Category: GDPR

In a recent article in SC Magazine; “An Inconvenient Truth: New Customer Data Regulations Coming” Jeremy King of the SSC suggests that Payment Card Industry (PCI) “provides the most complete set of data security standards available globally.” I can only assume he means that the PCI Data Security Standard (DSS) contains a list of basic security controls every organisation should have in place, and not that the PCI DSS in any way resembles real-world security.

Because it doesn’t, and you only have to look at the number of breaches involving ‘PCI compliant’ merchants and service providers to see that PCI, by itself, does little to prepare organisations against the challenges they face.

PCI compliance is a commercial obligation, nothing more, and any fines levied are only paid because the merchant or service provider who was breached wants to keep taking plastic. The Payments Services Directive 2 (PSD2) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be LAW in the 28 countries of the EU, and attract both legal and financial repercussions that could potentially cripple even the largest of businesses. No standard based on a bare minimum set of controls will ever protect personal data in a meaningful way.

Nor will any ISO standard, or COBIT, or any other information security framework for that matter. At least the PCI DSS puts its money where its mouth is and tells you what controls to implement, all security frameworks do is tell you something is a good idea, never how to do it a manner appropriate to your business.

Because they can’t, only the individual organisation can ever provide definition, and business justification, around the horribly inexact – but regulation standard – phrases; ‘appropriate’ and/or ‘reasonable security’.

The implementation of a security program that can meet the intent of ANY regulation includes very specific processes that the PCI DSS does not cover, and if they do, it’s in a very limited fashion with no-where near the emphasis required to express the importance. For example;

  1. The Risk Assessment (RA) is way down in section 12, when it should have been the very first thing performed before PCI compliance was even contemplated. An RA performed in-line with the PCI DSS would not be sufficient.
  2. The only nod to Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Planning is a single bullet in 12.10.1, when these processes are absolutely central to any organisation staying in business responsibly.
  3. The requirements related to 3rd party due diligence are entirely inadequate relative to the risk involved.

…and so on. I have addressed the inadequacy of the actual PCI controls many times, so I won’t bother repeating them here. Suffice to say, the majority of the controls would be no-where near enough.

There are only 3 main ways to appropriately address the current and new tranche of regulations / directives:

  1. Make the CEO legally responsible for security breaches, and apply criminal penalties in-line with the egregiousness of the negligence – Clearly fines don’t worry CEOs enough, perhaps some jail time would.
  2. Ensure the policies, procedures, and standards are world-class – There is no security program without the application of accurate corporate knowledge
  3. Training & Education – This should be self-explanatory

Compliance with any of the upcoming regulations is no different from any regulation already in place. There is nothing outside of an appropriate security program that will ever be required, so just do the things you should have been doing from the very beginning.

Security is not easy, but it IS simple.

In a very interesting presentation at the 2015 ISC2 EMEA Congress in Munich, Dr Lucas Feiler posited that any big data analytics performed, whether internally or outsourced, is going to attract significant legal challenges related to privacy. And even if the challenges CAN be resolved, it will likely be in ways that make something of a mockery of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)’s intent.

Getting around privacy regulations will involve token human interaction (i.e. smoke and mirrors) where none is desired. In areas that needs to be dominated by AI and the resulting automated decisions (insurance for example), adding the human element to avoid the appearance of prejudiced results will probably be standard until the algorithms become smart enough to be considered ‘reasonable’ (my absolute favourite legal term, right up there with ‘appropriate’).

Human interaction is not desired by those doing the analysis mind you, we may think otherwise.

While not in place …yet, the European Council aims for adoption of the GDPR in 2017 and have it in full effect after a “two-year transition period“. While 4 years may sound like a long time, when you consider the following statistics (taken from www.unifiedsocial.com) you can only imagine how difficult it will be to clean up the mess if organisations don’t start following the regulation now:

  • The data volume in the enterprise is estimated to grow 50x year-over-year between now and 2020
    o
  • 35 zettabytes (that’s 35,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes) of data generated annually by 2020
    o
  • According to estimates, the volume of business data worldwide, across all companies, doubles every 1.2 years

Granted, the vast majority of this data will be in the form of cat videos and Kardashian tweets, but that still leaves an extraordinary amount of YOUR data sitting on servers just waiting to mined, manipulated, and analysed in ways we cannot even imagine. We cannot imagine them because they have not been INVENTED yet, and that’s the Holy Grail for any organisation, and the impetus behind big data analytics in the first place; How to manipulate the data they have into the development of new revenue streams.

To put that another way; How to take the data they have on you already and present it back to you in a way that makes you spend more money.

I’m actually not against this per se, Amazon are already doing a mild version of it with their “Frequently Bought Together” and “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought” sections, but can you imagine how much data they have on their more than 1.5 MILLION servers across 17 global regions?

The card brands and Facebook can predict within a two week window whether or not you’re going to get divorced, how much other data do THEY have? Or Google?

But can the GDPR actually make a difference? Probably, it has a VERY big stick, and you know how lawyers love their class action suits!

Look at GDPR CHAPTER II, PRINCIPLES, Article 5 – Principles relating to personal data processing:

Personal data must be:

(a) processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject;

(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes; (…);

(c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (…);

Etc…

…and now CHAPTER VIII, REMEDIES, LIABILITY AND SANCTIONS, Article 79a – Administrative fines:

The supervisory authority (…) may impose a fine that shall not exceed 1 000 000 EUR or, in case of an undertaking, 2 % of its total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, on a controller or processor who, intentionally or negligently:

(a) processes personal data without a (…) legal basis for the processing or does not comply with the conditions for consent pursuant to Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9;

If you LOSE personal data the fines can be a much as 5% of worldwide annual turnover.

Will that make a difference?

I hope so.

 

Thanks to the more unscrupulous vendors, security is becoming as complex as the law. Privacy therefore is at the top of the list of sticky topics because it also involves both the law and security. More countries are effecting privacy laws than ever before, but just like in a regular business, functionality and security must be balanced to be effective.

I’m not going to list all of the ongoing privacy issues in the press, but the biggest two currently are; the Prism/whistleblowing/NSA scandal, and the EUs Data Protection Directive. While worlds apart in their impact and aims, they still raise a question that I’ve not seen addressed very often. Probably because there is no one right answer, but the question of how much privacy is too much should not be ignored or any semblance of balance is impossible. Also, it seems that unless we’re bashing the perceived bullies (Government, big business), there’s not much interest in this side of things.

So, Prism, summarised and paraphrased, is an anti-terrorism program that has unprecedented access to enormous amounts of personal data.

Proponents state that it’s necessary for national security, opponents state that it’s an abuse of power / attack on civil liberties and so on. But who’s right? If you choose a side – and to the extreme – you are either saying it’s OK for the Government to do whatever it takes to defend its people, and that the end justifies the means, or you’re saying that an individuals right to privacy outweighs the security of a nation. Clearly both of these positions are nonsense, but what is the right answer? It has to be somewhere in between., right?

However, to get the middle, both sides need to accept responsibility; Government for not becoming Big Brother-esque, and individual citizens for paying the price in personal privacy for the freedoms and conveniences we frequently take for granted.

For example, if you ask any victim of a terrorist attack, a hate crime, harassment, or a stalker-ex, whether or not they would have traded complete loss of privacy to avoid their pain, and I think the answer is a given.

However, now ask ME whether or not I would entirely relinquish MY privacy to prevent this from happening to someone else – which I would do in a heartbeat -, and you now have the gist of why this issue is so contentious (some are already calling it – terribly un-originally – Prism-gate). People want security, but they don’t want to accept the cost for it, which in todays plugged-in/online/Internet/information age, that cost is their privacy.

As for the EU Data Protection Directive, that’s about the far less glamorous subject of making sure organisations protect the data in their possession, and while less life-threatening, leads to the same question. This time it’s about [for example] the ability of an organisation to sell you stuff that you want, or didn’t even know you wanted but now you can’t live without (like the iPhone). They want to sell you stuff, you want your data protected or removed altogether.

Personally I want organisations to know EXACTLY what I like and don’t like. That way I’ll get less spam and pop-up ads regarding adult nappies/diapers and erectile dysfunction, and more on amazing gadgets and toys that will make my life complete. This requires absolutely enormous amounts of data, and is a true use of Big Data.

Not everyone agrees.

However, WE choose to plug in, we’re not forced. I have Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, and more online bank / credit card accounts than I know what to do with. Sadly the accounts are mostly empty, but that’s not the point, which is why I have chosen these methods of communication and convenience to make my life better. Which they do…vastly.

We are not owed this functionality, we have a choice to use it or not. If you want it, you must pay for it.

How many of you read the privacy notices, or terms & conditions when you sign up for online services? No, me either, so I’m not going to complain if they go ahead and do exactly what they told me they were going to do.

I cannot speak to the law or politics, nor can I wax philosophically on human nature, but what I can talk to is personal accountability. You are owed nothing, except that which you earn. From your income, to your rights, to your karma, you get back what you put in. So perhaps what we should all do instead of complain, or demand that heads roll, is be a little more circumspect in our online interactions:

  1. Don’t post inappropriate comments on FB/Twitter or ANY form of social media or email. Assume that this information will NEVER go away;
  2. Limit your online banking and purchasing to known-good sites, check for HTTPS in the URL (secure transmission) , and CHOOSE A GOOD PASSWORD!;
  3. Make sure ALL of your online credit card / bank accounts have fraud and theft protection;
  4. Sign up for credit and identity monitoring services (I have two running, one US and one UK);
  5. Read the Terms & Conditions!;
  6. Do not even TAKE revealing or compromising pictures of yourself, or others, on any online-capable device …EVER (I think if I was to do that it would qualify as an offence against humanity, or maybe even a WMR (Weapon of Mass Revulsion));
  7. When you’re done with an online vendor, delete the account, and write to them invoking your right to erasure;
  8. Read my blog! 🙂

Personally, I LOVE the fact that London is full of cameras, I’m doing nothing wrong, and I feel better about my wife being out when it’s dark. I don’t care if some spotty geek in Fort Mead, MD is reading my personal email, or my FB posts, I’m not being seditious, or inappropriate, and if they derive pleasure reading about my wife and me discussing our 2012 taxes, good luck to him/her.

I want safety in the streets, safety for my country, AND the convenience of all that being online gives me, and if my privacy is the price I must pay, so be it. I trust the ‘official’ watchers infinitely more than the criminals or terrorists, but it’s MY responsibility to give NO-ONE access to more than I can afford to lose.

[If you liked this article, please share! Want more like it, subscribe!]

Finally, some common sense is starting to prevail;

http://www.huntonprivacyblog.com/2013/06/articles/hunton-webinar-on-the-proposed-eu-regulation-developing-a-more-creative-approach/

Detractors say that this is diluting the original intent of the directive, but as I have seen so many times in PCI, if you don’t make it achievable, you cannot enforce it fairly.

Risk based approach is always the way…