Canadian Anti-Spam legislation (Including software instalation) (Part II)

This blog is a continuation of a previous post concerning the new Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL). Part I can be found here.

This part will deal with how to prepare for this new legislation.

First of all, the question comes to mind on what should we do to prepare for this law. One must first understand that this law deals with ALL commercial electronic communication from companies, organizations, non-profits, individuals etc, that send out email and install software programs.

Lets take an example or three.

Your company has a booth at a trade show. You have a fish bowl at your booth for a prize draw. After the show, you take all the names of those people who entered the draw and add them to a mailing list. Then as you prospect these potential clients you send out an email soliciting for their business. Unless they have specifically 'signed' permission to allow you to do this (OPT-IN), your company can be found in contradiction of the law and be fined up to $5 million dollars.

Another example:

You have a web site where potential customers can download marketing material on the goods or services you provide. However, you require these web surfers to register before that material would be made available for download. At the bottom of the webpage you have a check box (which is already pre-checked for the user) allowing the company in question to email further updates. This case could be interpreted as being an OPT-OUT option because the check box is already prefilled. This would satisfy the CAN-SPAM Act (US) but would not be deemed complaint with the new Canadian law that requires an explicit OPT-IN option. And once again the company could be liable for millions of dollars in fines.

And one final example:

You bought a software application to be installed on your Smart Phone (or PC or IPAD or Mac or Tablet). When you start installing the package, there is no explicit consent to allow for the installation, therefore the software company would be liable. Also note that an End User License (EUL) acceptance may not be enough to satisfy the requirements.

Find below a few suggestions that, I believe, would help to start planning for compliance.

1) Take an inventory of all commercial messages that your organization is currently, or planning on sending out. This includes text messaging, Facebook campaigns, emails etc.

2) Discuss and create policies and guidelines that define what a Commercial Electronic Message (CEM) (as per CASL) is within your organization. If there are any exceptions that are applicable these should also be noted within the new policy.

3) Create an all-encompassing list of computer programs that your company directly, or indirectly installs on any electronic device.

4) If applicable, create a list of all computer products (and services) that your organization is involved with. This includes not only the initial software installation but any updates/upgrades that are part of your business process.

5) Discuss and create policies and guidelines that determine when your organization needs to obtain consent for installation of some software. Also note, while there are some exceptions (which should also be documented), all the information will need to be retained for review at a later date.

6) Review current consent that has been collected and see if it complies with the new legislation. If not, a process may need to be created to obtain consent using the new polices. This is further complicated because of the three year transition period mentioned within the law.

7) Document, create, clarify, create a process where the end user can agree to enter into a commercial arrangement, yet withhold consent to CEM.

8) Retain documentation/proof that a written consent was obtained. This includes date, time and manner of consent. Further consideration may also be needed if your organization allows for verbal consent rather than written. Given the strong penalties that can be doled out, every type of consent must be tracked.

9) Update the avenues of interaction between the organization and the end user to reflect the new polices (see above). This includes templates that are used to send out CEM, websites, social media etc. Also be aware that mandatory identity and contact information must be included in any future CEM.

10) Create a process so that the end user can rescind any previous consent. Remember that the withdrawal of consent must then also be forwarded to any third parties and associated companies, if applicable.

Consider the above as only a guideline on how to proceed. Again, I emphasize that this is not legal advice nor is it intended to be all encompassing. Every situation is different.

If you have any questions, concerns  feel free in contacting me.

Canadian Anti-Spam legislation (Including software instalation) A world wide concern (Part I)

 

 & Software Installation

 On July 1 2014 the new Canadian Anti-Spam legislation (CASL) will begin to be enforced(first of three phases). Why should I care if I live outside Canada, or what does it mean if I am a Canadian Business, or should I care if I am a SMB, as this is only  for spammers/the 'bad' guys?

Well you will be very surprised at the answers to these questions. So let’s get started.

One of the first things that most experts agree with is that the 'new' Canadian legislation/regulations is one of the strongest invoked anywhere in the world that is concerning commercial messaging.

But I am getting ahead of myself.  In the 1st part what is exactly CASL? In the best non-legal verbiage, CASL establishes the rules concerning commercial electronic messages (CEM). ALL  CEM, with exceptions (see below for some examples), must have explicit consent (OPT-IN) before the CEM is sent. It also deals with installation of software programs just to make things more interesting. (This last part is something that should worry software development companies. In fact I would hazard a guess that most software developers are not aware of this implication (more on this later)).

Now let’s try to address some of the not so obvious parts of this quagmire.

1) 'Well, this legislation deals with spamming, which we don't do' !!

Very wrong. It covers everyone, individuals, corporations, unincorporated businesses not-for profit organizations, and everyone else who sends messages for commercial purposes. And CEM is not only email, but Instant Messages, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, SMS to name just a few. OH, by the way, it could also apply to telephone calls.

2) I am not located in Canada,why should I care?

The answer may surprise you. As long as either the sender or the RECEIVER of any CEM,  'lands' on a computer that is located in Canada,  is covered under the act. In the atmosphere of globalization, extraterritorial laws are becoming more and more prevalent. Examples abound in today's society. Just look at the EU Data Protection Directive. It has been argued as long as the information (PII) concerns a citizen of an EU country, the EU privacy legislation will apply, even though the company in question has no presence within the Europe Union. In fact the new regulation, EU's General Data Protection Regulation, that has been proposed and awaiting passing, explicitly mentions this. But I transgress. So being located outside Canada does not exempt you from the regulations.

3) Let’s dispel another issue. 

The US anti-spam legislation (CAN-SPAM ACT) replies on an OPT-OUT consent (it is assumed you want commercial email unless you say otherwise), CASL requires an OPT-IN consent. In fact, not only that, but sender information, consent requirements and contact info must also be listed as part of the notice/consent request. So even though your commercial email is designed to comply with the US rules, it will not be compliant with the Canadian regulations.

4) Provisions concerning installation of software programs in Canada. 

The legislation also covers consent concerning software programs that are installed in Canada, whether the person installing the program is located in Canada or Not (remote control of sites as an example). Even more about this later.

5) There are exceptions to the OPT-IN consent requirements. 

They are some exceptions for example, if the CEM concerns a requested quote or estimate for a service or product, help/confirm/complete a commercial transaction or provide warranty information. But be forewarned, the law does not have a very extensive exception list. There are some rules concerning implied consent as well. They include: if there is a business relationship within a period of time, if there is a written contract and is only valid for  a couple of years following termination of the contract or if there has been an inquiry made by the recipient in the prior six months.

6)  So can a check box fulfill the requirements of the legislation?

This actual gets a little sticky. There is no mention within either the legislation, or the regulations that were published in Dec 2013, that a check box OPT-IN would suffice. HOWEVER in a non-binding enforcement guideline, issued by the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunication Commission), it was suggested that a check box is not enough to comply with the requirement.

7) Additional Computer 'stuff'.

Previously I mentioned needing consent to install software on to a computer. The definition of a computer is more all encompassing that you may think. It includes smart phones, tablets, or in fact any computer based device. Now there are some exceptions to this. Certain classes of programs are exempt. The list includes cookies, operating systems, java scripts, sub-routines, HTML code, etc. Also I would be remiss if I did not mention that installation of programs like anti-virus software can also be an exception to the regulation requirments, but only if it was done by, or for,  a telecommunication service provider[1]. Also, a one shot program to fix an issue may be an exemption.

8) EUL (End user License).

There is nothing about EUL within either the legislation or regulation concerning CASL However, the CRTC issued an non binding guideline, that accepting a EUR is in itself can not to be considered explicit consent. Rather a separate agreement dealing with consent needs to be created for review and acceptance by the end user. In that way the consumer can refuse or give informed consent.

In my next blog, I will be dealing with additional items to consider and what should companies do to prepare for CASL.

In the mean time, if there are issues (non legal advice) you may want me to address, questions you may have feel free in contacting me

I also invite you to review my other blog posts concerning Data, Security and Privacy.

Please note, do not consider this  legal advice, nor does it address individual circumstances. These blog entries are solely for the purpose to address generalized questions concerning the subject. I STRONGLY suggest that you do your due diligence concerning this matter.

[1] A service, or a feature of a service, that is provided by means of telecommunications facilities, whether the telecommunications service provider owns, leases or has any other interest or right respecting the telecommunications facilities and any related equipment used to provide the service.

Security/Privacy Personnel, should they be the same?

-->

I have been on the peripheral of the discussion about Privacy and Security for awhile. The debate is concerning how Privacy personnel are not familiar with IT security process. And I believe its time to take the bull by the tail and face the situation, so to speak.

My thesis is that there needs to be a concerted effort to develop  a liaison group involving people that feel comfortable in both areas of Privacy and IT Security. These people should understand how data is used within the IT, and what expectations Privacy places on the organization.

SO let’s explore

In the vast majority of enterprises, (those that have a IT department and also are concerned by privacy, as all companies should be) there are Privacy officers that deal solely in the Privacy realm (Privacy policy, governance etc) and the IT personnel whose function it  is to enhance/maintain/deploy process to Secure the network assets from the 'bad guy'

But before we delve into this much further, let’s explore some of the foundations of these two organizations.

Privacy requirements come from various requirements, regulations, laws. They are formulated/created, either by gov't or professional organizations. Examples include: the PCI DSS, SOX, GLBA, PIPEDA,  EU Directive, to name but a few.

These regulations/laws, for the most part are drafted by lawyers, civil servants, professional committees. I transgress with a quick joke. What is a camel? A horse designed by a committee.
The point is that, as written, these regulations are not written for the 'common man'.  They deal with the legal aspects of privacy and as such, written in 'legalize'. So to be able to interpret them, create processes to address them, and ensure compliance with the same, it requires individuals that can understand those same rules. That is, one with expertise in the legal and/or regulator profession.

Security comes from the technical world, the idea of what kind of security appliances are needed to monitor/secure the systems/network/infrastructure that are in place within the organization. The understanding of networking protocols, threats and vulnerabilities etc. needs someone who understands the technical complicated the Security realm

So far so good.

We also understand that to have Privacy, one must have Security, or otherwise the organization’s public reputation, never mind its ability to function under gov't rules  and industry regulation oversight may be in jeopardy. (IE data breaches etc).

However, how many Privacy officers know anything about a 'DMZ' or DLP appliance (to name but two Technical Security phases/gobbledygook). That is the Security guy’s responsibility, right?

How many security personnel understand the ramifications of a stolen laptop with an encrypted disk, with PII from Customers in the US, or if the PII is from those customers that are located within the EU. That is the privacy department issue?

So that is the dilemma. Each department’s needs to 'use' the other’s expertise. But is there is no common language? One group doesn't know what it does not know and the other assumes that everything is addressed. This scenario is a problem waiting to happen.

So let’s take an example. But please note that the following example is only being used to highlight my point. It is an over simplification of the issues.

A new network is being developed to support an application that is being rolled out shortly. This application contains PII/PHI information. In one of the meetings the CPO makes it clear that this type of information needs to be protected/secured.  The Security guys go to the back room and incant some magic spells over a rack of computers/servers (sorry I could not help myself) and POOF, out comes a Security policy/procedure etc. plan for the roll out.

The plan contains the proper role based security rules(RBAC), checks, logs etc. The Security guys go out for a drink to celebrate the culmination of designing a 'fool proof' Security envelope (as  if there was such a thing).

The Privacy person figures out that the proposed process meets the needs and regulations and goes home with a smile on his/her face. The only people who are authorized to see the information will have the ability to view the PII/PHI info.

However, did anyone look at how support is going to done for this application? The Privacy professional is not a techie and does not know what the 'normal' infrastructure for support/maintenance development for an application is. And why should he/she? Right?


WRONG

The CPO has no idea that during the development and support phases of the project, that copies of the real data may be created to provide a more realistic test bed  for QA/ regression testing.(see my previous blog entry for a  further discussion concerning this issue).

Did anyone look at the possibility that there may be data leakage within the test/regression system? (PII info that can be emailed in the clear from a developer workstation)?  Did the person responsible for Privacy understand the need for a possible Security hardware deployment within the test environment to prevent data leakage. And where should that hardware be deployed?  How do third parties access the data for testing? Should they be able to see the test (or Production data)? Should this be considered with a BCP (business contingency planning) document?

The people responsible for Security understand the basic Security 'triad' (CIA. Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability) and have created a process that addresses these requirements. In this case the Security personnel, and may be the network administrator, have designed a comprehensive plan to secure the network where the new application will live on.

But what do they understand about issues like: if a disk drive goes missing, even if it is encrypted, they may still need to notify gov't authorities (EU directive)? And this must be detailed in any contingency planning.

Do they know that they need to talk to the Privacy department to look at how test data is used and abused?

The above mentioned questions are rather over simplified. And of course during the normal working day, the Security department and the Privacy department would talk to each other. BUT

The old adage is very relevant here. 'I don't know what I don't know' or in the case of the Security personnel they don’t know enough of the Privacy realm to make sure everything is addressed. And the Privacy officer does not know how the data is used, to the point that she/he would not know to look into areas that are not obvious IE Test Bed, Third party issues etc..

So what is the answer? Cross train personnel. (Easier said then done).

Have the security department take a course like the CIPP, offered by the International Association of Privacy Professionals. This will allow for the same individuals some insight into the issues pertaining to privacy.
 
Have the Privacy personnel take a certification course like the SECURITY+ offered by CompTIA. However this may be more problematic because there is an assumption that the person taking this course (or one that is similar) has some basic knowledge in networking and IT in general.

Failing that, Have the people in the CPO office at least try to get the basis of Security down, so the next time the two groups meet they can at least talk a common language. And this would help in reducing the chance of something being missed, and projects coming in on time.

Musing of Big Data and Privacy

Big Data and Privacy. Or should a Big Box store figure out if someone is pregnant?  

Is that Private?

So what is Big Data? Is it the latest 'fashion statement' from the IT world? A bunch of numbers, letters, that represent something or someone? Something of an asset?

All the above and more. Basically it is the information, or data, that is generated by everyone and everything.  Examples of Big Data include this particular blog entered on the web, the decoding of the human genome, the buying habits for your customers, your credit score etc.

 Its 'stuff'. 

Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt stated: “From the dawn of civilization until 2003, humankind generated five exabytes of data. Now we produce five exabytes every two days…and the pace is accelerating.”

SO that is Big Data. But how does it concern privacy? Before we go there, lets reflect this issue. 

Companies are generating great mounds of data. Everything from what you purchase in grocery items (those Customer loyalty cards) to what credit cards you use and where. 

This is an asset to the company. It is something that can be analyzed, inspected, and reported on, all for the purpose to get the upper edge from their competitors,  a better understanding of the customers,how to market/target them to get the best results, What tickles their fancy so to speak? Maybe get that same customer to buy milk from your company as well as  the clothing that they buy now.

While doing the research for this blog I came across an interesting case study concerning this  issue.

A major Big Box chain’s (not Wal-Mart) department of thinkers (not a real department but could have well been named that) got together to try to see if they could 'predict' which of their  customers were pregnant. 

The reason was if they can get that pregnant customer to start buying the 'stuff' needed for the happy occasion, they could influence their buying patterns in the future. A better 'bottom' line (pun intended).

They had all this raw data about their clients and their buying habits. They can mine the information (Big Data) and determine if there were any patterns. And the results were, to say the least, eye opening. 

Now, this blog is not the place to have a detailed discussion about this, but needless to say the mathematical model that was developed was successful in more the 87% to predict, based solely on buying habits, which of their clients were pregnant. They were then able to target  the pregnant customers with  coupons, flyer's, etc in hopes getting them to buy more ‘STUFF’, 

This was done without the a client filling out a form letting the company know they were expecting, Ms Jane Doe customer had yet to buy a single diaper etc. The mining of this client’s information from the company database which indicated her buying habits, was the only determining factor. 

That is what Big Data is, and what it can do.

Can you see the issues in privacy in all this? Actually, there are really three different issues when dealing with Big Data.

Is what the company doing legal?

Is it ethical?

Is it acceptable to the general public? 

Let tackle the legality first. 

It’s not a simple answer. There are a lot of variables involved. Where does the customer live? Did he/she give permission to the company to use the data collected for internal (and maybe external) use? These are but two questions that privacy officers need to deal with, address and ultimately sign off on. 

Generally speaking, we can assume, when a customer signs up for a loyalty card, there would be some form of authorization to use the data. Or at least best practices demands such sort of disclosure, if nothing else. And this may be the easiest of the three questions.

Is it ethical? 

PHD theses have been written about this very question for 'years'. There is no gov't review panel to determine if it is or not ethical, but the question is still very valid.  One education site states that ' ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations..'  

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html

While there is no stand fast rules on what is and is not ethical, one can, if for no other reason,  look into the mirror and ask the question? Is this ok?

Is it then acceptable? 

Going back to the story above, let’s see what happened. After the store created the model, they started sending flyer's, coupons that would target the would be moms. Examples, like diapers coupons , flyer's featuring cribs etc.  were sent out to the targeted group. 

Well, you can imagine what happened next. Many irate customers wondered, first of all, how did this company know they were expecting. Even more damaging to the company’s reputation was the fact that they were sending baby oriented coupons to non pregnant clients. And what if those target accounts were teenagers, and/or single,  and/or religious?

A public relations nightmare. In fact, while doing the research, I was surprised that this had not been thought out more thoroughly in the marketing department of the company.

All these factors play in the realm of Big Data. And privacy is just one of those factors.

Ultimately, the people responsible for privacy need to assure themselves that the use of the data is within legal constraints. 

It can be more complicated if that data  being analyzed is sent out to another company. There are 'mounds' of companies whose only job is to message the data and make sense of it. They can then market to those clients with targeted campaigns  as successfully as possible(the pregnant ladies from the above example), to get the best return on the data. (the Big Data).

Big Data means being able to see trends and patterns, not determining individuals buying habits per say. 

No one in Costco cares if the individual named Robert will buy a steak or a bottle of milk. What they do care about is influencing the group that Robert ‘belongs to’ so they can somehow how influence that targeted group to buy both products (as an example).  

 So an argument concerning privacy can go something like this:

Its not the PII information of a particular person that is being used (for the most part) for this type of analysis, but that a customer bought an item and he is middle aged, 6 foot, lives in a middle class area, Etc. And he belongs to a statistical group that represents 25% of the customer base in a particular region.

Maybe. But then again is that the only usage of these great mounds of data?

The debate on Big Data, how to handle it, and the ramifications on privacy will continue. What we need to do, is have the dialog, ask the questions, figure out what can and should be done. 

The concerns won't go away, and ignoring the issues will only make it worse.  We all need to first understand the issues and then try to make 'a go at it.' And at same time making sure we don't shot ourselves in the foot.

Testing, in the black box (ATV), Security & Privacy

How Automate Testing Vehicles (ATV) should include Pentesting.

Why should privacy officers get involved in development, regression testing process?

Why does IT need to improve their testing strategies?

Pitfalls in Testing, Security/Privacy concerns is what drives people to have nightmares. Privacy officers need to have a better understanding of the environment they work in. The IT people need to embrace the notion that Privacy/Security starts from the beginning. So in that way the chances of being on a front page of a newspaper because of a breach and/or a failure will be minimized. NO ONE wants to phone the CIO about a problem like this. It is a team effort.

I do have to warn you, the reader, that some of the material may be a  little IT oriented. But in an organization where one needs to satisfy a number of different objectives, I would suggest at least a basic knowledge of the IT process is needed. And that the IT personnel need to understand the present compliance/regulator landscape.

Some definitions are warranted before I begin.

ATV or Automated Testing Vehicle. What is it? Why do I care? And is it a 'best practice'? (one of the most over used phrase at present).

The idea is fairly simple. Having a set of scripts (automated) that can be run to test the system in question. The objective is to test the system before any changes are implemented. The process should set up  the files that will be used for testing(see one of my previous blog posts concerning using data for testing),  then run the test scripts, and afterwards run the comparison reports and highlight items of concern from the test just executed. All this is done in an automated fashion. Rather simple concept, but one that can be 'processes' changing in a good way.

Well there is more to this. But let me define another term or two first.

IT systems that are down cost money in lost revenue, and good will to the enterprise.  As an example, in 2012 Google had an outage.
Google June 2012 down for 10 min.

The ball park figure cost that Google suffered was calculated at about $750,000. And that was for 10 minutes.  Now I am not suggesting all downtime costs are that much. It depends on the circumstances, but I am sure no one would like to find out for their own companies.

Another good example of the costs is sited at costs of web down time per industry

This site allows you to calculate the cost of a web site being down per industry/application. Its an eye opener to say the least.

In another 'word', downtime is BAD/EXPENSIVE *Yea  I know that is two words*. But joking aside we need to reduce unavailability as much as possible.

PenTesting. Wikipedia link  The Information Systems Audit and Control Association(ISACA) defines Penetration Testing as  "A test of the effectiveness of security defences through mimicking the actions of real-life attackers."

(For the reader who is more concerned with Privacy/Security, please read on)

So now let's proceed. When an application change happens IT personnel (or a designated organization) tests the changes (IE regression testing). They test the change to see if it works. Now depending on the process that is followed, a user may also test/approve the same series of changes to the application for user approval. Fine, right? Do you notice something missing in the above? In fact, there is more then one item here that needs to be defined/explored.

For many organizations testing to maintain the basic functions within an application does happen in a haphazardly way.  Sure the change is tested and to get to the enhancements, some basic functions are tested as well, But, based on my anecdotal experiences, on many occasions, the entire core functions of the changed application are not testing on a consistent bases.  A test of the all the basic core functions should also be completely tested whenever there is a change.

As an example, if the application in question is some public facing web application (a web store as an example), basic function testing should also be done. Test for example, the ability to add/change a Credit card information and make sure that the update still works. Test adding an item to the shopping cart etc.

So if the new function within the application fails, you have verified that the basic core functions, the one you need to keep the doors open, will still operate.

Imagine if an error occurs at your bank, yet the basic functions were tested successfully with the 'improved mobile bank portal' (the change that will be implemented).  Then logic would dictate that the basic functions should still work (you can still pay bills) even if the enhancement of the bank's mobile app does not. Corrections can be retested and implemented with minimal cost/embarrassment to the organization.

I am therefore advocating that there should be standard testing scripts that confirm, even with the changes that are going to be implemented,  that ALL the core functions still are accessible.

So to implement a process like this, you first need to map out the basic functions that you can not live without. Once that is done and scripts are created, an automated process should be created. When ready, a series of script can be executed with little human intervention. (less change for human error). The 'Best Practice' (there is that phase again) would be something along the lines of submitting the scripts and going home. When you get into the office the following day the results are ready for analysis/correction etc.

This should ensure that at even if the new change fails. You, the customer, can still do business with the organization in question. This is what some people call a ATV (see above). This process can be called your insurance policy.

However, lets' takes this further. Why just test  the basic functionality of the application? Should we also test for Security/Privacy issues?  Should the company's Privacy/Security office ensure that this type of testing, verification is also included within an ATV and executed whenever anything changes?

Absolutely!

A process that includes PenTesting (see above) is something one should consider adding to the above mentioned ATV. With any change there is always a chance that a vulnerability is created that may not have been there before.

Any failure can by it's very nature, cause the potential to expose sensitive information. It can be business secrets, and/or Personnel Identifiable Information (PII) to name but two potential headaches.

There is software in the marketplace that has the capability to engage/test/analyze applications for vulnerabilities. Some of the software I have previously mentioned as well as others which are available with the capabilities needed.

So I suggest that one creates an ATV process that includes the basic functionality of the application/system in question as well as additional testing for security/privacy. All  this should be automated so that more extensive testing can be executed as well as reducing the chance for human error.

Privacy officers need to ensure that any changes that are implemented will not cause exposure that may be costly. IT people need to make sure that the basic systems functions still run, no matter what is changed.

Finally, while no one can claim in absolute terms that there will be no issues, following these basic concepts can help reduce the chance that the CIO needs to be called because of an issue.

Privacy for IT, Security for PO, Privacy by Design PdB.

So far I have tried to tackle how different professionals look at privacy differently and how stakeholders are an important piece of the pie

What I am going to try to address within this post is how technical ideas affect privacy and security, as well.

I will also attempt to provide some guidance concerning some of the issues I will discuss here.

Please  note, I have no relationships with any of the companies that I mention here, or any in any other posts that I have written. Also, it is up to the reader to do their own due diligence.

Now, the reader may have some level of knowledge of the 'tecky' stuff but I will try not to make any assumptions. What I want to do is to highlight some aspects, describe them for those who may not be as technically inclined, and provide some resources where more research can be done.

Some lay people use the words security and privacy interchangeable. While security is needed to maintain privacy, it can mean other things as well. For example, physical security of a public facing office (banks, insurance agents offices etc) is generally accepted that it need to be addressed,  to protect the employees (non privacy issue) and protect the companies customers from data breaches, which is a privacy concern.

What I am going to deal with here is security that is needed to protect Personal Identifiable Information (PII)

So lets get started.

Security

Hopefully, when a developer starts coding for a new application, or making enhancements to an existing application, he/she will know how to code to prevent security holes within the code. But as we all know, we are all human.

SO what can we do?

A new type of software is emerging that can help developers to highlight what they should be coding. This is in a form of questions/guidance that can be based on questions/queries from a knowledge base. The objective is to build into the design document (this is the document that concern how the programs work together and coded, given the requirements of the application being worked on). This would then place into the design document specifications of the required defences that need to be incorporated within the code.

The two software products that I am aware that falls within this category are:

1) SD Elements (http://www.sdelements.com)

2) Security Innovations (https://www.securityinnovation.com)

Both have there strength and weaknesses. They also tackle this aspect of security coding in a very different way.

As an analogy, let us use the example of your car (or your friends, car if you don't have one <S>), or boat, bike etc. Which is cheaper? Is it changing your oil every x KM/Miles, or waiting for the engine to seize when the oil can no longer do its job?

On average it costs about $4,000 to fix a vulnerability in an application (SD Elements). According to White Hat Security (https://www.whitehatsec.com/resource/stats.html) on average, there are 56 vulnerabilities per website (2012). So let's do some math, Shall we?

It will cost $4,000 times 56 on average to fix all the problems with security on a public facing websites, for a total of, and average of $224,000.

You can close your mouth now.

And to top it all off 85% of all websites White Hat tested had one vulnerability. And to make matters worse, it took, on average, 193 days from the date the issue was detected until it was resolved. Never mind that 61% of the White Hat tested websites that had vulnerabilities were never fixed in the first place.

In other words, the best practices, as well as the ROI,  demand that we need to try to nip this issue in the bud. It follows that company's policy should have security requirements and processes be part of the design phase of any project.

Privacy

At this point let me highlight a series of documents, white papers that have been produced by the Information & Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Canada. (IPCO) Dr Ann Cavoukian PH. D.

The premise advocated by the IPCO is that of Privacy by Design (PbD). It goes in to much more depth that is beyond the scope of this blog but I encourage you to head over there and explore.

There are two sides to the equation. Security for the professional IT people and Privacy for the legal 'minds'. How in essence they are complementary and how they must exists together.

As a note here, one of the white papers on the sir 'Privacy and Security by Design: A convergence of Paradigms' talks about what I am writing about here. It was released in Jan 2012.

I do have to make an admission to the reader. I started writing  these blogs, and this one in particular, before I had any notion of this white paper's existence. When i did discover the PbD white papers i realized the concepts, topics, and themes were similar to the issues I have explored in my blogs,

I will continue along this road next time. I will highlight examples of different forms of testing for security and ideas of privacy.

Stakeholder/Privacy/Security Oh My

 


To continue with the theme I presented last time in which I discussed the differences between privacy (first pillar) and security (second pillar), I want to add a third pillar, that of the stakeholder. 

It seems obvious that he/she should also be included in any discussion along these lines. And yet stakeholders can only add complexity to the equation.  But before I begin, here are a couple of notes. I received a number of comments concerning the previous post. Some people commented about the fact that any discussion should include other interested groups as well. And as you will see, that is exactly what I will be doing here.   Yet I would be remiss unless I addressed another issue that was also brought up. 

What I 'd like to do, and only you, the reader, will be able to determine if I am successful, is to highlight the 'human' factor in this equation. As we move more and more to depending on, exploring, and exploiting the technology we use/rely on, we have had to develop tools to manage and control the reliance on the same technology. We have tools to check the code for security holes. We have tools to make sure we develop compliance processes. We have tools to help the auditors to verify systems, etc. 

Yet the one aspect that is forgotten in this mix is the human factor. He/she is the coder, the report writer, the auditor who verifies the results. etc. No system is fool proof and no human is perfect, except you the reader.   So why bring this up? I do so because some of the comments I received include the following: 'a security/privacy system that is put in place will address the wide divide between humans and technology/compliance'.

In response to this I say that tools are important, but we must realize that the tools are not the entire solution to this quandary. We need to understand entire eco system so we can successfully address the issues of Security, Privacy, Regulation, and Compliance. That being both the technology we use, and the tools we use to control/enhance it. 

So let's begin My objective in the previous blog was to highlight some of the inherent issues that prevail within the privacy/security domain. Here I want to explore the added complexity by adding the involvement of the stakeholder to this process.  Let define some terms. A stakeholder is the 'outsider'. The person who ultimately gains from the process being discussed. For a lack of a better way of definition, the owner/holder of the data in question. This can be a VP of the product line, the director of the stores, the sales manager etc. He/she is the one who can say, without question, 'the buck stops here". 

Generally speaking he just wants good end results. Most stakeholders see the added cost of implementing a well defined privacy policy/practice in place as an overhead that needs to be controlled. 

They want to make sure their data is safe but ask them if they think the added cost of security systems in place is, for example, worthwhile to prevent internal development personnel from having access to the real data, they would balk. (Note this is a generic over simplified statement, but I use it to make a point). To address this issue I point to a number of organizations that rely on non disclosure agreements (NDA)  the only protection to address the above mentioned issue. This is 'cheap' to implement and easy to maintain. Yet I hope you, the reader, understands that this solution is like having your teenager promise they will clean up the room. A good idea but without any other incentive probably doomed to failure.

The problem here is that we all have different views on the same situation. We come with different experiences, responsibilities, education. While the stakeholder is ultimately the person responsible (For further info along these lines read about the SOX act that was passed in the US), she/he may not know how a truly good governance regulation compliance (GRC) process is created. And in fact he might not even know why the company needs one in the first place.

So taking the analogy I used in my previous post(how security personnel and privacy professionals look at a 'square' and see it differently), the stakeholder is the owner of the 'square'. He holds the square but has no idea how it is constructed but only knows how the square is used, IE. not how the WEB application works. Only that a customer can sign in and order the widget.  So what can we to do? The answer I suggest is fairly simple. Education. 

The privacy officer must educate the interested parties. These parties include the stakeholders, the IT personnel Given that there is a privacy officer already in place means that the first step has been taken. The people who work on security need to educate everyone on what needs to done and what it takes to get it done.

The security personnel need to interpret the requirements and educate the parties on how this is implemented. Why does it extend the software development cycle. So in other words by educating the parties they can justify the time and materials that will be needed to produce eco systems that achieve the goals set out by all the interested parties within a manageable framework.

So to help the reader, I am suggesting a couple of different resources that can be used to help. 

1) A short piece on how to explain HIPAA to the layman (Stakeholder). It also provides some additional reading that may be of interest.

http://www.ehow.com/info_7778811_laymans-guide-hipaa-compliance.html

2) A very interesting website that targets NON lawyers with information concerning privacy. There are a lot of very good additional links that can be of some help. Please note that this site deals mostly with US laws.

http://www.eprivacy.com/lectures/toc.html#toc

3) Another good resource for educational purpose is the Electronic Privacy Information Center website. Once again, mostly US information.

http://epic.org/privacy/

4) On the consumer side of the debate, a list of resources can be found at 

http://www.privacyrightsnow.com/affiliates.htm

5) And finally, two studies that come out yearly. 

       A) One is the Telus security group yearly that looks at the state of Canadian companies security. It has 5 recommendations as well as pointers on how to try to make security more prevalent in the workplace. Registration is required.

http://promo.telus.com/securitystudy/

        B) The other one is the Verizon security's 2013 Data Breach Investigation Report. This report is a yearly report that encompasses expertise and information from various international organizations responsible for the reporting and investigation of data breaches. If you do not look at any  other resources listed here, then this is the one to read.

http://www.verizonenterprise.com/DBIR/2013/insider/

Please note the opinion of the individual authors/websites are their own, and I do not advocate, agree or dis-agree with the opinion expressed.

And this is just a sample of various resources that are available to help with the issues described above. But ultimately it is up to the individual to make sure they adhere to the best practices within their industry and Country.

Till next time