Naavi.org

Foundation of Data Protection Professionals in India has organized a free webinar tomorrow on September 19, 2021 at 11.00 am. The webinar would be available on Zoom.

The objective of the webinar is to present the PDPSI framework for Data Privacy Compliance. PDPSI is the Personal Data Protection Standard of India which is developed by Data Protection Professionals and incorporates the essence of other industry best practices and builds on them.

PDPSI distinguishes itself from other frameworks for ISMS, PIMS or DPMS and focuses directly on PDP-CMS. It recognizes that while Internet is encouraging globalization of our business, the proliferation of data protection laws in the world are creating hurdles for business in implementing the regulatory measures whether it is GDPR or PDPB 2019 all of which come with a heavy penalty system at 4% or more of the turnover as an administrative fine.

Time has come for India to show the way to the world by a “Unified Framework” of compliance that assists all organizations including MSMEs to remain compliant without much of a pain.

The Indian Government is repeatedly postponing the adoption of the PDPB2019 because the vested interests in business want to avoid the law that makes them accountable for processing of personal data.

FDPPI believes that instead of  preventing the law being passed, industry has to come up with its implementation plan that would satisfy all stakeholders namely the Individuals, the Privacy Activists, the Companies in Data Business and the Government.

Towards this objective, FDPPI as an organization of Data Protection Professionals ahs come up with the PDPSI framework that enables organizations to be compliant with the data protection regulations even as they evolve from ITA 2000 to PDPB2019 to the next version of the Act when the bill is passed.

In order to obtain the views of the data protection professionals, Naavi will be presenting the framework in a webinar tomorrow in an event organized by FDPPI in partnership with MMA and has extended invitation to all professionals

FDPPI would be happy if the professionals could understand the PDPSI framework as designed and also enable its further development in the coming days.

During the discussions, Naavi will also address how PDPSI absorbs the best practices of the industry present in ISO 27001,ISO 27701 as well as IS 17428 and further extends it to some futuristic thoughts.

FDPPI also would like to act as a Federation of Data Protection Organizations in India and will present some of its plans in this regard during the webinar.

Let’s therefore meet tomorrow virtually at Zoom,

Meeting ID: 826 5702 6467: Passcode: fdppi1909

Naavi

On 4th June 2021, the EU official journal released a document titled “Commission implementing decision (EU) 2021/914” as a guide to incorporation of new SCC draft. This is being put into practice by 27th September 2021 and all contracts between EU data exporters and Indian data importers may be subject to review.

The text of the publication is available here.

Some essential features of this development is captured here.

1. The role of standard contractual clauses is limited to ensuring appropriate data protection safeguards for international data transfers.
   1.  the controller or processor are free to include those standard contractual clauses in a wider contract provided that they do not contradict, directly or indirectly, the standard contractual clauses or prejudice the fundamental rights or freedoms of data subjects.
   2. Controllers and processors are encouraged to provide additional safeguards by means of contractual commitments that supplement the standard contractual clauses
   3. The use of the standard contractual clauses is without prejudice to any contractual obligations of the data exporter and/or importer to ensure respect for applicable privileges and immunities.
2. The standard contractual clauses may be used for such transfers only to the extent that the processing by the importer does not fall within the scope of the Regulation .
3. With some exceptions, in particular as regards certain obligations that exclusively concern the relationship between the data exporter and data importer, data subjects should be able to invoke, and where necessary enforce, the standard contractual clauses as third-party beneficiaries. …Therefore, while the parties should be allowed to choose the law of one of the Member States as governing the standard contractual clauses, that law must allow for third-party beneficiary rights.. (#1)
4. In order to ensure effective enforcement, the data importer should be required to submit to the jurisdiction of such authority and courts, and to commit to abide by any binding decision under the applicable Member State law. (#1)
5. Annex to the notification provides the Standard Contractual clauses
6. There are four modules of the SCC, one for Transfer of data from controller to controller, second for transfer from Controller to processor, third for transfer from Processor to Processor and fourth for  transfer from processor to controller. (#2)

It is important to recognize that the use of a particular model of SCC is based on the identification of whether the data exporter or the importer is a controller or processor. The use of the Module 4 indicates a possibility that there may be a data exporter who is a processor but transfers the data to a controller under a contract of his own.

The context in which this contract is to be used will be an important decision to be taken by the companies in India.

Module I, II and III are more straight forward since they determine the flow of instructions from an upper data-riparian party to a lower data-riparian party. Module 4 however is different.

The notification is a mix of provisions applicable to the four modules and to understand the same, we need to segregate the 18 clauses into each of the four different modules.

(Further detailed analysis may be necessary to understand the complications that may arise in drafting a viable contract or vetting the contract that may be provided by a data exporter from EU.)

Naavi

Notes:

#1: This indicates that the importer’s obligation to provide enforcement rights to data subjects is meant for member states and not for other sovereign countries. However, the general definition of data importer and the need for SCC actually arise for data transfers outside the EU. Hence there is a little ambiguity on how a data importer who is a commercial entity agree to accept obligations which may not be permitted under the local laws. In this context the responsibility of the Controller to confirm that it warrants that reasonable efforts have been taken by him to determine if the data importer is able to satisfy the obligations (Clause 8 of Annexe) becomes critical.

#2. GDPR recognizes three roles in a data processing contract namely, “Controller”, “Joint Controller” and “Processor”. In this context an SCC from the “Processor” to a “Controller” appears to be a strange construct.  But it may take into account cases where a data controller is located outside EU (processing the GDPR data) and engages the services of a Data Processor inside EU who may in turn use a sub processor outside EU. In such a case the Data Processor inside the EU may require to secure his interests to be compliant with GDPR and this contract may help that cause. It may apply to cases where a company outside EU is the controller and the processor in EU is its subordinate office.

RBI has issued an informative booklet for public information containing information on modus operandi of different financial frauds.

The publication would be useful to general public.

Copy of the publication is available here

Yesterday, the news paper The Hindu reported that it expects “More delays on Data Protection Bill as panel reopens debate”

The report was based on the fact that the JPC under the new Chairman Mr P P Choudhary has convened two sittings on September 15th and 16th with the agenda ” Comparison between The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 as introduced in the Parliament, as discussed in the Joint Committee and the suggestions for amendment by the Chairperson, Joint Committee.”.

According to the news paper, two key amendments are being proposed namely

1. 1. Expanding the scope of the Data Protection Authority to cover personal as well as non personal data
   2. Expand the scope of “Data Breach Notification” from “Personal Data Breach notification” to even “Non Personal Data Beach”.

Accordingly the news paper predicts that there will be objections from the committee members and demands for more detailed discussion leading to further delay in the passage of the Bill.

It is understood that if the Government does not want to pass the Bill, then it can be delayed and anything can be used as an excuse. On the other hand if the Government wants to pass the Bill, it can pass it despite the opposition.

However, there was perhaps a technical gap in the process earlier and the Bill after its earlier discussions and corrections made was not re-presented in its final corrected form back to the JPC for its final approval but presented directly to the speaker of the Loksabha. Perhaps this needed a correction and a meeting was required for this purpose before the presentation of the Bill in the Parliament in the next session as per the commitment of the Government.  We presume that the JPC meeting on September 15th and 16th is required for this purpose.

As regards the two amendments suggested in the report of the Hindu which may also be only be be a speculative report, our views are as under.

The Personal data protection act needs to co-exist with the current ITA 2000 and the proposed Non Personal Data Governance Act. It is a legislation which is prompted by the Puttaswamy judgment and meant to focus on the protection of Privacy as per the Constitution through a data protection legislation that addresses the “Information Privacy Issue”.

The main objective of this legislation is to provide that the data principal should be able to exercise his choice regarding collection, use and disclosure of personal information. It is enforced on those organizations which collect and process the personal data in India.

While PDPB2019 absorbs Section 43A of ITA 2000, it is not a legislation to replace ITA 2000. ITA 2000 has a mandate to define and manage Cyber Crimes which are data related crimes without a distinction of whether the data is personal or non personal.

Presently, ITA 2000 has civil and criminal provisions and victims of data related crimes can approach the Adjudicator for compensation for losses suffered as per Section 46 of Chapter IX of ITA 2000. The Police can prosecute persons for the offences indicated in Chapter XI of ITA 2000.

The PDPB2019 adds the dimension of administrative penalty which was not the subject matter of “Adjudication” under ITA 2000. At the same time, PDPB 2019 does not address the offences under Chapter XI.

However overlap between ITA 2000 and PDPB 2019 may occur because of

1. 1. Section 43 which has the potential for being extended into personal data related crimes.
   2. PDPB 2019  in addition to retaining the power to levy administrative penalty on the data fiduciaries also retains the power to provide compensation to the data principal. This could be an overlap with the power of the Adjudicator under ITA 2000.

Given the general reluctance of IT Secretaries (adjudicators under ITA 2000) to adjudicate on cyber crime cases, they may be happy to pass on the responsibility to the Adjudicator under the DPA and hence the overlapping jurisdiction of the two adjudicators may not affect the enforcement. If however, there are multiple forums available in a few cases, it can be handled as we presently handle cyber crimes with the adjudicator as well as the consumer court etc.

The “Non Personal Data Governance Act” is yet to be drafted and even when it comes into existence, it is not expected to interfere with ITA 2000 in terms of offences. This Act is meant to be for “Establishing a structure for Governance of Non Personal Data” and the
Protection aspects can continue to be addressed by the ITA 2000.

PDPB 2019 defines what is “Personal Data” and what ever is not a personal data automatically falls into the purview of Governance under the Non Personal Data Governance Act (when it comes into existence) and the purview of protection as per the ITA 2000.

There is no need for PDPB 2019 to extend the authority of the Personal Data Protection Authority under the PDPB 2019 to the domain of Non Personal Data Governance or Protection. It is enough if the PDPB 2019 defines Personal data so that the boundary between Personal Data and Non Personal data is defined through either “Anonymization” or because the data itself does not contain any personally identifiable element.

If PDPB 2019 tries to extend the scope of the authority of DPA to Non Personal Data or extend the Data Breach definition to Non Personal Data, there will be a needless interference with the activities of the CERT-In which is a quasi judicial authority under ITA 2000 and is the authority designated to receive data breach reports.

Any move to extend the definition of “Data Breach” under PDPB 2019 to Non Personal Data Breach will bring lakhs of cyber offences to the table of the DPA .Data Breach may occur due to Viruses in Computers or Mobiles, through negligence or malicious attacks or even technical failures.

If all these data breaches land at the desk of DPA, it will paralyze the functioning of the DPA.

Hence the move to enhance the scope of PDPB2019 to Non Personal Data, if it is true, is avoidable.

Naavi

Registration now open. Course to commence from October 3, 2021

A Feedback from a participant of the previous program:

What was unique about this training and certification was the depth of coverage. With Naavi Sir being an expert in ITA 2000/08, he was able to bring in the required relevance and he was able to quote on specific cases and how ITA 2000/08 by itself includes data privacy requirements. His references to the HC judgements on matters of Personal Data Protection emphasized the importance. The content and teaching were well rounded and inclusive of surrounding aspects that perhaps one cannot expect in more mundane training programmes. The content presented by Ramesh Sir was very very elaborate on GDPR and all encompassing …. the discussions and points made by Naavi Sir while clarifying our doubts were themselves like a separate training session with valuable insights conveyed which he had gathered over the years …. overall it was a very enriching imparting of knowledge…. K.N.NarasingaRao, (Consultant, ICT at IIMB Bengaluru)

Naavi

BSNL is a public sector company and many of us want to encourage it. But there is a limit to which the inefficiency of BSNL may be tolerated.

I have installed the BSNL Fiber connectivity by converting my existing land line connection to the fiber connection.

Unfortunately the service is so problematic that I need to consider cancelling my subscription.

In the meantime there have been some press statements that BSNL wants to convert all its copper lines to fiber. If this is done, there could be more problems for commuters and hence I draw the attention of the Telecom ministry to look into the matter immediately.

Firstly, whenever fiber connectivity is down, which is quite often, the regular telephone line also becomes inaccessible. Hence those who depend on the telephone line for voice calls are blocked out of voice connectivity.

Secondly, BSNL connectivity interjects advertisements when we try to connect to a website. An example is the picture below where I have tried to connect to www.pdpa2019.in through my browser and I am directed to this advertisement page.

These advertisement intrusions are potential sources for virus introduction and an unwanted intrusion. If one looks at this picture it appears as if the advertisement is appearing on the website of www.pdpa2019.in where as it is introduced by BSNL before opening the target website and as an “Impersonation” of the advertisement beneficiary.

This is an offence which can be brought under ITA 2000 and other laws and the concerned technical persons of BSNL may be criminally charged.

The customer service itself is being handled by outsourced agencies and despite their best efforts, fall short of the requirement.

Also, Jio Fiber is using underground cabling with dual cable connectivity and overhead  cabling is only from a nearby pole. This reduces the risks of cable cut due to natural and other reasons.

I hope BSNL tries to improve its services as the fiber service was one of the best opportunities for it to turn around the organization and if it fails this time, then this could be the end of BSNL.

Naavi