Cyber Law College continues it’s association with Apnacourse.com

Though Cyber Law College has introduced certain new online streaming video based courses under it’s E-Education initiative, its earlier association with Apnacourse.com continues.

Presently three courses namely Certified Cyber Law Professional, Certified HIPAA Aware Professional and Certified GDPR professional are on this platform.

Certified Cyber Law ProfessionalCertified HIPAA Aware ProfessionalCertified GDPR Professional

These are administered by Apnacourse.com and interested persons can pursue the programs through the following links. participation Certificates can be obtained for these programs from ApnaCourse.com/Cyber Law College on request.

Naavi

Posted in Cyber Law | Leave a comment

PDPSI and Territorial Scope in GDPR et.al

One of the first and foremost challenges in implementing Data Protection regulations in the Indian scenario is to recognize which law is applicable to a particular processing.

The “Personal Data Protection Standard of India” (PDPSI) is the standard framework which has recognized this challenge in the multiple stake personal data scenario and tried to address it.

Typically a Company in India, say IN, receives a data processing assignment from Companies in different countries say AT in Austria, or US in USA. AT may have personal data of Austrian Citizens subject to GDPR. On the other hand, US may be a globally operating company and may have Data US-1 related to California, US-2 related to UK and US-3 related to France and may be US-4 related to India itself.

Both AT and US would be entering into a Data processing agreement incorporating SCC s obtaining an undertaking for compliance to GDPR and/or all applicable Privacy laws.

The term “All Applicable Privacy Laws” may include “applicable privacy, information security, data protection, and data breach notification laws and regulations”.

In such cases, we can recognize that being “GDPR Compliant” or following “ISO 27701 Certification” would not be sufficient to be in compliance.

PDPSI which is developed as a “Techno legal compliance framework for multiple legal stakes” therefore considers it extremely important to classify the subject personal data that we are trying to protect with a proper classification tag that identifies the applicable law.

For example in the above case, it is easy to tag all personal data received under the Contract with AT as “GDPR Stake”. But when we deal with US as a client, we cannot designate all personal data received under the contract as GDPR or CCPA or SHIELD or other laws. Without properly identifying the stake, there is no way we can evaluate the sufficiency of the Notice, Consent, Rights Management, Cross Border restrictions, DPO requirements etc.

At this point of time, there is also a necessity to be clear about the “Role Definitions” whether IN is a Data Processor alone or is a Controller or Joint Controller. This will also be determined by the contract which is signed between IN and AT or US and is part of the determination of the applicable law.

In case IN is a “Data Processor” alone, his liability under the contract is limited to the Contractual agreement. Hence the jurisdiction mentioned in the contract will determine the applicable law. Hence irrespective of whether the US data consists of data from multiple jurisdictions, the contract will have one jurisdiction for law and for courts/arbitration  as agreed to in the contract which could be US or India. Similarly the Austrian contract may be in accordance with the Austrian law or Indian law and subject to arbitration or Court jurisdiction in Austria or India etc.

If however IN is not a “Data Processor” but a “Joint Controller”, then it will be subject to the individual laws of each of the countries of origin of the personal data. In certain cases we may not be able to determine the country of origin purely by technical means such as IP address resolution and we need to specifically ask the data subject providing the information through a consent form, to which privacy law regime he would subject himself to by choice. By default it could be the location of residence as declared in his residential address if collected or the location of the IP address from which he provides his information (Though this is not always the correct identification of the place of residence of the data subject).

The EDPB guideline 3/2018 dated 12th November 2019 provides the clarity that the territorial scope of GDPR must be determined on the basis of whether the data controller has a direct relationship with the data subject or is working through another entity which is the data controller. If the processor is not having direct interaction by directing his business to the data subjects in the EU, he is not a “Data Processor” coming under the definition of GDPR. He is only a sub contractor for processing and is bound by the contractual agreement with the data controller.

If in the case above IN wants to be a “Data Controller” and enters into such an agreement with US, then it will have to in most of the cases deal directly with multiple data protection authorities and may also have to have representative persons in many countries. He also has to implement his Privacy and Security Controls differently for different sets of data.

The proposed Indian PDPA has given an exemption for such processing from PDPA if the processing activity is properly notified but other laws have not provided such exemptions. But each law defines the material scope according to which it is applicable to the personal data of it’s citizens/consumers as defined in the said law.

One of the Standards in PDPSI is the “Law based scoping” that takes into account

the identification of the role of the implementation organization as to whether it is a “Controller” or a “Processor” or a “Sub contractor-processor” with relevance to the personal data set that is the subject matter of protection. At the same time, it will also tag the applicable law as to whether GDPR is applicable or any other law is applicable to the identified and separated data set.

Different instances of PDPSI such as PDPSI-IN or PDPSI-GDPR or PDPSI-CCPA take care of secondary level differences in the required compliance by adopting different sets of implementation specifications.

By adopting this flexible approach PDPSI has become a universal framework that can be applied to all data protection laws with appropriate changes in the Implementation specifications which are recorded by the implementer through a “Standard Variance Document”.

Cyber Law College will be shortly conducting exclusive training program for implementers who would like to explore PDPSI as an implementation framework in greater detail. As Naavi has explained earlier,this framework is part of the “Aatma Nirbhar or Self Reliance” program in Data Protection in India to reduce the dependence of MSME organizations on international frameworks.

Interested persons can contact naavi through e-mail to help scheduling of the program.

Naavi

 

Posted in Cyber Law | Leave a comment

New Regulations… New Opportunities…New Responsibilities

(This is the continuation and  summary article in the series)

The Kris Gopalakrishna Committee was constituted on 13th September 2019 with a brief terms of reference to study the various issues relating to Non Personal data and make specific suggestions. It was headed by Shri Kris Gopalakrishna, Co-Founder Infosys and contained 7 other members.

The Committte’s recommendations were released on July 12th and public comments have been solicited upto August 13.

The task entrusted to the committee was complex and the committee has come up with a comprehensive set of suggestions which are very promising. These are early days though as the recommendations will be churned again and again until it is implemented. But the road map has been set and the journey has begun.

In order to enable more people understanding the import of the recommendations and respond with their comments to the Government, I have tried to provide through a series of 8 articles preceding this, a glance at the recommendations. By no means these are complete and require refinement.

However, we must recognize that this is the fore runner to a new regulation of immense importance to the industry in India. It is of interest not only to Jio or Google or FaceBook, but also the entire IT industry, the public, the Government etc.

We often say “Data is Oil” and recognize its economic potential. A time has come now to look at the regulation that can ensure that the harnessing of “Data” as a “National Asset”.

We are now on the threshold of passing the “Personal Data Protection Act” which will regulate that part of the Data Universe that has the identity of an individual. Now a new “Non Personal Data Regulation Act” will address the regulation of the rest of the Data universe.

The law is yet to be framed. Even the Bill is not ready. But the die is cast. In due course an Act will be come into being. The industry has to gear itself to this new development.

The development will have a profound impact on the businesses because it will drag the many establishments including several Government agencies into a hitherto not present regulatory environment.  It will give raise to new opportunities in the area of technology which innovative technology start ups can harness.

The professional work force which was slowly coming to terms with the Data Protection Act will now have another disruption to contend with. As I have already been hinting at, the Non Personal Data Governance will bring in a new professional namely, “Data Governance Officer” in a corporate set up who will discharge a new function different from what the DPO or CISO or CTO or CCO or CRO discharges. This will be a new breed of “Data Management Experts” who will be “Techno Management Experts” who will come out of the Business Schools having both management skills and Technology skills.

As is customary, Naavi starts his journey into this world of Data Governance and will try to facilitate other professionals to join in.

Currently Naavi is focussed on the Foundation of Data Protection Professionals in India (FDPPI) and the “Foundation of Data Governance Professionals in India” will be a natural extension.

I invite other professionals to start thinking in this direction as we address both Personal Data and Non Personal Data management as a common objective.

For the time being however, let us concentrate on studying the recommendations of the Committee and formulate our comments to be submitted to the Government. With the Government requiring to complete its obligations on passing the PDPB 2019 at the earliest, the Non Personal Data Regulation Act may take some time to emerge. But let us use this interim period to learn more on this subject and prepare ourselves for the new era.

I have tried to provide below a list of articles that have appeared on this site in the past for immediate reference. I look forward to comments from others to collate more thoughts on this subject.

Naavi

Earlier Articles

September 16 2019:

Views of Kris Gopalakrishna.. What do they indicate for the Privacy regulation in India?
Views of Kris Gopalakrishna…on Privacy…2 Leveraging data for the benefit of the individuals

Views of Kris Gopalakrishna…on Privacy…3

September 2019-July 2020

Kris Gopalakrishna clarifies the role of Data Governance Committee-September 16,2019

What is Data Governance Framework ?-September 14, 2019
Committee on Data Governance…: Is it relating to Anoymized Personal Data or Non Personal Data?-September 14, 2019
What is Community Privacy? and who has the right of disposal?-September 23, 2019

Churning Expected in Corporate Data Governance hierarchy-26th September, 2019

The Consortium of “PDPA opposing companies” puts Kris Gopalakrishna under radar-March 8, 2020

July 2020

Differential Privacy and PDPA 2020-July 10, 2020

Data Governance Regulator may be designated by the Kris Gopalakrishna committee-July 11, 2020

Kris Gopalakrishna Committee submits reports-July 12, 2020

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-1

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-2

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-3
Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-4

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-5

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-6

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-7

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-8

New Regulations… New Opportunities…New Responsibilities

Posted in Cyber Law | 1 Comment

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-8

(This is a continuation of the previous article)

Technology Architecture

The Kris Gopalakrishna Committee (KGC) has also added key guiding principles on technology that can be used for creating and functioning of shared data directories, data bases and for digital implementation of rules and regulations related to data sharing briefly indicated below.

Mechanisms for Accessing data

All sharable Non-Personal Data and datasets created or maintained should have a REST (Representational State Transfer) API for accessing the data.

Data sandboxes can be created where experiments can be run, algorithms can be deployed and only output being shared, without sharing the data.

Distributed for Data Security

data storage in a distributed format so that there is no single point of leakage; sharing to be undertaken using APIs only, such that all requests can be tracked and logged; all requests for data must be operated after registering with the company for data access etc.

Even when data is stored in a distributed or federated form, as appropriate, there could be coordinated management of them like would be required for data trusts and data infrastructures for important Non-Personal Data in different sectors.

Creating a standardized data exchange approach for data collation and exchange.

Prevent de-anonymization by using the best of the breed differential privacy algorithm.

A system architecture to enable the implementation of the guidelines has also been provided by the Committee.

(To be continued)

Naavi

 

Posted in Cyber Law | Leave a comment

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-7

(This is a continuation of the previous article)

Non Personal Data Regulatory Authority

One of the key recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee (KGC) that has been presently highlighted by the media reports is the recommendation to set up a separate regulator namely “Non-Personal Data Regulatory Authority” (NPDRA).

The NPDRA will be different from the DPA under the PDPA and while the DPA is more oriented towards “Securing Personal Data for the protection of Privacy of individuals”, the NPDRA will be focussing on how to harness the Non Personal Data for national benefit.

Hence the kind of persons who manage this authority has to be more “Progress oriented” than “Caution oriented”. They need to be more “Technology Oriented” than “Legal Oriented”.

The regulator should be able to effectively implement the measures to register and regulate Non Personal Data Fiduciaries, Processors, Data Trustees, Data Trusts etc. It will have to work in harmony with other regulators like DPA and CCI as well as the sectoral regulators. It will have both the “Enabling role” and the “Enforcement Role”.

As expected the NPDRA will be a body of persons with members with relevant industry experience.

(To Be Continued)

Naavi

Posted in Cyber Law | Leave a comment

Regulation of Non Personal Data.. Recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee-6

(This is a continuation of the previous article)

Data Sharing

The essential part of the recommendations of the Kris Gopalakrishna Committee (KGC) is to ensure an effective “Data Sharing” mechanism in which “Non Personal Data” is recognized for its potential value and harnessed for the benefit of the people.

Data sharing  as recommended by KGC refers to the provision of “controlled access” to private sector data, public sector data and community data to individuals and organisations for “defined purposes” and with “appropriate safeguards” in place.

The Committee has preferred an “Open Access” to “Meta data” and “Regulated access” to underlying data of Data Businesses with establishment of appropriate mechanisms to support data requests and data sharing.

One of the key recommendations there fore is the definition of the Data Sharing purpose. The Committee recognizes three purposes namely

a) Sovereign Purpose

b) Core Public Interest Purpose

c) Economic Purpose

Sovereign Purpose

Under this concept, data may be requested for national security, law enforcement, legal or regulatory purposes.

Core Public Interest Purpose

Under this concept, data may be requested for Community uses/benefits for public goods, research and innovation, for policy development, better delivery of public-services, etc.

It is recognized that certain data held with the private sector, when combined with public sector data or otherwise, may be useful for policy making, improving public service, devising public programs, infrastructure etc which needs to be enabled through law.

It is recommended that the Country should specify a new class of data at a national level “High -Value Dataset” like health, geospatial and/or transport data and such data should be used for research purposes.

GKC has specifically mentioned that Health Sector is a pilot use-case for Non-Personal Data Governance Framework and anonymized health data should be shared for the specified purposes.

Economic Purpose

GKC makes yet another interesting recommendation that Data may be requested in order to encourage competition and provide a level playing field or encourage innovation through start-up activities (economic welfare purpose), or for a fair
monetary consideration as part of a well-regulated data market, etc.

Considering the noises being made by some legal professionals and activists about Section 91 of the PDPB 2019 which empowered such a possibility for public policy, this recommendation would be considered as one of the key recommendations under KGC which may go into a big debate.

Data Sharing Mechanisms

The GKC recommends that the implementation of this sharing mechanism would require setting up data and cloud innovation labs and research centers to develop, test and implement new digital solutions, which should be an attractive thought for IT companies. It is recommended that such data should be available as training data for AI/ML systems.

The Data Sharing Mechanisms are expected to provide access to meta data about data collected by different Data Businesses. This is expected to help identification of opportunities to develop innovative solutions, products and services.

Such a mechanism has to involve a “Data Request Mechanism”, “Data Custodian”, “Data Disclosure Mechanism” , “Safeguards” , “Handling of complaints of non disclosure by data custodians”, “Appropriate Checks and Blances” etc as part of a new regulation.

It is expected that “Experts” would be recognized to evaluate data probing tools, and guide the industry regulation. They would focus on Cloud vulnerabilities, Cloud security systems etc.

The current crop of CISOs may find a new area of specialization to develop their careers threatened by the advent of DPOs under the PDPA.

An Academic-Industry Advisory body has also been hinted at by the GKC.

GKC has also hinted that there could be liabilities associated with the implementation of the regulations, for which a Non-Personal Data Regulatory Authority is envisaged.

(To Be Continued)

Naavi

 

Posted in Cyber Law | Leave a comment