Naavi.org

We have so far discussed ISO 27001-2022 in several articles ISO-1 to 7 and summarised ISO 27701 in article ISO-8. Let us now continue our discussions to cover the 93 controls which are part of Annexe A of ISO 27001-: 2022 and also ISO 27002:2019.

The Annexe contains

a) 37 Controls as “Organizational Controls” from A.5.1 to A.5.37

b) 8 controls as “People’s Controls” from A.6.1 to A.6.8

c) 14 controls as “Physical Controls” from A.7.1 to A.7.14

c) 34 controls as “Technology Controls” from A.8.1 to A.8.34

All these controls are effectively covered under the 50 Model Implementation specifications of PDPSI which adds a few more controls of its own to make it more precise than ISO 20001:2022 even if ISO 27701 is added as a combo.

Let us in this article try to get a bird’s eye view of the “Organizational Controls”.

The first control in this set is the need for development of policies for information security which have to be defined, approved, published, communicated and acknowledged by relevant stake holders. They have to be also reviewed periodically. The objective of the policies is to effectively mitigate the risks in different aspects of business with a focus on the CIA principle.

As a part of the policy or as a supplementary policy there is a need to define the roles and responsibilities of different employees with proper segregation of duties with an enforceable mandate that the policies will be adhered to by all.

The organization shall maintain contract with regulatory authorities such as CERT IN and with relevant industry groups to stay in close touch with industry developments.

For proper risk assessment, a system for gathering threat intelligence and integrating IS in each of the projects is to be ensured.

In order to implement the policies, there has to be an inventory of Information assets with proper labeling and ownership assignment. This will be associated with an acceptable user policy till the ownership of the assets are suitably transferred to another authorized person. Such transfer procedures are also to be suitably documented along with a proper labeling of information.

It is also necessary to have a proper classification of information which determines the access policies. IS related classification is normally associated with the CIA triad and limited to classifications such as “Public”, “Restricted”, “Confidential” etc. If ISO 27701 or privacy related compliance is required like PDPSI, then the classification has to take into account “Personal and Non Personal” , “Sensitive and Non Sensitive” etc. PDPSI therefore follows a more elaborate classification system than ISO 27001/27701 and extends it to “Minor and Non Minor”, “Employee and Non Employee”, “Personal Sensitive”, “Personal Critical” etc.

This classification is associated with the Access Control management with management of full cycle of identities for access. The access control mechanism needs to take care of proper authentication of identities. The entire access rights management system needs to be periodically reviewed.

It is also necessary to ensure that information security in supplier relationships including the cloud services are also properly kept in check through the agreements. The IS needs need to be effectively communicated through the supply chain and monitored regularly for review and change.

There shall be a proper Incident management policy to define incidents and handle them effectively when identified with a proper assessment, reporting and learning out of the incidents.

Where required the need for evidence management during incidents and possible business disruption management with business continuity objective shall be ensured.

It is not possible to disassociate the IS requirements from any legal obligations in applicable law and this has to be adequately addressed. This may not only include the IPR related issues but also regulations related to contracts, data storage, security incident reporting etc.

Control A.5.34 specifically mentions that the organization shall identify and meet requirements regarding the preservation of Privacy and Protection of PII (Personally identifiable Information) according to applicable laws and regulations and contractual requirements. This clause extends ISO 27001:2022 to the privacy requirements without ISO 27701.

The organization shall independently review the IS controls periodically, document the compliance with adopted policies and procedures.

All these requirements covered under A.5.1 to A.5.37 are covered under PDPCSI for Establishing PDPCMS or Personal Data Compliance Management System. PDPCMS focusses on Privacy and hence limits itself to the application of CIA principles only to Personal Data and otherwise looks at the Privacy controls similar to ISO 27701. However the larger version of PDPCSI which is called DPCMSI may cover the non personal data protection compliance separately for which the compliance is checked with provisions of ITA 2000 and not the DPDPB 2023. DPCMSI combines ITA 2000 and DPDPB 2023 and hence covers ISO 27001:2022 even with an expanded coverage of Privacy.

If an auditor is aware of the intent of these frameworks and sincerely applies them to the audit, whether he uses ISO 27001:2022 with ISO 27701 or DPCMS does not matter except for the certification and costs.

…continued

Naavi

The Government has now disclosed the report of the Standing Committee on IT on DPDPB 2022.

With this it appears that the bill may finally be tabled in the Parliament probably tomorrow or soon after.

The version of the Bill which was released here a few days back however appears to be a version which is cleared by the Cabinet Committee after the standing committee report. It is a 33 section version as against the 30 section version attached to the IT Standing Committee.

We shall therefore wait for the actual bill to be tabled in the Parliament . The difference would be marginal but still relevant.

Standing Committee Version of the Bill (30 Sections)

Earlier Version of the Bill (33 Sections)

Complete Report of the IT Standing Committee

Naavi

A few days back honourable Chief Justice of India made a statement addressing the Government of India….”Take appropriate action…or else we will have to take action…”.

The concern was well appreciated since the incident was disgusting. Similar incidents happened earlier in West Bengal and Rajasthan but they were Congress/TMC ruled states and hence everybody was confident that the state is in safe hands where as Manipur state Government is with BJP and hence it needed to be criticised. We accept this as the norm of India.

But it cannot be said that the comment of the CJI was appropriate and the Supreme Court could threaten the Government. Did the threat imply that the Supreme Court would dismiss the Central Government? Could it impose its own Court monitored rule on Manipur? Could it order the arrest of Manipur CM for dereliction of duty? Could it censure Mr Amit Shah the Home Minister.. ?

Obviously in India, it is not possible for the Courts to impose emergency. The Supreme Court can only validate the emergency imposed by persons like Indira Gandhi and as long as history recognizes that Indira Gandhi imposed emergency, we also need to recognize that the Supreme Court validated the declared emergency.

Despite the ability to assume powers to re-write constitution even by a split verdict, Supreme Court should consider itself to be answerable to the people of India and has to respect the Parliament as the voice of the people. Supreme Court can also allow a system of national referendum over such issues where the Supreme Court differs with the Parliament so that people can express their views.

Following this development, Mr Badri Seshadri a senior citizen in Chennai (If I remember right, he founded Cricinfo.com which was later taken over by ESPN) was interviewed by a You Tube channel in which he commented

“The SC has said that if you cannot do anything, we will. Let’s give a gun to Chandrachud and send him there. Let’s see if he can restore peace.”

Based on a complaint made by a lawyer Kaviyarasu of Kadur Village, Badri Seshadri was promptly arrested and the Magistrate remanded him to 11 days Judicial Custody.

I am not sure if Badri Seshadri can be called a serious Political commentator as has been described by the media and the comment made by him was worthy of being considered an offence under Sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with the intention to create riot), 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony and 505 1(b) (with intent to cause or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public) of the Indian Penal Code.

One will need extraordinary genius to interpret these sections and fit it into the statement made by Mr Badri.

It is obvious that the Police wanted to place Mr Badri in jail for some reason and used this excuse. This is gross violation of the power of the Police to cause arrest. If the comment is considered “Defamatory” to the CJI, the CJI should have instituted a “Contempt of Court Proceedings” and not allow cases to be booked under Sections 153, 153A etc. Where is an intention to create riot or promote enmity between different groups etc? only God and Tamil Nadu Police and the Magistrate knows.

I am reminded of the Palghar incident some time back where two Muslim girls were arrested by the Shivasena led Government for “Clicking the Like Button” on Face Book about a post on deceased Bal Thackeray. At that time the whole country was up in arms against the arrest and ultimately the Supreme Court changed the law itself to express its displeasure on the arrest.

Now we have a similar situation here and the matter is closer to the Supreme Court since the defamation of CJI is the cause of the arrest.

As long as Justice Chandrachud remains silent on the arrest, it means that he endorses the arrest. When he can take Suo moto cognizance of violence in Manipur, summon Tushar Mehta ,demand action from the Government and threaten dissolution like action, can he not at least make a statement whether the arrest of Badri is a violation of the “Freedom of Speech” or not? This case should be considered as a personal case in which CJI is interested and hence his action or in-action will be deemed to communicate his views.

This is not just an issue which the BJP in Tamil Nadu should fight. This is an issue where Police are interpreting the law to their own convenience and the Judiciary by its selective silence encouraging such action. People like Prashant Bhushan and Kapil Sibal may not come in to defend when an ordinary citizen is wronged though they may happily walk in other cases. It is a national issue to be fought by all who respect or claim to respect Freedom of Speech.

I therefore request honourable chief justice of India, Mr D Y Chandrachud to react to the arrest and either lodge his own Contempt complaint or demand that the FIR be withdrawn.

In the meantime the Madras High Court should take Suo Moto cognizance of the illegal arrest and provide relief. Even the DGP of Tamil Nadu can perhaps intervene and set things right if he wants.

While the investigation may continue even against the sections the Police have filed, at least the Court can order immediate release of Mr Badri under bail since we know that Courts give bail in many terror cases also without battling its eyelid. There is no investigation to be done by keeping the accused under arrest when the you tube video is available in the public.

If Democracy in India is under threat, it is these incidents that have to be noted as the incidents of murder of Democracy. I wish there was a national referendum on issues like this so that people’s views could be taken before Police excess being committed against citizens of the country.

I wish the New York times the terrorist friendly journalists of Wire and other similar journals some of them are in the heart of Chennai respond fairly to this incident or accept the criticism that they are all George Soros funded members of the Tukde Tukde India gang.

Naavi

Recently two judgements were reported from abroad one on a Canadian Court considering the Emoji Thumbs up as a digital signature, another where a victim of an identity theft was adjudged guilty of Trademark infringement. To this I would like to add a Supreme Court reference on Crypto Currency related crimes. I would like to place some comments on all these three Court incidents for better clarity of where the Judiciary is heading.

In the Canadian Case a farmer replied to a message with a thumbs up emoji and the Court held that it was an agreement to a sale contract and ordered the farmer to pay $61442 as compensation for default.

Some time back the Madras High Court in the case of S V Shekar case had expressed an opinion that “Forwarding” a message in social media is equivalent to endorsing the content of the message.

This kind of view was also expressed by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case where it accepted that “Clicking the Like button” on the FaceBook was equivalent to endorsing the message and hence the Police were right in arresting the Palghar girls but the law was wrong. (Section 66A was considered wrong and not the action of the Police arresting the girls for clicking the like button).

There has also been an earlier instance of a Court (probably in HP) which considered a whatsApp message as an adequate notice and “Blue Tick” as an acknowledgement.

In all these cases the Judges were wrong since there should be a “Meeting of Minds” when some action is to be construed as a contractual or malicious action. The judges were more interested in showcasing their expertise in IT. Judgements in US which use ChatGPT to come to judicial decisions also fall into this category of “TRP” oriented judgements and has to be condemned by right thinking persons in the society.

While we object to children being addicted to Google and forgetting their human strengths, these judges are showing their addiction and abject surrender to technology, abdicating their judicial responsibilities.

The Second instance was regarding the Australian Woman who was convicted ex-parte by the US Courts for trademark violation. The lady, Ms Luke was a victim of a hacker who stole her password for Paypal and used the account for collecting fraud proceeds. Adidas and National Basketball association filed cases claiming damages and damages of $293000 and $1.5 million were awarded against the lady in favour of NBA and Adidas respectively. The Courts gave this judgement against an Australian Citizen and as an ex-parte judgement.

I wonder whether it is possible to respect Courts with such judgements.

Today’s Hindustan Times reports that in a case the Supreme Court has questioned the Government why there is still no law on Crypto and why a separate investigation agency is not created for Crypto offences.

While it has become a habit for the Supreme Court to make comments for the Press to report in headlines particularly if the comment is against the Government, it must be noted that it was the Supreme Court which prevented the Union Government from making a suitable legislation by its judgement on a RBI circular.

Readers of Naavi.org are aware of the fight it has carried on against Bitcoins and highlighting the “Bollywood Judgement” of the Supreme Court. In this judgement, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the RBI for issuing a letter restricting the Crypto Exchanges from dealing with Indian Banks. The Supreme Court gave a clear indication that it was supporting the Bitcoin and wanted to give the exchanges time to continue their activities of cheating the public. This had such a chilling effect on the RBI and the Government that there is a complete silence on the legislation of private crypto currencies.

The Supreme Court is directly responsible for all the losses the innocent Crypto users are suffering today out of crimes involving Crypto exchanges. Shedding crocodile tears today is hypocritical.

I wish the Courts everywhere display a greater sense of responsibility when it comes to the use of technology. Already “Fraud GPT” malicious chatbot is available for sale in darkweb and if Supreme Court has identified the need for a separate investigating agency for Crypto Crimes, they need to also suggest a separate investigating agency for AI crimes.

Courts should nudge the Government for appropriate legislation on AI and emerging technology rather than passing caustic remarks for the benefit of the news agencies to report with eye catching headlines.

Naavi

The new draft of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2023 as to be tabled in the Parliament has been released by the Standing Committee on IT headed by Shiv sena MP Mr Prataprao Jhadav.

A Copy of the bill is available here

According to the report in ET, several opposition MPs walked out of the meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT that adopted the report. Seven MPs including Congress’s Karti Chidambaram, TMC’s Mahua Moitra and Jawahar Sircar, CPI’s John Brittas and TDP’s Jayadev Galla opposed the draft. The objections which appear to be adhoc were on the provisions of the Data Protection Board and the RTI.

The provision on RTI has been discussed earlier. The changes that has been brought on the Data Protection Board are more in accordance with the earlier draft PDPB2019/DPA2021 and are an improvement over the interim draft of DPDPB 2022.

The more controversial Section 17 (Cross Border Transfer) and Section 18 (Exemptions/Legitimate interest) has been modified. Some changes in the “Deemed Consent” provision are also observed.

It is observed that the restrictions of any on the cross border transfer of data will be notified later. In the meantime any existing provisions of the law which could be stricter will remain in force. It is not clear if the RBI’s data localization notification can be considered as a law in this regard.

The full impact of the changes will be discussed in these columns subsequently.

We welcome the introduction of this version of the Bill and hope it will get passed soon.

Naavi

ISO 27701 was published on August 6, 2019 as an extension of ISO 27001:2013. It was a framework for management of Privacy of Personal data and included requirements for Privacy Risk Assessment, Privacy Impact Assessment, Data Protection Impact assessment and Privacy by Design.

It identifies PII controllers and PII processors as two categories of organizations which process Personal Information and PIMS (Personal Information management System) as a System within an ISMS system.

For certification purpose, only ISO 27001 is considered the Certification standard and ISO 27701 is considered a guidance document. Hence for any organization whose PIMS needs to be certified under ISO 27701, they need to be also compliant with ISO 27001 and certified for “ISO 27001 with extension of ISO 27701”.

ISO 27001:2022 is itself considered a “Privacy” related standard and under Annex A 5.34 states ” The organization shall identify and meet the requirements regarding the preservation of privacy and protection of PII according to applicable laws and regulations and contractual requirements”. Hence ISO 27001:2022 certification requires a consideration of the applicable law and its requirements. Hence ISO 27701 can only be a guidance. But it would be more appropriate if a new version of ISO 27701:2019 is released since the current version to which it is mapped is ISO 27001:2013.

Before ISO 27701 was published there was already another privacy standard ISO 29100 (2011) and also ISO 27018 (2014/2019). ISO 29100 is a framework that defines basic privacy terminology, defines roles of different organizations and contains a list of 11 Privacy principles. ISO 27701 makes a normative reference to ISO 29100. ISO 27018 is a PIMS framework and applicable only for PII processors. We can now consider ISO 27701 as a more comprehensive PIMS framework and applicable for both PII controllers and PII processors.

Additional PIMS requirements that ISO 27701:2013 requires as an extension of ISO 27001 are as follows:

Under Clause 5 the ISO 27701 provides PIMS specific requirements appropriate to an organization acting either as a PII Controller or a PII processor.

Clause 6 gives the PIMS specific guidance acting as either a PII Controller or PII Processor.

Clause 7 and 8 gives additional ISO 27002 guidance for PII Controller and Processor respectively.

In ISO 27002, PIMS specific guidance is found in clauses 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and 18.

The additional control objectives and controls introduced for a PII Controller in the annexe 7.2 are to determine and document that processing is lawful, with legal basis as per applicable jurisdictions and with clearly defined and legitimate purposes.

Under this control guidance is provided through sub controls for determining the legal basis, obtaining consent, conduct of privacy impact assessment, security of PII etc.

Clause A.7.3 is the next additional control with the objective to ensure that the PII principals are provided with appropriate information about the processing of the PII and to meet any other applicable obligations to PII principals related to the processing of their PII.

Under this Controls for protecting the rights of PII principals such as providing information , right to withdraw consent, right to erasure etc.

Clause 7.4 addresses the objective of ensuring that the processes and systems are desgned such that the collection and processing are limited to what is necessary for the identified purpose, by default.

Clause 7.5 addresses PII sharing, transfer and disclosure which includes cross border transfer requirements.

Table B provides similar guidelines applicable to Data Processors.

Thus ISO 27701 extends ISO 27001 to cover controls identified with Privacy protection as per laws such as GDPR. The annexures also provide mapping with different aspects of GDPR.

Though ISO 27701 does not directly address the needs of the Indian requirement like what PDP CMS does, since the principles of privacy covered in the ISO 27701 are similar to any other data protection laws, ISO 27701 can be used along with ISO 27001 for an ISMS-PIMS establishment along with a well constructed Statement of Applicability.