The Annex A of ISO 27001:2022 contains 93 controls in four categories. The Organizational Controls under A.5 has 37 sub Controls, People Controls under A.6 has 8 sub controls, Physical Controls under A.7 has 14 sub controls and Technology controls under A.8 contain 34 sub controls.
The earlier version of ISO 27001:2013 was unwieldy with 14 different types of controls.
When we look at the categorization adopted by PDPSI, there are 5 categories and it is based on the “Responsibility Centers” . The five responsibility centers used in PDPSI are Management (15 Model Implementation Specifications or MIS), DPO (9 MIS), Legal (2 MIS),HR (4 MIS) and IT (20 MIS).
The 8 people controls under ISO 27001:2022 can be compared directly with the 4 HR (MIS 27-30) controls under PDPSI. The 34 technology controls and 8 physical controls under ISO 27001:2022 can mapped with the 20 MIS of PDPSI (MIS 31-50). The 37 Organizational controls under ISO 27001 can be compared and mapped with the 15 Management level MIS (MIS 1-15), 9 DPO level MIS (16-24) and 2 Legal level MIS (25-26).
ISO 27701 provides a mapping of the guidelines with GDPR. However, PDPSI can be mapped with GDPR as well as DPDPB 2022.
It would be interesting to compare the different controls under ISO 27001:2022 with the corresponding MIS under PDPSI . In this comparison we may find that PDPSI may not only cover the entire ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 27701:2019 but add a few more implementation specifications making it more comprehensive.
The scope of the ISO 27001:2022 standard is to provide requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and continually improving an information security management system. (ISMS). The ISMS preserves the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information by applying a risk management process. One of the objectives of the standard is to give confidence to interested parties that risks are adequately managed.
If we compare ISO 27001 with a framework such as PDPCSI, the following differences stand out.
1.PDPCSI applies to Personal Data only while ISO 27001 applies to both personal and non personal data
2. PDPCSI is related to mitigation of the risk of non compliance of a given personal data protection law while ISO 27001 is related to preserve the CIA of information
3. PDPCSI is to mitigate/avoid the risk of penalty under the data protection law while ISO 27001 is to provide confidence to the business partners.
There is one school of thought that ISO 27001 is an ISMS system while PDPCSI is a law compliance system and the two are not comparable.
However, law compliance always refers to the “Reasonable Security” to be maintained on personal data as part of the requirement of compliance. It is one of the sections of the law such as Article 32 (2) of GDPR or Section 9(4) of DPDPB 2022
Article 32(2) of GDPR or Section states “In assessing the appropriate level of security account shall be taken in particular of the risks that are presented by processing, in particular from accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed.”
Article 9(2) of DPDPB 2022 states “Every Data Fiduciary and Data Processor shall protect personal data in its possession or under its control by taking reasonable security safeguards to prevent personal data breach.”
ISO 27001 addresses these specific requirements of the data protection laws since it is a framework for preserving the Confidentiality, integrity and availability of information.
However PDPCSI considers this as one of the important requirements but there are a multitude of other requirements that it tries to address. The main requirements of privacy are establishing the legal basis for processing, protecting the rights of the data subjects, ensuring the compliance through out the life cycle of the data processing etc. Obviously, ISO 27001 does not aim to address these aspects.
In that case, it is unclear what does the change of title of ISO 27001 to include “Privacy Protection” mean.
When the number of controls in Annex A of ISO 27001 reduced from 114 to 93 in the new version, the following 11 new controls have been added.
A.5.7 Threat intelligence
A.5.23 Information security for the use of cloud services
A.5.30 ICT readiness for business continuity
A.7.4 Physical security monitoring
A.8.9 Configuration management
A.8.10 Information deletion
A.8.11 Data masking
A.8.12 Data leakage prevention
A.8.16 Monitoring activities
A.8.23 Web filtering
A.8.28 Secure coding
The reduction of the number from 114 to 93 has came about because of merging of several other controls. 35 of the earlier 114 controls remain unchanged, 23 controls were renamed and the remaining controls were merged into 24 new controls.
Hence if “Privacy Protection” has been added to ISO 27001 in the new version, it should be part of the above 11 controls.
On the other hand, ISO 27701 addressed the Privacy related controls applicable for PII as PIMS and included requirements such as
Awareness and training: These controls address the need to raise awareness of privacy risks among employees and to provide them with training on how to protect personal data.
Consent: These controls address the need to obtain consent from individuals before collecting, using, or disclosing their personal data.
Data minimization: These controls address the need to collect only the personal data that is necessary for the purpose for which it is being collected.
Data security: These controls address the need to protect personal data from unauthorized access, disclosure, modification, or destruction.
Privacy impact assessment: The organization should conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) to identify and assess the privacy risks associated with its processing of personal data
Privacy policy: The organization should have a privacy policy that sets out the organization’s commitment to privacy and the rights of individuals with respect to their personal data.
Data protection officer: The organization should appoint a data protection officer (DPO) to oversee the organization’s compliance with privacy laws and regulations.
Data breach notification: The organization should have a process for notifying individuals and regulators of data breaches.
ISO 27701 was not however a certification standard and it’s implementation had to be done along with ISO 27001 for certification.
Hence if we are looking at ISO 27001 as a standard for PIMS, then we need to look at both ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 27701:2019. However, ISO 27001:2022 does not refer to ISO 27701 in its normative reference list because it is the base standard and ISO 27701 is only a guidance. ISO 27701 on the other hand refers to ISO 27001:2013 and not ISO 27001:2022.
Hence ISO 27001:2022 cannot be considered as a framework for privacy management despite its title. A Creative auditor may however imply several aspects of Privacy into “Confidentiality”.
But ISO 27001+ISO 27701 is comparable to PDPCMS as a standard for implementation and certification of a PIMS.
ISO 27001 is relevant in comparison with PDPCMS to the extent PDPCMS protects CIA of personal data and hence we can continue to look at ISO 27001 from this limited perspective. After completing the discussion on ISO 27001, we shall explore ISO 27701 also.
In November 2022, ISO introduced a new version of its popular ISMS framework namely ISO 27001. This ISO 27001:2022 will be the new standard to replace the ISO 27001:2013 version. The ISO expects that the certifications on the basis of 2013 version needs to be transitioned to the new version before November 2025.
However, as always “Compliance” is a journey and earlier one starts better it is. Naavi who has been a pioneer in recommending an indigenous framework PDPCSI (Personal Data Protection Standard of India) is in the forefront of education related to compliance of law related to Data Protection.
Naavi started his foray into the consultancy for Data Protection way back in 2000 with “CyLawCom” certification, and also developed a framework named IISF 309 (Indian Information Security Framework) compliant to ITA 2000, in March 2009. Subsequently Naavi shifted focus on Personal Data Protection and developed PDPCSI (Personal Data Protection Compliance Standard of India) as a framework for planning and implementing data protection compliance as per GDPR and the Indian personal data protection law as it is emerging.
PDPCSI already had incorporated several innovative thoughts that made it a better standard for compliance than the ISO 27701 specifically created for GDPR compliance. The concepts of Data Valuation, DTS and Distributed Responsibility were futuristic thoughts. In the past the PDPSI framework has been mapped to ISO 27701 as well as other frameworks to provide confidence to the market that PDPCSI is inclusive of all the best practices in the ISO 27701(which included ISO 27001:2013)
Now that ISO has come up with the new version, there is a need for the professionals to understand how PDPCSI current version compares with the proposed ISO 27001:2022.
With this objective in view, Naavi.org will start a series of articles to capture the essence of ISO 27001:2022. This will be the basis for the training on ISO 27001 that may emerge in due course from Cyber Law College/FDPPI.
While presenting ISO 27001:2022, we will try to provide relevant comparison to PDPCSI so that the body of knowledge developed would help understanding of both ISO 27001 and PDPCSI.
I am not sure of the time line for completion of this series since it will be done along with the other activities of Naavi. Since we are expecting the new version of DPDPB to be presented in the current Parliament there would be more activity related to the Training of DPOs in India and implementation of Privacy projects. Hence this series may take some time to complete. But just as we say “Little drops make the ocean”, we shall start stitching together some knowledge bits which will in due course will become useful.
In the past visitors to this website have said that ” Naavi.org is the wikipedia of Cyber Laws in India”. In the coming days, Naavi.org should also be called the wikipedia on ISO 27001.
Let’s hope that the almighty provides the time and energy to complete the project as soon as possible.
I request all of you to not only contribute your good wishes but also some thoughts of your own as guest articles are at least as comments to the article
The bench of Mumbai High Court which is hearing the complaint against the recent IT rules regarding fake news is making comments which make good headlines in a Newspaper but are irresponsible and may even be termed naive and biased.
It was noteworthy that the same headline was used my multiple publications such as NDTV.com, Hindu, Deccan Herald, The Print etc.
Obviously it appeared that all these editors found that the words of the Judge was like a “Quotable Quote”. Was it a coincidence that all these editors thought of the same head lines or was it a press release sent out to all these publications by one of the petitioners or on his behalf by some organization?.
This is not the first of the quotes of the bench which have got wide publicity. earlier reports quoted
“IT rules Amendment Prima facie lack necessary safeguards to protect Satire”
“No matter how ludable the new IT rules are, if the effect is unconstitutional, they must go”
“Government is not a repository of truth that cannot be questioned”
The Court further went on to comment
“It is difficult that one authority of the Government is given absolute power to decide what is fake, false and misleading….” ..
“There is an assumption that what the FCU says is undeniably the the ultimate truth”.
‘No person is claiming a fundamental right to lie”…
“..a person can be anything they want (on the internet) is not necessarily impersonation”.
These are all the opinions of the individual judge/s and not supported by facts. In a way the Judges are lieing themselves when they are making these comments.
The current status of the case is captured in this video
The petitioner Mr Kunal Kamra is a political activist who can claim anything in his peition. But it is inappropriate for the Judges of the Bench to make comments as if it has already made its decision even before the trial concludes.
The way the judges are blurting out their views reminds the behaviour of the Supreme Court bench which heard the Nupur Sharma case indicates that this trial is a farce and the Judges have already made up their mind on the outcome.
The Court by its conduct is misleading the public by making unwarranted comments.
In our opinion just as I have the right to say that anything published about me online is false, the Government also has the right to say what is told about it in the digital media is not correct or false.
The Court cannot take a stand that any false statement can be made on the Government and the Government has to be a mute spectator.
For example, if any publication says that a particular judge is corrupt, has taken bribe for giving out a decision, does the judge not have a right to give a counter statement in the press besides launching a “Contempt” proceeding?
Similarly every citizen as well as the Government has the right to counter the truthfullness of a false statement first by a counter statement and this right is in addition to the right to file a case in a Court of law. What the counter statement does is to give the knoweldge to the publisher that the content is disputed.
If the publisher then decides that the content is fine and is part of the free speech, he can very well not do any thing on the counter statement. It would be ethical to publish the counter statement on the same publication but even this is not mandatory.
What the notification states is the right of the Government to make a public statement that a certain information as published is false. Currently this is only regarding the information about any Government department. There is no compulsion that the information has to be removed forthwith.
Only God knows how can the Court consider this “Right to Self Defence” as incorrect and undesirable.
It is also wrong to say that any “FactCheck call” will make the Intermediary vulnerable to punishment. Punishment if any will come only if a Court decides in a case that the false information casued a wrongful harm to some body.
The Court is completely wrong to presume that every Fact Check call is an automatic punishment on the Intermediary.
The Court has also asked repeatedly why this rule is for digital media only and not print media. I hope the Court will remember that the Print Media works under a different system where there is a publisher and editor to take the responsibility to the content posted by a reporter. On the digital media the reporter is himself the editor and the publisher and it needs a different set of rules. There is also a “Press Council” to monitor which is not available for digital media including you tube publications.
In order to defend the argument of the political petitioner, the Court has gone to the extent of saying that there is “No Impersonation” if a person presents himself as somebody else on the internet. This is pure and simple “Forgery” and the Court defends electronic forgery. This directly counters Section 66C and 66D of ITA 2000/8.
I will recall the words “Vinashakale viparata Buddhi” for this statement.
The Judge does not seem to know what are the implications of his statement.
In the video above one of the advocates for the petitioner has suggested that “Satire” by definition is stating a falsehood and hoodwinking the public to believe the untruth and later call it as a bloff and laugh it off. However until some body challenges the falsehood prevails and damages the social fabric.
The Cambridge dictionary only says Satire is a way of “criticising people or ideas in a humorous way”. It does not give license to say in digital writing some thing false and let it go viral just to excuse one self when cornered claiming it to be a “Satire”.
In the Advertisement industry, there is an ethical way of publishing articles which are paid for and are considered Advertorials. Such content always contain a note in some corner which says it is an advertisement.
Similarly of some content has to be considered a “Satire”, it should declare it to be so either in the beginning or in the end. On the other hand no body should be allowed to say falsehood and wait for the public to believe it as true and when challenged, state that ” I only wanted this to be a satire”.
This is absolutely unacceptable even if the Mumbai High Court has a counter view point.
The two judges of the bench hearing the case have already created enough damage to their reputation as independent judicial functionaries and should strictly refrain from making any further comments. Their views are known and they themselves are better than the advocates of the peritioners in defending the petition and they should straight away pronounce their judgement.
It is a waste of time and money to carry out such trials which have no purpose in the society. The Government should call out the evident bias that the bench is displaying and demand a new bench to be constituted for carrying on the trial.
AI is the buzzword in the tech world right now. Any software developer today meeting a client will first try to project how AI is built into his product to make it more efficient and cost effective. Every industry is falling over each other to adopt AI and Indian Banks are not far behind in their enthusiasm.
In 2016 itself there was a series of initiatives taken by different Banks to introduce Chatbots on their websites. SBI, SBI Cards, HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, IndusInd bank, Kotak, Andhra bank all released their versions of Chatbots. City Union Bank of Kumbakonam however became the first Indian Bank to introduce a robot to answer queries of its customers on the counter.
Most of the Chatbots were of little practical use and often an irritant to the customer. Even now many website services depend so much on the in-efficient chatbots that we often feel running away from such sites. These chatbots could only respond to specific queries for which answers are already loaded and any small deviation could make it useless.
However, the advent of ChatGPT and the current generation of humanoid robots have made a difference.
The above are the pictures of two News Anchor robots introduced by TV channels (Lisa in Odissa and Soundarya in Karnataka) who look very human and speak like humans.
The Geneva conference where several highly intelligent and interactive robots lead by Sophia, and participated by Nadine , Desdemona, Ameca, Grace, Al-da, and three others, showcased the power of AI driven humanoid robots which can think and act on their own.
It is therefore natural that the resource rich Indian banks will soon bring in the human looking robots to their counters at least one in every branch.
Is this an innovation that we should all welcome? Or one that we should all fear? will be a question we should ponder.
Decision makers in Banks need to take a call now if they have to introduce AI as a marketing gimmick or for functional use.
The use of AI in the front office is imminent and will be a common place in Banks like ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank soon which are generally ahead in technology adoption.
Apart from the human looking robots walking around a branch and greeting customers, there are other ways where AI will be used by the banks. In the middle office, AI applications will be used for automated customer identification and authentication and triggering customer specific responses with personalized insights and recommendations. Fraud prevention will be one of the most important aspects of this middle office AI applications.
In the back office , many of the computerised operations of today will transform to be led by AI. Loan processing, Credit rating etc will become automated and dependent on the AI.
While a part of the industry is excited with the possibilities of innovation and changing face of Banking, there is a thread of worry creeping up in certain circles.
Some of the concerns of AI usage are in the area of Privacy. Most Data Protection laws including the forthcoming Indian law DPDPB 2023 will consider automated processing and automated decision making as privacy issues that need explicit consent.
The concept of “Explicit Consent” is not satisfied by a disclaimer such as “You are under CCTV surveillance” or “You will be serviced by a robot” etc since it does not specify that the CCTV or the robot is not processing the face recognition to identify the customer and checking his background as well as his transactional history.
Getting a valid consent for such use of AI is the first priority for the Banks.
If AI is used in back-end processing for Profiling, Credit rating and Loan eligibility determination or for determining the risk adjusted interest rates then the need for establishing a legal basis is accentuated with the need for algorithmic transparency and establishing absence of decision bias.
Over and above this, if there is an incorrect decision by the AI, the liability has to be fixed on the Bank and the Bank should be able to transfer this to the AI robotic manufacturer as an “Intermediary”.
While in fraud prevention, the AI can be used very effectively, to monitor the transactions, to identify the abnormality and to stop phishing frauds, if the AI is not configured properly or if AI can be bypassed by the hacker, the responsibility for the Bank continues even after it could have turned complacent with the introduction of AI led fraud monitoring system.
Hence there is a need for the Banks to monitor the functioning of the AI Fraud monitoring system or any other system by humans. However since humans surrender their work to AI because they cannot handle the volume and complexity, even the monitoring needs technology assistance.
I therefore foresee a need for second level AI tools that monitor the first level AI tools to identify the anomolus behaviour of the AI tool itself and any exceptions it could have allowed..like setting a thief to catch a thief.
This system would be like “Officer level AI tools” monitoring “Clerical level AI tools” and introducing the dual check rule in the AI Banking world.
As an example, the CCTV in a Bank premises can watch the walking humanoid robot’s behaviour and identify if it is doing its duty properly and not ignoring a senior citizen who needs help or flirting with a handsome customer or showing a rogue behaviour like “Sydeney” the Bard assistant.
In the context of decision making AI algorithms, the Checking algorithms may review a sample of decisions and apply fraud detection patterns and identify if everything was on board.
I hope that Banks who are trusted repositories of public money will first think of such controls before falling into the marketing glib talk of technology suppliers and introduce inefficient AI. If this happens it would be a great risk.
In the context of several Indian Banks having been declared Section 70 (Protected System) systems, the AI usage has to be vetted and approved by CERT IN.
I therefore advise caution to the Indian Banks before gong ga-ga about AI introduction in their activities.
It is a standard practice in the Data Protection domain where an “Auditor” and an “Implementation Consultant” have different roles in establishing Privacy and Data Protection Compliance.
However, this traditional approach imposes a relatively larger responsibility on an organization to understand and interpret the emerging requirements and taking steps in their implementation. It is relatively easy for the auditor to step in, find faults, give impractical suggestions and exit. The company in most cases undertakes the audit exercise as a necessary formality and reverts to its usual ways of functioning and getting back to audit mode once a year whenever the audits happen.
Naavi would like to change this “I am not responsible for designing and implementation but responsible only for audit” approach.
We do understand that there could be a need for such an aprorach to avoid a “Conflict” in the consultancy and audit responsibilities. But this conflict can come in even in the traditional system because of the influence a reputed auditor can bring in on a consultancy firm. In many cases consultancy firms work in tandem with the auditing body and the difference between the two are only on paper. The auditor calls all the shots and the consultant falls in place.
Even in such cases, as long as the auditor is true to the objective of the implementation (eg: Privacy Protection) there is no need to consider that there has to be a conflict of interest where the objective would be compromised. But the practice and belief that the two roles should be kept separate continues to prevail and is sustained despite its inefficiencies.
Hence this keeping the Auditor and Consultant away from each other is considered artificial and if there can be a way of combining the consultancy and audit functions, it is not necessarily undesirable.
In India the DPDPB may expect that the DPO is an internal employee. In GDPR, there is a possibility of an external DPO. Even if the Indian law does not allow an external DPO, it could allow an external Data Protection Consultant to assist the DPO. Further the role of DPO is more aligned with a duty to protect the interests of data subjects and unless an organization has a separate Privacy Officer, there is an inherent conflict between the Data Principal protection duties of the DPO and the Advisory responsibilities within the organization.
Naavi has therefore proposed adoption of a new “Partner in Progress” approach to consulting and audit of Data Protection programs in India which will be experimentally used by FDPPI through its “Supporting Member” network of consultants.
A Brief description of this new approach is provided at here
The essence of this program will be that the organization will use the services of FDPPI for designing, implementing, monitoring with periodical review. In a way the entire PDCA cycle is managed by the FDPPI team which will consist of the chosen set of professionals from the support member group.
The engagement would be on a retainer basis with additional services sourced either from within the supporting member network or outside and billed as necessary. The team would design and implement the system on a best effort basis.
The system of an external data auditor which is inherent in the Indian law will ensure that the work of the FDPPI consultancy team is reviewed by an external auditor and should satisfy the puritans who fear conflict.
It is desired that after the system is stabilized, the FDPPI team can exit and handover the maintenance to an internal Privacy and Data Protection management team.
This arrangement is considered ideal when an organization is going through a Digital Transformation and implementing a switchover from the current privacy and Data Protection regime under ITA 2000 to the DPDPB regime.
Disruption of the current system of Auditing is necessary and desirable and I urge FDPPI to be the instrument of such disruption.
