – which binds every country across the globe – require of governments in the digital age. They speak to a growing global consensus that modern surveillance has gone too far and needs to be restrained. They also give benchmarks that people around the world can use to evaluate and push for changes in their own legal systems.

The product of over a year of consultation among civil society, privacy and technology experts, including the Centre for Internet and Society (read here, here, here and here), the principles have already been co-signed by over hundred organisations from around the world. The process was led by Privacy International, Access, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The process was led by Privacy International, Access, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The release of the principles comes on the heels of a landmark report from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, which details the widespread use of state surveillance of communications, stating that such surveillance severely undermines citizens’ ability to enjoy a private life, freely express themselves and enjoy their other fundamental human rights. And recently, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nivay Pillay, emphasised the importance of applying human right standards and democratic safeguards to surveillance and law enforcement activities.

"While concerns about national security and criminal activity may justify the exceptional and narrowly-tailored use of surveillance programmes, surveillance without adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy actually risk impacting negatively on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms," Pillay said.

The principles, summarised below, can be found in full at necessaryandproportionate.org. Over the next year and beyond, groups around the world will be using them to advocate for changes in how present laws are interpreted and how new laws are crafted.

We encourage privacy advocates, rights organisations, scholars from legal and academic communities, and other members of civil society to support the principles by adding their signature.

To sign, please send an email to rights@eff.org, or visit https://www.necessaryandproportionate.org/about

Summary of the 13 principles

Legality: Any limitation on the right to privacy must be prescribed by law.
Legitimate Aim: Laws should only permit communications surveillance by specified State authorities to achieve a legitimate aim that corresponds to a predominantly important legal interest that is necessary in a democratic society.
Necessity: Laws permitting communications surveillance by the State must limit surveillance to that which is strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
Adequacy: Any instance of communications surveillance authorised by law must be appropriate to fulfill the specific legitimate aim identified.
Proportionality: Decisions about communications surveillance must be made by weighing the benefit sought to be achieved against the harm that would be caused to users’ rights and to other competing interests.
Competent judicial authority: Determinations related to communications surveillance must be made by a competent judicial authority that is impartial and independent.
Due process: States must respect and guarantee individuals' human rights by ensuring that lawful procedures that govern any interference with human rights are properly enumerated in law, consistently practiced, and available to the general public.
User notification: Individuals should be notified of a decision authorising communications surveillance with enough time and information to enable them to appeal the decision, and should have access to the materials presented in support of the application for authorisation.
Transparency: States should be transparent about the use and scope of communications surveillance techniques and powers.
Public oversight: States should establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of communications surveillance.
Integrity of communications and systems: States should not compel service providers, or hardware or software vendors to build surveillance or monitoring capabilities into their systems, or to collect or retain information.
Safeguards for international cooperation: Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) entered into by States should ensure that, where the laws of more than one State could apply to communications surveillance, the available standard with the higher level of protection for users should apply.
Safeguards against illegitimate access: States should enact legislation criminalising illegal communications surveillance by public and private actors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/more-than-hundred-global-groups-make-principled-stand-against-surveillance

India's National Cyber Security Policy in Review

jon — 2013-07-31T10:40:22Z

Earlier this month, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology released India’s first National Cyber Security Policy. Years in the making, the Policy sets high goals for cyber security in India and covers a wide range of topics, from institutional frameworks for emergency response to indigenous capacity building.

What the Policy achieves in breadth, however, it often lacks in depth. Vague, cursory language ultimately prevents the Policy from being anything more than an aspirational document. In order to translate the Policy’s goals into an effective strategy, a great deal more specificity and precision will be required.

The Scope of National Cyber Security

Where such precision is most required is in definitions. Having no legal force itself, the Policy arguably does not require the sort of legal precision one would expect of an act of Parliament, for example. Yet the Policy deals in terms plagued with ambiguity, cyber security not the least among them. In forgoing basic definitions, the Policy fails to define its own scope, and as a result it proves remarkably broad and arguably unfocused.

The Policy’s preamble comes close to defining cyber security in paragraph 5 when it refers to "cyber related incident[s] of national significance" involving "extensive damage to the information infrastructure or key assets…[threatening] lives, economy and national security." Here at least is a picture of cyber security on a national scale, a picture which would be quite familiar to Western policymakers: computer security practices "fundamental to both protecting government secrets and enabling national defence, in addition to protecting the critical infrastructures that permeate and drive the 21st century global economy."[*] The paragraph 5 definition of sorts becomes much broader, however, when individuals and businesses are introduced, and threats like identity theft are brought into the mix.

Here the Policy runs afoul of a common pitfall: conflating threats to the state or society writ large (e.g. cyber warfare, cyber espionage, cyber terrorism) with threats to businesses and individuals (e.g. fraud, identity theft). Although both sets of threats may be fairly described as cyber security threats, only the former is worthy of the term national cyber security. The latter would be better characterized as cyber crime. The distinction is an important one, lest cyber crime be “securitized,” or elevated to an issue of national security. National cyber security has already provided the justification for the much decried Central Monitoring System (CMS). Expanding the range of threats subsumed under this rubric may provide a pretext for further surveillance efforts on a national scale.

Apart from mission creep, this vague and overly broad conception of national cyber security risks overwhelming an as yet underdeveloped system with more responsibilities than it may be able to handle. Where cyber crime might be left up to the police, its inclusion alongside true national-level cyber security threats in the Policy suggests it may be handled by the new "nodal agency" mentioned in section IV. Thus clearer definitions would not only provide the Policy with a more focused scope, but they would also make for a more efficient distribution of already scarce resources.

What It Get Right

Definitions aside, the Policy actually gets a lot of things right — at least as an aspirational document. It certainly covers plenty of ground, mentioning everything from information sharing to procedures for risk assessment / risk management to supply chain security to capacity building. It is a sketch of what could be a very comprehensive national cyber security strategy, but without more specifics, it is unlikely to reach its full potential. Overall, the Policy is much of what one might expect from a first draft, but certain elements stand out as worthy of special consideration.

First and foremost, the Policy should be commended for its commitment to “[safeguarding] privacy of citizen’s data” (sic). Privacy is an integral component of cyber security, and in fact other states’ cyber security strategies have entire segments devoted specifically to privacy. India’s Policy stands to be more specific as to the scope of these safeguards, however. Does the Policy aim primarily to safeguard data from criminals? Foreign agents? Could it go so far as to protect user data even from its own agents? Indeed this commitment to privacy would appear at odds with the recently unveiled CMS. Rather than merely paying lip service to the concept of online privacy, the government would be well advised to pass legislation protecting citizens’ privacy and to use such legislation as the foundation for a more robust cyber security strategy.

The Policy also does well to advocate “fiscal schemes and incentives to encourage entities to install, strengthen and upgrade information infrastructure with respect to cyber security.” Though some have argued that such regulation would impose inordinate costs on private businesses, anyone with a cursory understanding of computer networks and microeconomics could tell you that “externalities in cybersecurity are so great that even the freest free market would fail”—to quote expert Bruce Schneier. In less academic terms, a network is only as strong as its weakest link. While it is true that many larger enterprises take cyber security quite seriously, small and medium-sized businesses either lack immediate incentives to invest in security (e.g. no shareholders to answer to) or more often lack the basic resources to do so. Some form of government transfer for cyber security related investments could thus go a long way toward shoring up the country’s overall security.

The Policy also “[encourages] wider usage of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) within Government for trusted communication and transactions.” It is surprising, however, that the Policy does not mandate the usage of PKI. In general, the document provides relatively few details on what specific security practices operators of Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) can or should implement.

Where It Goes Wrong

One troubling aspect of the Policy is its ambiguous language with respect to acquisition policies and supply chain security in general. The Policy, for example, aims to “[mandate] security practices related to the design, acquisition, development, use and operation of information resources” (emphasis added). Indeed, section VI, subsection A, paragraph 8 makes reference to the “procurement of indigenously manufactured ICT products,” presumably to the exclusion of imported goods. Although supply chain security must inevitably factor into overall cyber security concerns, such restrictive acquisition policies could not only deprive critical systems of potentially higher-quality alternatives but—depending on the implementation of these policies—could also sharpen the vulnerabilities of these systems.

Not only do these preferential acquisition policies risk mandating lower quality products, but it is unlikely they will be able to keep pace with the rapid pace of innovation in information technology. The United States provides a cautionary tale. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), tasked with producing cyber security standards for operators of critical infrastructure, made its first update to a 2005 set of standards earlier this year. Other regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) move at a marginally faster pace yet nevertheless are delayed by bureaucratic processes. FERC has already moved to implement Version 5 of its Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards, nearly a year before the deadline for Version 4 compliance. The need for new standards thus outpaces the ability of industry to effectively implement them.

Fortunately, U.S. cyber security regulation has so-far been technology-neutral. Operators of Critical Information Infrastructure are required only to ensure certain functionalities and not to procure their hardware and software from any particular supplier. This principle ensures competition and thus security, allowing CII operators to take advantage of the most cutting-edge technologies regardless of name, model, etc. Technology neutrality does of course raise risks, such as those emphasized by the Government of India regarding Huawei and ZTE in 2010. Risk assessment must, however, remain focused on the technology in question and avoid politicization. India’s cyber security policy can be technology neutral as long as it follows one additional principle: trust but verify.

Verification may be facilitated by the use of free and open-source software (FOSS). FOSS provides security through transparency as opposed to security through obscurity and thus enables more agile responses to security responses. Users can identify and patch bugs themselves, or otherwise take advantage of the broader user community for such fixes. Thus open-source software promotes security in much the same way that competitive markets do: by accepting a wide range of inputs.

Despite the virtues of FOSS, there are plenty of good reasons to run proprietary software, e.g. fitness for purpose, cost, and track record. Proprietary software makes verification somewhat more complicated but not impossible. Source code escrow agreements have recently gained some traction as a verification measure for proprietary software, even with companies like Huawei and ZTE. In 2010, the infamous Chinese telecommunications giants persuaded the Indian government to lift its earlier ban on their products by concluding just such an agreement. Clearly trust but verify is imminently practicable, and thus technology neutrality.

What’s Missing

Level of detail aside, what is most conspicuously absent from the new Policy is any framework for institutional cooperation beyond 1) the designation of CERT-In “as a Nodal Agency for coordination of all efforts for cyber security emergency response and crisis management” and 2) the designation of the “National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) to function as the nodal agency for critical information infrastructure protection in the country.” The Policy mentions additionally “a National nodal agency to coordinate all matters related to cyber security in the country, with clearly defined roles & responsibilities.” Some clarity with regard to roles and responsibilities would certainly be in order. Even among these three agencies—assuming they are all distinct—it is unclear who is to be responsible for what.

More confusing still is the number of other pre-existing entities with cyber security responsibilities, in particular the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), which in an earlier draft of the Policy was to have authority over the NCIIPC. The Ministry of Defense likewise has bolstered its cyber security and cyber warfare capabilities in recent years. Is it appropriate for these to play a role in securing civilian CII? Finally, the already infamous Central Monitoring System, justified predominantly on the very basis of cyber security, receives no mention at all. For a government that is only now releasing its first cyber security policy, India has developed a fairly robust set of institutions around this issue. It is disappointing that the Policy does not more fully address questions of roles and responsibilities among government entities.

Not only is there a lack of coordination among government cyber security entities, but there is no mention of how the public and private sectors are to cooperate on cyber security information—other than oblique references to “public-private partnerships.” Certainly there is a need for information sharing, which is currently facilitated in part by the sector-level CERTS. More interesting, however, is the question of liability for high-impact cyber attacks. To whom are private CII operators accountable in the event of disruptive cyber attacks on their systems? This legal ambiguity must necessarily be resolved in conjunction with the “fiscal schemes and incentives” also alluded to in the Policy in order to motivate strong cyber security practices among all CII operators and the public more broadly.

Next Steps

India’s inaugural National Cyber Security Policy is by and large a step in the right direction. It covers many of the most pressing issues in national cyber security and lays out a number of ambitious goals, ranging from capacity building to robust public-private partnerships. To realize these goals, the government will need a much more detailed roadmap.

Firstly, the extent of the government’s proposed privacy safeguards must be clarified and ideally backed by a separate piece of privacy legislation. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” When it comes to cyberspace, the Indian people must demand both liberty and safety.

Secondly, the government should avoid overly preferential acquisition policies and allow risk assessments to be technologically rather than politically driven. Procurement should moreover be technology-neutral. Open source software and source code escrow agreements can facilitate the verification measures that make technology neutrality work.

Finally, to translate this policy into a sound strategy will necessarily require that India’s various means be directed toward specific ends. The Policy hints at organizational mapping with references to CERT-In and the NCIIPC, but the roles and responsibilities of other government agencies as well as the private sector remain underdetermined. Greater clarity on these points would improve inter-agency and public-private cooperation—and thus, one hopes, security—significantly.

[*]. Melissa E. Hathaway and Alexander Klimburg, “Preliminary Considerations: On National Cyber Security” in National Cyber Security Framework Manual, ed. Alexander Klimburg, (Tallinn, Estonia: Nato Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2012), 13

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-national-cyber-security-policy-in-review

The Audacious ‘Right to Be Forgotten’

kovey — 2013-07-31T10:08:55Z

There has long been speculation over the permanency of our online presence. Posting about excessively-personal details, commenting in a way which is later embarrassing, being caught in unflattering public photos; to our chagrin, all of these unfortunate situations often persist on the web, and can continue to haunt us in future years.

Perhaps less dire, what if someone decides that she no longer wants the history of her internet action stored in online systems?

So far, there has been confusion over what should be done, and what realistically can be done about this type of permanent presence on a platform as complex and international in scope as the internet. But now, the idea of a right to be forgotten may be able to define the rights and responsibilities in dealing with unwanted data.

The right to be forgotten is an interesting and highly contentious concept currently being debated in the new European Union Data Protection Regulations.[1]

The Data Protection Regulation Bill was proposed in 2012 by EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and stands to replace the EU’s previous Data Protection law, which was enacted in 1995. Referred to as the “right to be forgotten” (RTBF), article 17 of the proposal would essentially allow an EU citizen to demand service providers to “take all reasonable steps” to remove his or her personal data from the internet, as long as there is no “legitimate” reason for the provider to retain it.[1] Despite the evident emphasis on personal privacy, the proposition is surrounded by controversy and facing resistance from many parties. Apparently, there are a range of concerns over the ramifications RTBF could bring.

Not only are major IT companies staunchly opposed to the daunting task of being responsible for the erasure of data floating around the web, but governments like the United States and even Great Britain are objecting the proposal as well.[2],[3]

From a commercial aspect, IT companies and US lobbying forces view the concept of RTBF as a burden and a waste of resources for service providers to implement. Largely due to the RTBF clause, the new EU Data Protection proposal as a whole has witnessed intense, “unprecedented” lobbying by the largest US tech companies and US lobby groups[4],[5]. From a different angle, there are those like Great Britain, whose grievances with the RTBF are in its overzealous aim and insatiable demands.[2] There are doubts as to whether a company will even be able to track down and erase all forms of the data in question. The British Ministry of Justice stated, "The UK does not support the right to be forgotten as proposed by the European commission. The title raises unrealistic and unfair expectations of the proposals."[2] Many experts share these feasibility concerns. The Council of European Professional Informatics Societies (CEPIS) wrote a short report on the ramifications of cloud computing practices in 2011, in which it conformed, “It is impossible to guarantee complete deletion of all copies of data. Therefore it is difficult to enforce mandatory deletion of data. Mandatory deletion of data should be included into any forthcoming regulation of Cloud Computing services, but still it should not be relied on too much: the age of a ‘Guaranteed complete deletion of data’, if it ever existed has passed."[6]

Feasibility aside, the most compelling issue in the debate over RTBF is the demanding challenge of balancing and prioritizing parallel rights. When it comes to forced data erasure, conflicts of right to be forgotten versus freedom of speech and expression easily arises. Which right takes precedence over the other?

Some RTBF opponents fear that RTBF will hinder freedom of speech. They have a valid point. What is the extent of personal data erasure? Abuse of RTBF could result in some strange, Orwellian cyberspace where the mistakes or blemishes of society are all erased or constantly amended, and only positivity fills the internet. There are reasonable fears that a chilling effect may come into play once providers face the hefty noncompliance fines of the Data Protection law, and begin to automatically opt for customer privacy over considerations for freedom of expression. Moreover, what safeguards may be in place to prevent politicians or other public figures from removing bits of unwanted coverage?

Although these examples are extreme, considerations like these need to be made in the development of this law. With the amount of backlash from various entities, it is clear that a concept like the right to be forgotten could not exist as a simple, generalized law. It needs refinement.

Still, the concept of a RTBF is not without its supporters. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, professor of Internet Governance at Oxford Internet Institute, considers RTBF implementation feasible and necessary, saying that even if it is difficult to remove all traces of an item, "it might be in Google's back-up, but if 99% of the population don't have access to it you have effectively been deleted."[7] Additionally, he claims that the undermining of freedom of speech and expression is "a ridiculous misstatement."[7] To him, the right to be forgotten is tied intricately to the important and natural process of forgetting things of the past.

Moreover, the Data Protection Regulation does mention certain exceptions for the RTBF, including protection for "journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression." [1] The problem, however, is the seeming contradiction between the RTBF and its own exceptions. In practice, it will be difficult to reconcile the powers granted by the RTBF with the limitations claimed in other sections of the Data Protection Regulation.

Currently, the are a few clean and straight forward implementations of RTBF. One would be the removal of mined user data which has been accumulated by service providers. Here, invoking the right would be possible once a person has deleted accounts or canceled contracts with a service (thereby fulfilling the notion that the service no longer has "legitimate" reason to retain the data). Another may be in the case of personal data given by minors who later want their data removed, which is an important example mentioned in Reding’s original proposal.[4] These narrow cases are some of the only instances where RTBF may be used without fear of interference with other social rights. Broader implementations of the RTBF concept, under the current unrefined form, may cause too many conflicting areas with other freedoms, and especially freedom of expression.

Overall, the Right to Be Forgotten is a noble concept, born out of concern for the citizen being overpowered by the internet. As an early EU publication states, "The [RTBF] rules are about empowering people, not about erasing past events or restricting the freedom of the press."[8] But at this point, too many clear details seem to be lacking from the draft design of the RTBF. There is concern that without proper deliberation, the concept could lead to unforeseen and undesirable outcomes. Privacy is a fundamental right that deserves to be protected, but policy makers cannot blindly follow the ideals of one right to the point where it interferes with other aspects of society.

Fortunately, recent amendment proposals have attempted some refinement of the bill. Jeffrey Rosen writes in the Stanford Law Review about a certain key concept that could help legitimize the right, namely an amendment proposing that only personally contributed data may be rescinded.[9] This would help avoid interference with others’ rights to expression, and provide limitations on the extent of right to be forgotten claims. As Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology wrote in the Huffington Post, amendments are needed which can specifically define personal data in the RTBF sense; thereby distinguishing which type of data is allowed to be removed.[10] In the upcoming months, the European Parliament will be considering such amendments to the proposal. This time will be crucial as it will determine if the development of the right to be forgotten will make it a viable option for the EU’s 500 million citizens.

But even after terms are defined and after safeguards are established, this underling philosophical question remains:

Should a person be able to reclaim the right to privacy after willingly giving it up in the first place?

The RTBF is obviously a contentious topic, one which may need to be gauged individually by nation states; it will soon be revealed if the EU becomes the first to adopt the right. If RTBF fails to pass in European parliament, I would hope that it at least serves to remind people of the permanence of the data which they add to the internet, further incentivizing careful consideration of what one yields to the web. Rights frequently evolve and expand to meet societal or technological advances. If we are to expand the concept of privacy, however, then we must do so with proper consideration, so that privacy may not gain disproportionate power over other rights, or vice versa.

[1]. http://bit.ly/WSZvHv

[2]. http://bit.ly/YxKaNJ

[3]. http://tcrn.ch/YdH82f

[4]. http://bit.ly/196E8qj

[5]. http://bit.ly/wJKWTZ

[6]. http://bit.ly/15aoknF

[7]. http://bit.ly/Z3JbRU

[8]. http://bit.ly/xfodhI

[9]. http://bit.ly/13uyda5

[10]. http://huff.to/16P2XIS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-audacious-right-to-be-forgotten

Privacy Round Table, New Delhi

praskrishna — 2013-08-12T10:41:08Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), FICCI and DSCI cordially invites you to attend the "Privacy Round Table" to be held at the FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi on Saturday, August 24, 2013, 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., to discuss the "Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy" by the Justice A.P. Shah Committee, the text of the "Citizen's Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013, drafted by the Centre for Internet and Society, and "Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-Regulation" by DSCI.

Featured Remote Presentation from Jamie Hine and Betsy Broder, Federal Trade Commissioner, US

The discussions and recommendations from the meeting will be published into a compilation, and presented at the Internet Governance meeting planned for October 2013.

Draft Agenda for the Roundtable Discussion

Time	Detail
10.30	Overview, explanation, and discussion: The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy.
11.30	Overview, explanation, and discussion: Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation.
12.15	Tea
12.30	Overview, explanation, and discussion: The Citizens Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013.
13.15	Lunch
14.15	In depth discussion and overview of discussions and feedback from previous Roundtables and subsequent amendments to the Citizens Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013.
16.00	The US Privacy Framework: Remote Presentation from Jamie Hine and Betsy Broder, Federal Trade Commission, US.
17.00	Tea

Confirmations and RSVP:

Please send your email confirmations for attending the New Delhi Privacy Roundtable on August 24, 2013, to elonnai@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-round-table-delhi

Your telco could help spy on you

praskrishna — 2013-07-30T06:13:07Z

Telecom minister gives approval to changes in rules for mobile licences to enable such mass surveillance.

The article by Joji Thomas Philip, Leslie D'Monte and Shauvik Ghosh was originally published in Livemint on July 30, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Telecom companies and Internet service providers will soon help the government monitor every call made, every email sent and every website visited, with the Centre deciding to connect their networks to its automated surveillance platform known as the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS).

Communications minister Kapil Sibal has approved changes in existing rules and new clauses to be inserted in mobile licences for enabling such mass surveillance, copies of documents reviewed by Mint reveal.

	The department of telecommunications (DoT) will shortly send a letter to all telcos asking them to connect their “lawful interception system (LIS)” to the CMS “at a regional monitoring centre through an interception, store and forward (ISF) server placed in the licensee’s premises”, according to the documents. Telcos including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (MTNL), Reliance Communications Ltd, Bharti Airtel Ltd, Vodafone India Ltd and Tata TeleServices Ltd declined to comment on questions emailed in this regard.

The department of telecommunications (DoT) will shortly send a letter to all telcos asking them to connect their “lawful interception system (LIS)” to the CMS “at a regional monitoring centre through an interception, store and forward (ISF) server placed in the licensee’s premises”, according to the documents.

Telcos including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (MTNL), Reliance Communications Ltd, Bharti Airtel Ltd, Vodafone India Ltd and Tata TeleServices Ltd declined to comment on questions emailed in this regard.

“The automated process of the CMS will be subjected to the same regulatory scrutiny as is available in the present manual system under Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act and Rules 419-A thereunder, with the added advantage of having a safeguard against any illegal provisioning by the telecom service providers in the present system, however, remote it may be,” DoT said in an email reply to a questionnaire with a brief on CMS.

“Safeguard has also been built against any unauthorized provisioning by having a different interception provisioning agency than the interception requisitioning and monitoring agencies thus having an inbuilt system of checks and balances. Further, a non-erasable command log will be maintained by the system, which can be examined anytime for misuse, thus having an additional safeguard,” DoT said.

The CMS was approved by the cabinet committee on security (CCS) on 16 June 2011, with government funding of Rs.400 crore. It is expected to enable the government to monitor all forms of communication, from emails to online activity to phone calls, text messages and faxes by automating the existing process of interception and monitoring. The government completed a pilot project in September 2011 under which the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DoT) installed two ISF servers, one of them for MTNL.

“The interception services have been integrated and tested successfully for these two telecom services providers (TSPs),” the note said, referring to MTNL and Tata Communications Ltd. MTNL officials declined to comment. There was no response to queries by Tata Communications.

It added that training had been imparted to six law enforcement agencies—the Intelligence Bureau, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Research and Analysis Wing, the Delhi Police and the National Investigation Agency.

However, the documents also reveal that the CMS project is getting delayed over technical issues such as lawful interception systems sending the intercept-related information (IRI) in “their own proprietary format”; difficulty in tracing the movement of “the target from the home network to the roaming network”; and how to independently provision voice and data interception of mobile users.

The government is simultaneously devising a strategy to counter criticism from the media and privacy lobby groups that this surveillance platform has no privacy safeguards. Mint reported on 13 July that fresh questions were raised on the CMS infringing on the rights of individuals, especially in the wake of the US government’s PRISM surveillance project.

In an internal note on 16 July to help Sibal brief the media, DoT said even as the CMS will automate the existing process of interception and monitoring “... all safeguards that are currently in place in the manual mode of interception will continue”.

The note argued that implementation of the CMS “will rather enhance the privacy of the citizens” since it will not be necessary to take the authorization (for tapping) to the nodal officer of the telecom service providers “who comes to know whose or which phone is being intercepted”. The note added that after the CMS is implemented, provisioning of interception will be done by a CMS authority, who would be different from the law enforcement agency authorities.

“The law enforcement agency (LEA) cannot provision for interception and monitoring and the CMS authority cannot see the content but would be able to provision the request from the LEA.Hence, complete check and balance will be ensured. Further, a non-erasable command log will be maintained by the system, which can be examined anytime for misuse, thus having an additional safeguard,” added the department’s note briefing the minister.

Also, acknowledging that “questions were being asked about the practices of Indian agencies and the privacy and rights of its citizens”, national security adviser Shivshankar Menon in a 23 June note to the ministries of home, external affairs and telecom, the department of electronics and information technology, and the cabinet secretary said: “Only home secretaries of the Centre and states can authorize such monitoring; orders are valid for two months, are not extendable beyond six months; records are to be maintained, use of storage is limited and a review committee of cabinet secretary, law secretary and secretary of the telecom department regularly screens all cases.”

Menon also admitted that when it came to individual privacy rights, there were “larger issues that needed serious consideration and wider consultation with industry, advocacy groups and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) as has been the case so far in the draft privacy Bill... For data protection and retention in India, however, there may be a need to consider legislation or strengthening existing legislation, as the march of technology has made most present laws irrelevant.”

Privacy experts are convinced that safeguards are needed, especially since India does not have a privacy law.

“To safeguard public interest, the government should also draft a law that will make it a criminal offence if a CMS authority is found in possession of any personal information culled through the CMS. That will prove to be a deterrent,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, a privacy lobby body. “Also, the government must build an audit trail using PKI (public key encryption) and people as an additional safeguard.”

“As I understand it, there is also no clear statutory backing for the CMS,” said Apar Gupta, a partner at law firm Advani and Co. that specializes in information technology (IT) law. “What is important is that every tapping order should be backed by a reason. This was the case with the manual process. Will this be possible in an automated surveillance system such as the CMS?”

“What is disturbing is that there is no transparency with regard to the CMS. Everything is happening under the radar with media reports periodically giving us glimpses into the project,” he said. “A state should protect its interests but should do so in a manner that safeguards privacy and limits abuse.”

According to the Freedom on the Net 2012 report by Freedom House, an independent privacy watchdog body, of the 47 countries analysed, 19 had introduced new laws or other directives since January 2011 that could affect free speech online, violate users’ privacy, or punish individuals who post certain types of content. India, which scored 39 points out of 100 (score achieved out of 100 for censoring the Internet), was termed partly free by the report, which was released on 24 September.

Globally, 79% of the respondents in another study said they were concerned about their privacy online, with India (94%), Brazil (90%) and Spain (90%) showing the highest level of concern, according to a June survey undertaken by research firm ComRes, and commissioned by Big Brother Watch, an online privacy campaign.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-july-30-2013-joji-thomas-philip-leslie-d-monte-shauvik-ghosh-your-telco-could-help-spy-on-you

Privacy Meeting: Brussels – Bangalore

praskrishna — 2013-09-12T07:56:53Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore welcomes you to a talk on privacy by Gertjan Boulet and Dariusz Kloza on August 14, 2013, 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.

Slides from the talk can be accessed here.

Draft Agenda

Time	Detail
17.00 17.15	Brief presentation of the Research Group on Law, Science, Technology and Society (LSTS) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium
17.15 18.15	Session on "new tools" to protect privacy and personal data. A case-study on (European) approach to privacy impact assessment This session will provide an overview to the main findings of the projects carried out by VUB-LSTS (predominantly) with regard to privacy impact assessments (PIA), starting with the EU co-funded PIAF (“A Privacy Impact Assessment Framework for data protection and privacy rights”; 2011-2012), which reviewed existing PIA frameworks worldwide, surveyed opinions of national data protection authorities (DPAs) on an optimal PIA policy and, finally, provided a set of recommendations for PIA policy-makers and practitioners. This session will be concluded by proposing adaptation of the so-called environmental democracy to the needs and reality of privacy. The points in this session will be contrasted with the experience of India.
18.15 18.45	Session on co-operation of data protection authorities "Improving Practical and Helpful cooperation between Data Protection Authorities", 2013-15. This session will provide a preliminary analysis of the (legal) factors that pose as obstacles to and/or encourage co-operation between DPAs worldwide in enforcing privacy and data protection laws. Such an analysis aims at creating a 'wish-list', i.e. at identifying what measures could be taken to reduce barriers and to further foster co-operation. This session will be concluded by discussing what DPAs' can learn about co-operation from European and international competition law. The points in this session will be contrasted with the experience of India.
18.45 19.00	Break
19.00 19.15	Small session on big data The focus of this session will be on the challenges posed to sovereignty by cross-border law enforcement access to big data. The Belgian Yahoo-case will be discussed as it is emblematic of a reality with broad national claims to access data in a trans-border context. Indian perspectives on this topic will be taken into account.
19.15 20.00	Open discussion

Materials

Wright, David, Kush Wadhwa, Paul De Hert, and Dariusz Kloza, A Privacy Impact Assessment Framework for Data Protection and Privacy Rights, 2011. http://piafproject.eu/ref/PIAF_D1_21_Sept2011Revlogo.pdf
Hosein, Gus, and Simon Davies, Empirical Research of Contextual Factors Affecting the Introduction of Privacy Impact Assessment Frameworks in the Member States of the European Union, 2012. http://piafproject.eu/ref/PIAF_deliverable_d2_final.pdf
De Hert, Paul, Dariusz Kloza, and David Wright, Recommendations for a Privacy Impact Assessment Framework for the European Union, 2012. http://piafproject.eu/ref/PIAF_D3_final.pdf
Kloza Dariusz, Moscibroda Anna, Boulet Gertjan, “Improving Co-operation Between Data Protection Authorities: First Lessons from Competition Law.” in Jusletter IT. Die Zeitschrift für IT und Recht, published by Weblaw AG. http://jusletter-it.weblaw.ch/issues/2013/20-Februar-2013/2128.html
Kloza Dariusz, “Public voice in privacy governance: lessons from environmental democracy”, in Erich Schweighofer (ed.), KnowRight 2012 conference proceedings [forthcoming].

Other resources

PHAEDRA project: http://www.phaedra-project.eu

PIAF project: http://piafproject.eu
PIAw@tch, the PIA observatory: http://piawatch.eu

The Speakers

Gertjan Boulet

Gertjan Boulet holds a joint LL.M/MPhil (2010) from Leuven University (Belgium) and Tilburg University (the Netherlands) where he successfully completed a Research Master of Laws programme focused on legal methods and interdisciplinary research. He started to work as a doctoral researcher at the Research Group on Law, Science, Technology and Society (LSTS) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in January 2013 for the EU-funded research project 'Improving Practical and Helpful cooperAtion bEtween Data PRotection Authorities' (PHAEDRA). Before, he was a freelance researcher at VUB, and became a member of the programming committee of the annual conference 'Computers, Privacy & Data Protection' (CPDP). Prior to joining the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Gertjan worked for the Brussels Airport Company (2010) and the law firm DLA Piper (2011). He also completed internships at the Belgian Public Prosecutor (2007), the Constitutional Court of Belgium (2012) and the Belgian Privacy Commission (2013).

Gertjan Boulet

Dariusz Kloza

Dariusz (Darek) Kloza is a doctoral researcher at the Research Group on Law, Science, Technology, and Society (LSTS) and the Institute for European Studies (IES) at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). He holds both an LL.M. in Law and Technology (2010) from the Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT) at Tilburg University (with distinction) and a master degree in law from University of Białystok (2008). He was also an exchange student at University of Copenhagen (2007-2008). His research is focused on fundamental rights in the digital era (especially privacy and data protection), liability of intermediary service providers and private international law. His doctoral research focuses on positive procedural obligations for privacy and data protection from the European perspective.

He has been involved in researching privacy and data protection issues in a number of EU co-funded projects, such as PIAF (Privacy Impact Assessment Framework for data protection and privacy rights), PHAEDRA (Improving Practical and Helpful cooperAtion bEtween Data PRotection Authorities) and ADVISE (Advanced Video Surveillance archives search Engine for security applications). He has also contributed to the work of the European Commission’s Task Force for Smart Grids, aimed at ensuring high level of privacy and personal data protection in smart grids/metering.

Dariusz Kloza

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-meeting-brussels-bangalore

Your life's an open Facebook

praskrishna — 2013-07-26T04:53:11Z

The jury's out on Facebook's newly introduced Graph Search. While some argue that it's a stalker's dream come true, others say it's a great tool for social research. Shikha Kumar jumps right into the debate.

Shikha Kumar's article was published in DNA on July 21, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Do this little exercise. Log on to Facebook and type ‘friends of friends who are single’ or ‘friends of friends who like dancing’ in the search bar on the top left hand of the screen. A long list of names with photographs of people you may have never seen in your life will pop up in front of you. Better still (or worse, depending on perspective), you can refine this search further with the drop down menu on the right hand side of the screen; you can filter the results on the basis of gender, employer, current city, hometown and so on.

Now, depending on whether you are paranoid about your privacy, or don’t give a damn (since the government is snooping on us anyway), you will either view this feature as a stalker’s dream come true or just another irritant to rant about for a day and then forget.

Whatever your reaction, Graph Search, an upgrade on Facebook’s rudimentary ‘search’, is here to stay and it holds the potential to forever change the ‘search’ behaviour of its members.

HOW DOES IT WORK?
Put simply, Graph Search is the Google search of Facebook. It indexes every little detail you have shared on Facebook — every drunken ‘like’, every status update, every unflattering photograph you are tagged in, every joke you’ve shared — so that a simple search can throw up pretty specific answers. A beta version was unveiled to a select audience in January but it went live for all English (US) users early last week.

A look at a Tumblr blog called ‘Actual Facebook Graph Searches’ gives an indication of how specific the results can get. Ranging from humorous to downright outrageous, some queries posted included ‘Single women who live nearby and who are interested in men and like Getting Drunk’ and ‘Married people who like Prostitutes.’

This is exactly why people like Adarsh Matham, a 29-year-old tech writer, cite as reason for never having been on Facebook. While he does admit the new feature can be very useful in finding jobs, dates, new friends and local businesses, he says the downsides trump the benefits. “Imagine if some pervert searches for ‘girls who like Fifty Shades of Grey in Mumbai’… It will make it easier for him to stalk them,” says Matham.

If you use your imagination, the list won’t end. Imagine what perverts at your workplace and in your apartment complex who are not ‘friends’ with you on Facebook can do with information they glean about you thanks to Graph Search.

Matham is particularly concerned with Graph Search’s misuse in India because of our social attitudes and tendency to slot people into types and judge them immediately. “One of the first things that people do when they go for a job or on a date is a Google search. Soon they will do a Graph Search too. This is a complete intrusion of one’s privacy.”

Sunil Abraham, director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, thinks the privacy implications are worrying because the average Indian user is not a ‘power’ user who fully exploits the site’s advanced features and is thus unclear about what personal information is public or private. “People need to be very cautious as they’re leaving behind a digital trail that is always searchable unlike on other platforms like Twitter. It’s like tattooing yourself, it’s permanent but you may not be comfortable with it in the future,” he says.

A brilliant format
Privacy concerns aside, many have warmed up to the benefits of Graph Search. Raghu Mohan, a Bangalore-based writer with YourStory.in, has used it for over six months and has only good things to say about it. “I think it’s a remarkable engineering feat. Any platform with a user data of over a billion people needs to come up with such a search facility,” says Mohan, adding that the tool has been very useful in finding work-related data.

Chetan Asher, founder and CEO of Tonic Media, a social media agency, agrees with him, saying the new feature is “very exciting” purely because of its ability to index information that was always there, but was buried somewhere. “The simple phrase-like format is brilliant… It completely changes the way you network and mine for information.”

Mohan adds that start-ups can benefit with what the feature offers. “Though not a complete marketing tool, Graph Search patterns can also provide more targeted behaviour for advertisers.” Mohan also looks at the feature as a social influencer. “If I’m looking to buy a new car, I’d rather use Graph Search to find out opinions based on my friends’ recommendations than a web search involving strangers,” he says.

From his experience, Asher says that the site doesn’t compromise the privacy settings that the user has set. But Ankit Tuteja, a 23-year-old technology expert in Delhi, would beg to differ with this. Tuteja has experimented with random searches to gauge how the feature worked with different privacy settings and found that Facebook tends to override certain security settings. “The security of your photographs are a major cause for concern,” he cautions.

For those concerned about privacy, it’s best to think carefully before ‘liking’ or uploading anything as it will remain in the digital realm forever, says Abraham. Mohan shrugs off privacy concerns as overrated. “You lost your personal life when you went online. Stalking can happen otherwise too.”

This innovation is clearly important to the company. While Asher says it is part of Facebook’s long-term plans to move beyond networking, Abraham says that faced with slow overall growth globally (except in markets like India), such innovations are just an attempt to keep its user base intact.

The more things change...
Whatever the reaction, Facebook is probably banking on the fact that after initial protests and social media debates, people will come around to accepting this intrusion into their private lives.

The American news satire website The Onion pretty much nailed this when, in a satirical piece, it ‘quoted’ Zuckerberg as saying: “Facebook will introduce a bunch of new features that everyone will hate, that will make your experience worse, you will complain about it, and then you will realize you are utterly powerless to do anything about these new features, at which point you will move on and continue to use our product every single day. Any users who strongly disagree with their policy should feel free to deactivate their accounts and reactivate them two days later.”

Admit it, you’ll probably be one of them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-july-21-2013-shikha-kumar-your-life-is-an-open-facebook

Meeting of a Sub-committee on DNA Profiling Bill in Hyderabad

praskrishna — 2013-08-21T06:21:44Z

A sub-committee has been constituted as per the recommendations of the Expert Committee of DNA Profiling Bill. The sub-committee will have a meeting in Hyderabad on August 6, 2013.

The sub-committee was constituted with the following members:

Dr. Raghbir Singh, Former Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law, New Delhi
Shri. Kamal Kumar, IPS, (Retd.), Director General of Police, Hyderabad
Mr. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Dr. Alka Sharma, Director, DBT
Dr. Madhusudan Reddy, Staff Scientist and Group Leader, CDFD, Hyderabad

The meeting has been scheduled for August 6, 2013, 10.30 a.m. at CDFD, Hyderabad to incorporate the ipunts/suggestions of the members of the Expert Committee appropriately in the draft Human Profiling Bill. The comments/inputs on the draft Bill have been requested from all the members of the Expert Committee. Once received, the same will be forwarded to you for further discussion in the sub-committee meeting.

The information was communicated by Dr. Alka Sharma, Director/Scientist F, Medical Biotechnology Division, R. No. 713, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India,

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/meeting-of-sub-committee-on-dna-profiling-bill

Report on the 5th Privacy Round Table meeting

maria — 2013-07-26T08:24:27Z

This report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the fifth Privacy Round Table in Calcutta, on 13th July 2013.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

In 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), and the Data Security Council of India (DSCI), is holding a series of seven multi-stakeholder round table meetings on “privacy” from April 2013 to October 2013. The CIS is undertaking this initiative as part of their work with Privacy International UK on the SAFEGUARD project.

In 2012, the CIS and DSCI were members of the Justice AP Shah Committee which created the “Report of Groups of Experts on Privacy”. The CIS has recently drafted a Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, with the objective of contributing to privacy legislation in India. The CIS has also volunteered to champion the session/workshops on “privacy” in the meeting on Internet Governance proposed for October 2013.

At the roundtables the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, DSCI´s paper on “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation” and the text of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be discussed. The discussions and recommendations from the round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

The dates of the seven Privacy Round Table meetings are enlisted below:

New Delhi Roundtable: 13 April 2013
Bangalore Roundtable: 20 April 2013
Chennai Roundtable: 18 May 2013
Mumbai Roundtable: 15 June 2013
Kolkata Roundtable: 13 July 2013
New Delhi Roundtable: 24 August 2013
New Delhi Final Roundtable and National Meeting: 19 October 2013

Following the first four Privacy Round Tables in Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai and Mumbai, this report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the fifth Privacy Round Table meeting in Kolkata, on 13th July 2013.

Presentation by Mr. Reijo Aarnio – Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman

The fifth Privacy Round Table meeting began with a presentation by Mr. Reijo Aarnio, the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman. In particular, Mr. Aarnio initiated his presentation by distinguishing privacy and data protection and by emphasizing the need to protect both equally within a legal framework. Mr. Aarnio proceeded by highlighting that 96 percent of the Finnish community believes that data protection is necessary, especially since it is considered to play an essential role in the enhancement of the self-determination of the individual. Fuerthermore, Mr. Aarnio pointed out that the right to privacy in Finland in guaranteed under section 10 of the Finnish constitution.

The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman argued that in order for India to gain European data protection adequacy, the implementation of a regulation for data protection in the country is a necessary prerequisite. Mr. Aarnio argued that although the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 provides a decisive step in regulating the use of data, the interception of communications and surveillance in India, it lacks in defining the data controller and the data subject, both of which should be legally specified.

In order to support his argument that India needs privacy legislation, the Ombudsman clarified the term “data protection” by stating that it relates to the following:

individual autonomy
the right to know
the right to live without undue interference
the right to be evaluated on the basis of correct and relevant information
the right to know the criteria automatic decision-making systems are based on
the right to trust data security
the right to receive assistance from independent authorities
the right to be treated in accordance with all other basic rights in a democracy
the right to have access to public documents
the freedom of speech

In addition to the above, Mr. Aarnio argued that the reason why data protection is important is because it ensures the respect for human dignity, individual autonomy and honor.

The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman gave a brief overview of the development and history of data protection, by citing the oathe of Hippokrates, the Great Revolutions and World War II, all throughout which data protection has gained increased significance. Mr. Aarnio pointed out that as a result of the development and proliferation of technology, societies have evolved and that data protection is a major component of the contemporary Information Society. The Ombudsman stated that in the Information Society, information is money and open data and big data are products which are being commercialised and commodified. Hence, in order to ensure that human rights are not commericalised and commodified in the process, it is necessary to establish legal safeguards which can prevent potential abuse.

Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the protection of personal data. Mr. Aarnio argued that the Parliament is the most important data protection authority in Europe and that privacy is legally guaranteed on three levels:

Protection of personal life: The Criminal Code (chapter 24) addresses and protects freedom of speech and secrecy regulations
Communication: Protection of content and traffic data
Data Protection: The Personal Data Act creates Right to Know and to affect/impact, the right to organise one's personal life, automatic processing of personal data and maintenance of register

The Ombudsman also referred to the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data.

Mr. Aarnio argued that in the contemporary ecosystem of the Information Society, countries need “Privacy by Design”, which entails the description of the processing of personal data and the evaluation of its lawfulness. In particular, the purpose for the collection and processing of data should be legally defined, as well as whether such data will be shared with third parties, disclosed and/or retained. The Ombudsman argued that India needs to define its data controllers and to legally specify their roles, in order to ensure that the management of data does not result in the infringement upon the right to privacy and other human rights.

The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman concluded his presentation by stating that data security is not only a technological matter, but also – and in some cases, mostly – a legal issue, which is why India should enact the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

Discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

Chapter I: Definitions

The discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 commenced with a debate on whether such a Bill is necessary at all, given that section 43 of the IT Act is considered (by participants at the round table) to regulate the protection of data. It was pointed out that although section 43 of the Information Technology Act provides some rules for data protection, the Committee has stated that these rules are inadequate. In particular, India currently lacks statutory provisions dealing with data protection and rules are inadequate because they are subject to parliamentary debate, and the Parliament does not have the right to vote on rules. The Parliament does not have the right to amend rules, which means that it does not have the right to amend the rules on data protection under the IT Act. Since the rules under section 43 of the IT Act are not subject to parliamentary review, India needs a seperate privacy statutue. Hence, the round table reached a consensus on the discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

Personal data is defined in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 as any data which relates to a natural person, while sensitive personal data is defined as a subset of personal data, such as biometric data, medical history, sexual preference, political affiliation and criminal history. It was pointed out that race, religion and caste are not included in the Bill's definition for sensitive personal data because the Government of India refuses to acknowledge these types of information as personal data. According to the Government, the collection of such data is routine and there have been no cases when such data has been breached, which is why race, religion and caste should not be included in the definition for sensitive personal information. However, the last caste sensus took place in 1931 and since then there has been no caste sensus, because it is considered to be a sensitive issue. This contradictory fact to the government's position was pointed out during the round table meeting.

A participant argued that financial information should be included within the definition for sensitive personal data. This was countered by a participant who argued that India has the Credit Information Companies Act which covers credit information and sets out specific information for the protection of credit data by banks and relevant companies. Yet the question of whether general financial information should be included in the definition for sensitive personal data was further discussed, and many participants supported its inclusion in the definition.

The question of whether IP addresses should be included in the definition for personal data was raised. The response to this question was that IP addresses should be included in the definition since they relate to the identification of a natural person. However, the question of whether a specific IP address is considered personal data, as many individuals use the Web through the same IP address, remained unclear. Other participants raised the question of whether unborn humans and deceased persons should have privacy rights. The response to this was that in India, only the court can decide if a deceased person can have the right to privacy.

The controversy between the UID project and the protection of biometric data under the definition for sensitive personal information was discussed in the round table. In particular, it was pointed out that because the UID scheme requires the mass biometric collection in India is contradictory to the protection of such data under the Bill. As the UID scheme remains unregulated, it is unclear who will have access to the biometric data, who it will be shared with, whether it will be disclosed and retained and if so, for how long. All the questions which revolve around the implementation of the UID scheme and the use of the biometric data collected raise concerns in regards to what extent such data can realistically be protected under privacy legislation.

On this note, a participant mentioned that under EU regulation, an ID number is included in the definition for sensitive personal information and it was recommended that the same is added in India's draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. Furthermore, a participant recommended that fingerprints are also included in the definition for sensitive personal data, especially in light of the NPR and UID scheme.

A participant argued that passwords should also be included in the definition for sensitive personal data, as well as private keys which are used for encryption and decryption. It was pointed out that section 69 of the IT Act requires the disclosure of encryption keys upon the request from authorities, which potentially can lead to the violation of privacy and other human rights. Hence the significance of protecting passwords and encryption keys which can safeguard data was highly emphasized and it was argued that they should definitely be included in the definition for sensitive personal data. This position was countered by a participant who argued that the Government of India should have access to private encyrption keys for national security purposes.

On the definition of sensitive personal data, it was emphasized that this term should relate to all data which can be used for discrimination, which is why it needs to be protected. It was further emphasized that it took Europe twelve years to reach a definition for personal data, which is why India still needs to look at the issue in depth and encounter all the possible violations which may potentially occur from the non-regulation of various types of data. Most participants agreed that financial information, passwords and private encryption keys should be added in the definition for sensitive personal data.

The fifth round table entailed a debate on whether political affiliation should be included in the definition for sensitive personal data. In particular, one participant argued that political parties disclose the names of their members and that in many cases they are required to do in order to show their source of income. Hence, it was argued that political affiliation should not be included in the definition for sensitive personal data, since it is not realistic to expect political parties to protect their members' privacy. This was countered by other participants who argued that anonymity in political communications is important, especially when an individual is in a minority position, which is why the term political affiliation should be included in the definition for sensitive personal data.

The discussion on the definitions in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 concluded with comments that the definiton for surveillance is very exclusive of many types of surveillance. In particular, it was argued that the definition for surveillance does not appear to cover artificial intelligence, screen shots and various other forms of surveillance, all of which should be regulated.

Chapter II: Right to Privacy

Section 4 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 states that all natural persons have a right to privacy. Section 5 of the Bill includes exemptions to the right to privacy. On this note, it was pointed out that during the round table that there is no universal definition of privacy and thus it is challenging to define the term and to regulate it. Furthermore, the rapid pace at which technology is proliferating was emphasized, along with its impact on the right to privacy. For example, it was mentioned that emails were not covered by privacy legislation in the past, but this needs to be amended accordingly. The European Data Protection Directive was established in 1995 and does not regulate many privacy issues which arise through the Internet, which is why it is currently being reviewed. Similarily, it was argued that privacy legislation in India should encompass provisions for potential data breaches which may occur through the Internet and various forms of technology.

A participant argued that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should include provisions for data subjects, which enable them to address their rights. In particular, it was argued that data subjects should have the right to access information collected and retained about them and that they should have the right to make corrections. The reponse to this comment was that the Bill may be split into two seperate Bills, where the one would regulate data protection and the other would regulate the interception of communications and surveillance, while the data subject would be addressed extensively. Furthermore, participants raised questions of how to define the data controller and the data subjects within the Indian context.

Other questions which were raised during the round table included whether spam should be addressed by the Bill. Several participants argued that spam should not be regulated, as it is not necessarily harmful to data subjects. Other participants argued that the isse of access to data should be addressed prior to the definition of privacy. Another argument was that commerical surveillance should not be conducted within restrictions, which is why it should not be inlcuded in the exemptions to the right to privacy. It was also pointed out that residential surveillance should be allowed, as long as the cameras are pointed inwards and do not capture footage of third parties outside of a residence. On this note, it was argued that surveillance in the work place should also be exempted from the right to privacy, as that too can be considered the private property of the owner. Moreover, it was emphasized that the surveillance of specific categories of people should also be excluded from the exemptions to the right to privacy.

A participant argued that in some cases, NGOs may be collecting information for some “beneficial purpose” and that such cases should be excluded from the exemptions to the right to privacy. Other participants argued that in many cases, data needs to be collected for market research and that the Bill should regulate what applies in such cases. All such arguments were countered by a participant, who argued that Section 5 of the Bill on the exemptions to the right to privacy should be deleted, as it creates to many complications. This recommendation was backed up by the example of a husband capturing a photograph of his wife and then publishing the image without her consent.

During this discussion, a participant raised the question of to what extent the right to privacy applies to minors. This question was supported by the example of Facebook, where many minors have profiles but the extent to which this data is protected remains ambiguous. Furthermore, it was pointed out that it remains unclear whether privacy legislation can practically safeguard minors who choose to share their data online. A participant responded to these concerns by stating that Facebook is a data controller and has to comply with privacy law to protect its customers' data. It was pointed out that it does not matter if the data controller is a company or an NGO; in every case, the data controller is obliged to comply with data protection law and regulations.

Furthermore, it was pointed out that Facebook allows for minors aged 13 to create a profile, while it remains unclear how minors can enforce their privacy rights. In particular, it remains unclear how the mediated collection of minors' data can be regulated and it was recommended that this is addressed by the Bill. A participant replied to this by stating that Indian laws rule in favour of minors, but that this simultaneously remains a grey area. In particular, it was pointed out that rules under section 43 of the Information Technology (IT) Act cover Internet access by minors, but this still remains an unclear area which needs further debate and analysis.

The question which prevailed at the end of the discussion of Chapter 2 of the Bill was on the social media and minors, and on how minors' data can be protected when it is being published immediately through the social media, such as Facebook. Furthermore, it was recommended that the Bill addresses the practical operationalisation of the right to privacy within the Indian context.

Chapter III: Protection of Personal Data

The discussion of Chapter 3 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 on the protection of personal data commenced with a reference to the nine privacy principles of the Justice AP Shah Justice Committee. The significance of the principles of notice and consent were outlined, as it was argued that individuals should have the right to be informed about the data collected about them, as well as to have the rigt to access such data and make possible corrections.

Collection of Personal Data

The discussion on the collection of personal data (as outlined in Section 6 of Chapter 3 of the Bill) commenced with a participant arguing that a company seeking to collect personal data should always have a stated function. In particular, a company selling technological products or services should not collect biometric data, for example, unless it serves a specified function. It was pointed out that data collection should be restricted to the specified purposes. For example, a hospital should be able to collect medical data because it relates to its stated function, but an online company which provides services should not be eligible to collect such data, as it deviates from its stated function.

During the discussion, it was emphasized that individuals should have the right to be informed when their data is being collected, which data is being collected, the conditions for the disclosure of such data and everything else that revolves around the use of their data once it has been collected. However, a participant questioned whether it is practically feasible for individuals to provide consent to the collection of their data every time it is being collected, especially since the privacy policies of companies keep changing. Moreover, it was questioned whether companies can or should resume the consent of their customers once their privacy policy has changed. On this note, a participant argued that companies should be obliged to notify their customers every time their privacy policy changes and every time the purpose behind their data collection changes.

On the issue of consent for data collection, a participant argued that individuals should have the right to withdraw their consent, even after their data has been collected and in such cases, such data should be destroyed. This was countered by another participant who argued that it is not realistic to expect companies to acquire individual consent every time the purpose behind data collection changes, nor is it feasible to allow for the withdrawal of consent without probable cause.

The issue of indirect consent to the collection of personal data was raised and, in particular, several participants argued that the Bill should have provisions which would regulate circumstances where indirect consent can be obtained for the collection of personal data. Furthermore, it was emphasized that the Bill should also include a notice for all potential purposes of data collection which may arise in the future; if the purpose for data collection changes based on conditions specified, then companies should not be mandated to notify individuals. Moreover, a participant argued that the Bill should include provisions which would enable individuals to opt-in and/or opt-out from data collection.

On the issue of consent, it was further outlined that consent provides a legitimate purpose to process data and that the data subject should have the right to be informed prior to the collection of his or her data. However, it was emphasized that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 is a very strict regulation, as consent cannot always be acquired prior to data collection, because there are many cases where this is not practically feasible. It was pointed out that in the European Data Protection Directive, it is clear that consent cannot always be acquired prior to data collection. The example of medical cases was mentioned, as patients may not always be capable to provide consent to data collection which may be necessary.

In particular, it was highlighted that the European Data Protection Directive includes provisions for the processing of personal data, as well as exceptions for when consent is not required prior to data collection. The Directive guarantees the legitimate interest of the data controller and data processing is based upon the provisions of privacy legislation. The outsourcing of data is regulated in the European Union, and it was recommended that India regulates it too. Following this comment, it was stated that the recent leaks on the NSA's surveillance raise the issue of non-consentual state collection of data and non-consentual private disclosure of data and a brief debate revolved around these issues in the round table.

On the issue of mediated data collection, the situations in which collected data is mediated by third parties was analysed. It was recommended that the law is flexible to address the various types of cases when collected data is mediated, such as when a guardian needs to handle and take decisions for data of a mentally disabled person being collected. However, it was pointed out that mediated data collection should be addressed sectorally, as a doctor, for example, would address mediated data in a different manner than a company. It was emphasized that specific cases – such a parent taking a mediated decision on the data collection of his or her child – should be enabled, whereas all other cases should be prohibited. Thus it was recommended that language to address the mediated collection of data should be included in the Bill.

A participant raised the question of whether there should be seperate laws for the private collection of data and state collection of data. It was mentioned that this is the case in Canada. Another question which was raised was what happens when state collectors hire private contractors. The UID was brought as an example of state collection of data, while private contractors have been hired and are involved in the process of data collection. This could potentially enable the collection and access of data by unauthorised third parties, to which individuals may have not given their consent to. Thus it was strongly recommended that the Bill addresses such cases and prevents unauthorised collection and access of data.

The discussion on the collection of personal data ended with an interesting test case study for privacy: should the media have the right to disclose individuals' personal data? A debate revolved around this question and participants recommended that the Bill regulates the collection, processing, sharing, disclosure and retention of personal data by the media.

Retention of Personal Data

The discussion on the retention of personal data commenced with the statement that there are various exceptions to the retention of data in India, which are outlined in various court cases. It was pointed out that data should be retained in compliance with the law, but this is problematic as, in various occasions, a verbal order by a policeman can be considered adequate, but this can potentially increase the probability for abuse. A question which was raised was whether an Act of Parliament should allow for the long term storage of data, especially when there is inadequate data to support its long-term retention. It was pointed out that in some cases there are laws which allow for the storage of data for up to ten years, without the knowledge – let alone the consent – of the individual. Thus, the issue of data retention in India remains vague and should be addressed by the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

Questions were raised on the duration of data retention periods and on whether there should be one general data retention law or several sectoral data retention laws. The participants disagreed on whether an Act of Parliament should regulate data retention or whether data retention should be regulated by sectoral authorities. A participant recommended “privacy by design” and stated that the question of data retention should be addressed by data controllers. Other participants raised the question of purpose limitation, especially for cases when data is being re-retained after the end of its retention period. A participant recommended that requirements for the anonymisation of data once it has exceeed its retention period should be established. However, this proposal was countered by participants who argued that the pracitcal enforcement of the anonymisation of retained data is not feasible within India.

Destruction of Personal Data

The retention of personal data can be prevented once data has been destroyed. However, participants argued that various types of data are being collected through surveillance products which are controlled by private parties. In such cases, it was argued that it remains unclear how it will be verified that data has indeed being destroyed.

A participant argued that the main problem with data destruction is that even if data has been deleted, it can be retrieved up to seven times; thus the question which arises is how can individuals know if their data has been permanently destroyed, or if it is being secretly retrieved. Questions were raised on how the permanent retention of data can be prevented, especially when even deleted data can be retrieved. Hence it was recommended that information security experts cooperate with data controllers and the Privacy Commissioner, to ensure that data is permanently destroyed and/or that data is not being accessed after the end of its retention period. Such experts would ensure that data is actually being destroyed.

Another participant pointed out the difference between the wiping of data and the deletion of data. In particular, the participant argued that data is being deleted when it is being overwritten by other data, and can potentially be recovered. Wiping of data, on the other hand, involves the wiping out of data which can never be recovered. The participant recommended that the Bill explicitly states that data is wiped out in order to ensure that data is not being indirectly retained.

Processing of Personal Data

The dicsussion on the processing of personal data began with the question of national archives. In particular, participants argued that if the processing of data is strictly regulated, that would restrict access to national archives and the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should address this issue.

Questions were raised on the non-consentual processing of personal data and on how individual consent should be acquired prior to the processing of personal data. It was pointed out that the Article 29 Working Party has published an Opinion on purpose limitation with regards to data processing and it was recommended that a similar approach is adopted in India.

Furthermore, it was stated that IT companies are processing data from the EU and the U.S., but it remains unclear how individual consent can be obtained in such cases. A debate evolved on how to bind foreign data processors to meet the data requirements of India, as a minimum prerequisite to ensure that outsourced data is not breached. In light of the Edward Snowden leaks of NSA surveillance, many questions were raised on how Indian data outsourced and stored abroad can be protected.

It was highlighted during the round table that all data processing in India requires certification, but since the enforceability of the contracts relies on individuals, this raises issues of data security. Moreover, questions were raised on how Indian companies can protect the data of their foreign data subjects. Thus, it was recommended that the processing of data is strictly regulated through the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 to ensure that outsourced data and data processed in the country is not breached.

Security of Personal Data

On the issue of data security, the participants argued that the data subject should always be informed in cases when the confidentiality of their personal data is violated. Confidentiality is usually contractually limited, whereas secrecy is not, which is why both terms are included in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. In particular, secrecy is usually used for public information, whereas confidentiality is not.

Participants argued that the Bill should include restrictions on the media, in order to ensure that the confidentiality and integrity of their sources' data is preserved. Several participants stated that the Bill should also include provisions for whistleblowers which would provide security and confidentiality for their data. The participants of the round table engaged in a debate on whether the media should be strictly regulated in order to ensure the confidentiality of their sources' data. On the one hand, it was argued that numerous data breaches have occured as a result of the media mishandling their sources' data. On the other hand, it was stated that all duties of secrecy are subject to the public interest, which is why the media reports on them and which is why the media should not be restricted.

Disclosure of Personal Data

The discussion on the disclosure of personal data commenced with participants pointing out that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 does not include requirements for consent prior to the disclosure of personal data, which may potentially lead to abuse. Questions were raised on the outsourcing of Indian data abroad and on the consequences of its foreign disclosure. Once data is outsourced, it remains unclear how the lawful disclosure or non-disclosure of data can be preserved, which is why it was recommended that the Bill addresses such issues.

A participant argued that there is a binding relationship between the data controller and the data subject and that disclosure should be regulated on a contractual level. Another participant raised the question of enforcement: How can regulations on the disclosure of personal data be enforced? The response to this question was that the law should focus on the data controller and that when Indian data is being outsourced abroad, the Indian data controller should ensure that the data subjects' data is not breached. However, other participants raised the question of how data can be protected when it is outsourced to countries where the rule of law is not strong and when the country is considered inadequate in terms of data protection.

With an increased transnational flow of information, questions arise on how individuals can protect their information. A participant recommended that it should be mandatory for companies to state in their contracts who they are outsourcing data to and whether such data will be disclosed to third parties. However, this proposal as countered by a participant who argued that even if this was inforced, it is still not possible to enforce the rights of an Indian data subject in a country which does not have a strong rule of law or which generally has weak legislation. A specific example was mentioned, where E.G. Infosys and Wipro Singapore have a contractual agreement and Indian data is outsourced. It was pointed out that if such data is breached, it remains unclear if the individual should address this issue to Wipro India, as well as which law should apply in this case and whether companies should be liable.

A participant suggested that the data controller discloses data without having acquired prior consent, if the Government of India requests it. However, this was countered by a participant who argued that even in such a case, the question of regulating access to data still remains. Other participants argued that the Right to Information Act has been misused and that too much information is currently being disclosed. It was recommended that the Right to Information Act is amended and that the Bill includes strict regulations for the disclosure of personal data.

Meeting Conclusion

The fifth Privacy Round Table meeting commenced with a presentation on privacy and data protection by Mr. Reijo Aarnio, the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman, and proceeded with a discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. The participants engaged in a heated debate and provided recommendations for the definitions used in the Bill, as well as for the regulation of data protection. The recommendations for the improvement of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be considered and incorporated in the final draft.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-5th-privacy-round-table

Snooping technology: Will CMS work in India?

praskrishna — 2013-07-22T07:19:02Z

The Indian government plans to spend $132 million on setting up its brand new Central Monitoring System this year.

Pierre Fitter's article was published in FirstPost on July 17, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Several articles have raised valid questions about privacy violations, including this one by Danish Raza. Elsewhere, Pranesh Prakash has raised important points about how CMS may actually violate several laws and at least one Supreme Court verdict.

I ask a much more basic question: will CMS work? Can it really help security agencies eavesdrop on criminals and terrorists, despite several known technical hurdles?

	Encryption In 2008, a prominent Brazilian banker and investor named Daniel Dantas was arrested and charged with money laundering and tax evasion along with a former mayor of Sao Paulo. For five months, the Brazilian National Institute of Criminology tried to read the contents of his hard drive but failed to crack it. Dantas had encrypted his data using a free program called Truecrypt. The INC sent the hard drive to the FBI in the US, which spent a whole year trying to crack it; it too failed. Dantas’s use of encryption likely helped him escape the money laundering and tax evasion charges. He was ultimately convicted of attempting to bribe a police officer.

Encryption

In 2008, a prominent Brazilian banker and investor named Daniel Dantas was arrested and charged with money laundering and tax evasion along with a former mayor of Sao Paulo. For five months, the Brazilian National Institute of Criminology tried to read the contents of his hard drive but failed to crack it. Dantas had encrypted his data using a free program called Truecrypt. The INC sent the hard drive to the FBI in the US, which spent a whole year trying to crack it; it too failed. Dantas’s use of encryption likely helped him escape the money laundering and tax evasion charges. He was ultimately convicted of attempting to bribe a police officer.

This story illustrates a fundamental loophole at the heart of CMS. A criminal, using free and easy-to-use software, can protect his data from even the most advanced surveillance tools available in law enforcement. NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden himself used encrypted email to communicate with journalists at the Guardian. In an online chat where he took questions from the public, Snowden noted that encryption was “one of the few things that you can rely on” to protect you from the eavesdropping behemoth created of the NSA.

It should hardly be surprising then, that terror groups have been encrypting their emails and data for at least the last five years. In fact Al Qaeda developed its own encryption software called ‘Mujahideen Secrets’, to encrypt emails, chat sessions and files. Version two of Mujahideen Secrets even included a tool to delete files securely so that they could not be recovered using special software if the computer was captured. Al Qaeda’s links to several terror groups operating in India has been widely reported in the past. It is not inconceivable that they have shared their encryption software with their comrades-in-arms.

Over the years it has become easier to encrypt one’s communication. YouTube tutorials train even novice users to set up email encryption within minutes. Phone calls, text messages and online chats can also be encrypted with free, easy-to-install apps.

The biggest problem with encryption is that it is virtually impossible to break the code in a time frame that’s useful for law-enforcement purposes. Without getting too technical, modern encryption relies calculating the prime factors of very, very large integers. In 2009, a group of some of the world’s best-known mathematicians and cryptographers reported that it took them four years to factor a 768-bit integer. They estimated it would take 1,000 times longer to factorise a 1024-bit integer. GPG, which is the most widely-used email encryption software, allows users up to 4096-bit encryption. Unless you have the password to the encrypted files, it would take you a very long time to crack the encryption.

Here’s an example to help you understand why encryption makes CMS redundant. Let’s say the system intercepts an encrypted email sent by a LeT handler in Karachi to a sleeper cell in Mumbai. The email contains instructions to detonate a bomb in a specific market at a specific time four days from now. Even if India’s intelligence agencies managed to link up every computer they had available to process the encryption, they would still not be able to crack it in time to learn the details and stop the attack.

What about ‘Metadata’?

It should be noted that encryption only protects the body of the email. The metadata, including the sender’s and receiver’s email addresses remain unencrypted, else the service provider would be unable to send the email to its destination. Law enforcement agencies often partner with email providers to track down the exact computer on which tell-tale emails were read.

However, this method of tracing criminals has a limitation. Programs such as TOR and Hotspot Shield disguise the IP address of a user’s PC. For example, when I use TOR, Facebook will often ask me to confirm my identity as it sees me as logging in from an unfamiliar location. TOR has thousands of servers around the world through which it bounces your data before sending it to its destination.

There is another limitation to using metadata. Due to obvious legal hurdles, CMS will only be deployed to capture communication within India. If terrorists were planning an attack from elsewhere in India’s neighbourhood (as happened with 26/11), we would have to rely on that country’s intelligence services for an alert. Good luck with that!

To make untraceable phone calls, terrorists have been known to use “burner” phones. These are pre-paid phones that are easily available in the US and other countries that do not require an ID for such mobile connections. They can be topped up using cash, which makes their prolonged using even more untraceable.

Even if CMS allowed spooks to listen to these calls, it would not be able to tell who was talking to whom. From details that emerged following the Abbottabad operation that killed Osama bin Laden, we also know that terrorists have been trained to turn off their phones and remove the battery to prevent being tracked even while not on a call.

So what is CMS good for?

If terrorist communications can easily be hidden from CMS, you have to wonder why the government is going through all the effort and expense to set up such a system. What good can come off the mass hoovering of data of ordinary citizens’?

Imagine if CMS intercepted a ‘BBM chat’ between two businessmen, who were discussing a contract that could affect the business interests of a government MP.

Imagine the government getting access to emails exchanged between a journalist and a source in the IAS who wants to expose a major corruption scandal involving a cabinet minister.

Imagine if the government had access to phone calls between two opposition politicians discussing election strategies.

What if CMS tracks a PhD candidate who is researching Naxal terror and has downloaded Naxal pamphlets? What if this researcher has been able to establish contact with Naxals for an interview. Can the government use such data to charge him with participating in a Naxal conspiracy, even if his only intention was to research their motivations? In a country where chief ministers label their critics as “Naxals” for merely raising questions, are we certain we want such unmitigated power in the government’s hands?

These are all questions well worth asking, especially since the ostensible reason for setting up the CMS—monitoring terrorists and criminals—is a fool’s errand at best.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/firstpost-pierre-fitter-july-17-2013-snooping-technology

Parsing the Cyber Security Policy

chinmayi — 2013-07-22T06:37:56Z

An effective cyber-security policy must keep up with the rapid evolution of technology, and must never become obsolete. The standard-setting and review bodies will therefore need to be very nimble, says Chinmayi Arun.

Chinmayi Arun's article was published in the Hoot on July 13, 2013 and later cross-posted in the Free Speech Initiative the same day.

We often forget how vulnerable the World Wide Web leaves us. If walls of code prevent us from entering each other’s systems and networks, there are those who can easily pick their way past them or disable essential digital platforms. We are reminded of this by the doings of Anonymous, which carried out a series of attacks, including the website run by Computer Emergency Response Team India (CERT-In) which is the government agency in charge of cyber-security. Even more serious, are cyber-attacks (arguably cyber warfare) carried out by other states, using digital weapons such as Stuxnet, the digital worm. More proximate and personal are perhaps the phishing attacks, which are on the rise.

We therefore run a great risk if we leave air-traffic control, defense resources or databases containing several citizens’ personal data vulnerable. Sure, there is no doubt that efforts towards better cyber-security are needed. A cyber-security policy is meant to address this need, and to help manage threats to individuals, businesses and government agencies. We need to carefully examine the government’s efforts to handle cyber-security, how effective it is and whether its actions do not have too many negative spillovers.

The National Cyber-Security Policy, unveiled last week, is merely a statement of intention in broad terms. Much of its real impact will be ascertainable only after the language to be used in the law is available. Nevertheless, the scope of the policy remains ambiguous so far, leading to much speculation about the different ways in which it might be intrusive.

One Size Fits All?

The policy covers very different kinds of entities: government agencies, private companies or businesses, non-governmental entities and individual users. These entities may need to be handled differently depending on their nature. Therefore, while direct state action may be most appropriate to secure government agencies’ networks, it may be less appropriate in the context of purely private business.

For example, securing police records would involve the government directly purchasing or developing sufficiently secure technology. However, different private businesses and non-governmental entities may be left to manage their own security. Depending on the size of each entity, each may be differently placed to acquire sophisticated security systems. A good policy would encourage innovation by those with the capacity to do this, while ensuring that others have access to reasonably sound technology, and that they use it. Grey-areas might emerge in contexts where a private party is manages critical infrastructure.

It will also be important to distinguish between smaller and larger organisations whilst creating obligations. Unless this distinction is made at the implementation stage, start-up businesses and civil society organisations may find requirements such as earmarking a budget for cyber security implementation or appointing a Chief Information Security Officer onerous. Additionally, the policy will need to translate into a regulatory solution that provides under-resourced entities with ready solutions to enable them to make their information systems secure, while encouraging larger entities with greater purchasing power to invest in procuring the best possible solutions.

Race to the Top

Security on the Internet works only if it stays one step ahead the people trying to break in. An effective cyber-security policy must keep up with the rapid evolution of technology, and must never become obsolete. The standard-setting and review bodies will therefore need to be very nimble.

The policy contemplates working with industry and supporting academic research and development to achieve this. However the actual manner in which resources are distributed and progress is monitored may make the crucial difference between a waste of public funds and acquisition of capacity to achieve a reasonable degree of cyber security.

Additionally the flow of public funds under this policy, particularly to purchase technology, should be examined very carefully to see whether it is justified. For example, if the government chooses to fund (even by way of subsidy) a private company’s cyber-security research and development rather than an equivalent public university’s endeavour, this decision should be scrutinized to see whether it was necessary. Similarly, if extensive public funds are spent training young people as a capacity-building exercise, we should watch to see how many of these people stay in India and how many leave such that other countries end up benefiting from the Indian government’s investment in them!

Investigation of Security Threats

Although much of the policy focuses on defensive measures that can be taken against security breaches, it is intended not only to cover investigation subsequent to an attack but also to pinpoint ‘potential cyber threats’ so that proactive measures may be taken.

The policy has outlined the need for a ‘Cyber Crisis Management Plan’ to handle incidents that impact ‘critical national processes or endanger public safety and security of the nation’. This portion of the policy will need to be watched closely to ensure that the language used is very narrow and allows absolutely no scope for misinterpretation or misuse that would affect citizens’ rights in any manner.

This caution will be necessary both in view of the manner in which restraints on freedom of speech permitted in the interests of public safety have been flagrantly abused, and because of the kind of paternalistic state intrusion that might be conceived to give effect to this.

Additionally, since the policy also mentions information sharing with internal and international security, defence, law enforcement and other such agencies, it will also be important to find out the exact nature of information to be shared. Of course, how the policy will be put into place will only become clear as the terms governing its various parts emerge. But one hopes the necessary internal direct action to ensure the government agencies’ information networks are secure is already well underway.

It is also to be hoped that the government chooses to take implementation of privacy rights at least as seriously as cyber-security. If some parts of cyber security involve ensuring that user data is protected, the decision about what data needs protection will be important to this exercise.

Additionally, although the policy discusses various enabling and standard-setting measures, it does not discuss the punitive consequences of failure to take reasonable steps to safeguard individuals’ personal data online. These consequences will also presumably form a part of the privacy policy, and should be put in place as early as possible.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hoot-july-13-2013-chinmayi-arun-parsing-the-cyber-security-policy