Tag Archives: Data Breach

Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 – An overview with brief analysis

Justice BN Srikrishna Committee (“Committee”) which was formed with an intent to have a highly effective data protection law in India has finally submitted the draft bill to the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (“Ministry”) on 27 July 2018. The draft bill namely Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 (“Draft Bill”) is a great expectation particularly after the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) came into force on 25 May 2018. The Draft Bill is introduced at very important juncture, especially after recent judicial orders and judgments in the Aadhar case and in Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) V. Union of India and Others.

Trust: The Draft Bill introduces concepts of ‘Data Fiduciary’, ‘Data Principal’ and ‘Data Processors’ are akin to concepts of ‘data controller’ and ‘data subjects’ in GDPR. The underpinnings as per Chapter 1, Part C, of the Committee report is of “trust” between a Data Fiduciary and a Data Principal.

data protection

Extra- territorial: Like GDPR, the Draft Bill provides for protection extending beyond India. Section 2(2) states that the legislation shall apply to the processing of personal data by data fiduciaries or data processors not present with in the territory of India, if they process data in connection with business in India, goods or services offered in India, profiling of data principals in India. This may not be applicable for processing anonymised data.

It is interesting to note that State as well as the private and public private sector, come within the ambit of the legislation.

Data: Data under the Draft Bill has been defined broadly to include information, facts, concepts, opinion or instructions whether processed by humans or automated means. It is not just personally identifiable information. The Draft Bill covers issues and matters relating to data protection, collection of data, storage, purpose of collection. Section 8 of the Draft Bill lays out procedure for collection of data, notice / intimation to be provided to the Data Principal (ie., the natural person’s data) while collecting any and all kinds of data.

Disclosures: Under Section 8, there are mandatory disclosures that the Data Fiduciary (ie, any person such as State, juristic entity, individual who determine the purpose and means of processing personal data), has to provide to the Data Principal for collecting the Data. Some of them are (i) the purpose for which the Data is being collected, (ii) categories, (iii) identity and contact information of Data Fiduciary, (iv) the Data Fiduciary will have to compulsorily inform the Data Controller about the right to withdraw consent, (v) Period for which the Personal Data will be retained. It is in this regard that the Data Fiduciary while collecting such Data, shall provide the information in a clear and concise manner, and this would include giving such information to the Data Principals in “multiple languages” where necessary and practicable. The use of multiple languages to provide information would aid such Data Principals who are only familiar with their vernacular language.

Storage: Section 10 has laid down that the Data Fiduciary shall retain the Personal Data only as may be reasonably necessary to satisfy the purpose for which it is processed.  Some of the fintech companies have raised a concern that they use the data collected on regular intervals to keep a track of their customers, even after the purpose is fulfilled, as part of their business offerings itself. Data storage should be read in conjunction with various legislations which provide for data retention, for example, records supporting financial statements of a company has to be retained for 8 years.

Kinds of data:

  • Personal Data;
  • Sensitive Personal Data (“SPD”);
  • Biometric Data;
  • Financial Data;
  • Genetic Data; and
  • Health data.

Section 3 (35) defines religious and political beliefs, caste or tribe, intersex status, transgender status as SPD. Even passwords, financial data and health data fall under SPD. Certain sections of the society have opined that passwords should not be part of SPD and that it is a stretch. What perhaps should be included is a higher level of protection to the Data Principal from instances of profiling, discrimination, and infliction of harm that is identity driven.

Consent: Consent forms the basis for processing Personal Data or SPD. Section 12 details the way to obtain consent from the Data Principal, no later than prior to processing. Shouldn’t it be prior to collection? Collection and processing of SPD has a higher rigour, including explicit consent to be obtained by Data Fiduciary for processing

The consent should be free, informed, specific, clear, and capable of being withdrawn.  It is crucial to note that when the Data Principal withdraws her consent, which was necessary for the performance of the contract to which the Data Principal is a party, then all the legal consequences for the effects of such withdrawal shall be borne by the Data Principal. Wouldn’t this be a burden on the Data Principal? Opinions are also raised that such consent should not be unilaterally withdrawn by the Data Principal and such withdrawal should only be permitted in the context of the Personal Data.

Further, additional grounds have been laid down for the processing of Personal Data which includes: (i) processing for the functions of the State;(ii) processing in compliance with law or any order of the tribunal; (iii) processing which is necessary for prompt action; (iv) processing for the purpose related to employment; and (v) processing for reasonable purpose. Processing of Personal Data for the purpose for reasonable purpose, as mentioned in Section 17, is a bit wide and allows the data privacy authorities to specify the purposes on which such processing can take place. This includes a broad range of activities such as whistle blowing, mergers and acquisitions, recovery of debt, credit scoring, fraud, publicly available personal data, etc. This would need a balance of a very effective right for data erasure, which is not provided in the Draft Bill.

Data Principal Rights: Chapter VI contains the rights to the Data Principal such as (i) Right to confirmation and access; (ii) Right to correction; (iii) Right to Data Portability; and (iv) Right to be forgotten. These are similar to the rights under GDPR. However, the Right to be forgotten which is provided under Section 27 of the Draft Bill only entitles the Data Principal(s) to have the right to restrict or prevent continuous disclosure of Personal Data.  The Right to be forgotten does not include within its ambit the right of data erasure, which allows the Data Principal to erase his personal data as mentioned in GDPR. On one hand, we can interpret that a Data Principal does not have a right to erasure but on the other hand, a Data Fiduciary is mandated to retain the Personal Data only as may be reasonably necessary to satisfy the purpose for which it is processed.

Transparency and accountability measures:  Ample safeguards have been provided to ensure that the Data provided by the Data Principals should be processed in a transparent manner and the Data Fiduciary be held accountable for its action. Chapter VII of the Draft Bill provides for mechanisms to ensure transparency, security safeguards, Data protection impact assessment, Data audits, record keeping, Data protection officer, etc.

Section 32 makes it clear that the Data fiduciary shall notify the Authority of any Personal Data breach where such breach is “likely to cause harm” to any Data Principal. So, the burden of proof seems to be on the Data Fiduciary which is good, so that in a large nation like India where the Data Principal may or may not be aware of her rights, this is helpful. Should the Data Principal have this right as well, along with the Data Fiduciary included in section 32?

Significant Data Fiduciaries: Based on the factors such as volume, sensitivity, turnover, risk of harm, the Data Fiduciaries are classified as Significant Data Fiduciaries. Section 38 obligates data protection impact assessment, record-keeping, data audits and data protection officer on Significant Data Fiduciaries. Some of these obligations are necessary for other Data Fiduciaries as well.

Data localisation: Section 40 mandates that every Data Fiduciary shall store the data on a server or a data centre located in India. Some of them have opined that this may lead to State surveillance. But perhaps, this may help in better control over data breaches or emboldening the steps towards artificial intelligence.

Exceptions: One of the most talked about and discussed section of the Draft Bill is Chapter IX. It relates to many exceptions to the Data Privacy obligations for the State / Government in order to protect the national security of the State.

The argument of surveillance is not new. In the year 2007 Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 were amended and Rule 419A was inserted in the Rules. Rule 491 A was inserted so as to provide the Government with powers under the Act and the Rules to do surveillance, intercept any message and such other powers so as to safeguard the sovereignty of our country. Then in the years 2009 and 2011 respectively, under the Information Technology Act, 2000, The Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009 and The Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguard for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2011 were added. These set of rules, deal in depth, with how the Government can intercept, monitor and decrypt computer systems, computer networks, internet messages basically any transmission made through Internet to safeguard our country. National security, is of-course one of the primary roles of the Government.

The Draft Bill also provides wide, discretionary and unfettered powers to the Government and the Data Privacy obligations is sub-servient to the Government’s obligations of security of the State and prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution for contravention of law.

Data Protection Authority of India: The independent regulatory body for data protection, has the power to issue directions, conduct inquiry, call for information, and conduct search and seizure, monitoring and enforcement; legal affairs, policy and standard setting; research and awareness; conducting inquiries, grievance handling and adjudication.

While this is “the” legislation for Data Protection, Section 67 envisages situations of concurrent jurisdiction and provides for a consultative approach in resolving such disputes. Therefore, the Authority has to take into considerations other laws and recommendations provided by other regulators, for example, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or TRAI (for instance the recommendation published by TRAI on Privacy, Security and Ownership of the Data in the Telecom Sector- Dated 16 July, 2018).

Grievance handling and adjudication:  The proposal of having Appellate Tribunal as a special court, is helpful in a speedy disposal of disputes. The proposal perhaps might have come by, since the Courts are already over-burdened. Every Data Fiduciary should have proper procedures and effective mechanisms to address the grievance of Data Principal which should be resolved in an expeditious manner within a period of 30 (thirty) days. It is heartening to see time-bound approach for resolving disputes.

Penalties and remedies

The Draft Bill provides for penalties which are in consonance with GDPR and the quantum of penalty acts as a deterrent to engage in wrongful acts. It should be seen over time if this deterrence is helpful in mitigating occurrences of breaches or would it increase litigation.  Penalties have been imposed on the following activities:

  • Penalty for failure to comply with Data Principal’s requests under chapter VI of the Draft Bill,
  • Penalty for failure to furnish report, information, etc.
  • Penalty for failure to comply with the directions or orders issued by the Authority
  • Penalty for contravention when no separate penalty has been provided.

Further Section 69 (1), also makes the Data Fiduciary liable if it fails to fulfil the obligations relating to taking prompt action related to data breach or undertaking a data protection impact assessment, or conducting a data audit by a significant data fiduciary or failing to register with the authority. The penalty for Data Fiduciary under this sub-section extends to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Only) or 2 (two) per cent of the total worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

Section 69 (2) makes the Data Fiduciary liable for a penalty when it contravenes of any of the requirements as mentioned under this sub-section. The penalty may extend to Rs. 15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore only) or 4 (four) percent of the total worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.

Criminal liability: Not only penalties but imprisonment has also been prescribed. For instance, any person who obtains, transfers or sells personal data which is contrary to the provisions of the Draft Bill would be liable for an imprisonment of not exceeding 3 (three) years or shall be liable for a fine which may extend up to Rs 2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs Only) or both.  Further any person who obtains, transfers or sells SPD, would be liable for an imprisonment not exceeding 5 (five) years or shall be liable for a fine which may extend up to Rs 3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs Only) or both. There is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 (three) years or a fine which may extend to Rs 2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) or both, when any person re-identifies the Personal Data which has been de-identified by the Data Fiduciary or Data Processor or re-identifies and processes such Personal Data without the consent of the Data Fiduciary or Data Processor.

The Draft Bill has made suitable provisions whereby the company and its directors, officers, as well as Central or State Governments along with its head of departments, officers could be made liable for offences committed under this Draft Bill.

Compensation: The Data Principal also has a right to claim compensation from the Data Fiduciary and Data Processor if it contravenes with any provisions of the Draft Bill. Section 76 states that any compensation awarded or penalty imposed under this Draft Bill would not prevent the award of compensation or imposition of any other penalty or punishment under any law for the time being in force.

We have added our thoughts as we discuss the Draft Bill above. The dynamics of this digital economy are changing rapidly, people are using more and more innovative technologies to disrupt the industry and in all of this, the most crucial element is Data. It is rightly said that data is the new oil of this digital economy and therefore this much anticipated Draft Bill is, though late, a step towards regulating use of Data.

Authors: Mr. Manas Ingle and Mr. Anuj Maharana

Advertisements

Breach Notification – A right to be informed

In November 2017, reports confirming a massive data hack at Uber compromising data of almost 57 million users surfaced online. It is pertinent to note that these reports surfaced almost one year after the actual breach occurred. Uber had not intimated when the incident occurred. This incident is an example to understand, why under GDPR providing a breach notification within 72 hours of any such breach has been mandatory if such a breach is directly going result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons.

The General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) which will be effective from May 2018, will transform the way personal data of users/ individuals/ data subjects will be treated. Given the wide territorial scope of GDPR the Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of a person (data subject) who are in the EU, regardless of where the data is processed, ie. in EU or outside of EU. We believe that GDPR is setting a gold-standard for data security, across the world.

The concept of breach notification was seen under the security breach notification law enacted by the State of California in the year 2002. The security breach notification law was enacted to increase public awareness with regards security issues and risks that the internet and data industry faces.

  • Article 33(1) of GDPR mandates data controllers to “in the case of a personal data breach, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach to the supervisory authority competent in accordance with Article 55, unless the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. Where the notification to the supervisory authority is not made within 72 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay.
  • Article 33(2) mandates data processors to “notify the data controller without undue delay after becoming aware of a personal data breach.”

In light of the requirements prescribed under GDPR, it is a pre-requisite to have in place an effective data security incident reporting mechanism including data breach response procedures to enable notifications to be made to data subjects “without undue delay” in the plain language in such circumstances.

GDPR prescribes that every breach notice should describe the exact nature of the personal data breach including the nature, extent and likely factors that may have resulted in breach based on preliminary assessment, where possible, the categories and approximate number of data subjects concerned and nature of data under threat or compromised, including and the categories and approximate number of personal data records concerned with an aim of charting out an effective mechanism to address the breach and resolve the issue without delay.

All entities dealing with personal data should comply with the requirements of reporting breaches in a timely manner. Every “notice of breach” should clearly indicate the cause of breach (Accident / negligent/malicious attack) due to (a) internal factors or (b) external factors and the estimated intensity and consequences of such attack. Such notices should promptly be followed by a detailed report indicating causes, consequences, action taken, including actions taken as preventive mechanism adopted to avert such instances in future.

To be compliant with GDPR, it is recommended for all data controllers and processors to have extensive internal policies within the company, including a breach notification policy addressing the procedures to be followed should there be a security breach. For ease of understanding, think of this security breach policy as a fire safety plan that has to be followed in case a fire breaks out. A fire safety plan will clearly indicate the do’s and don’ts, evacuation plan to follow, reporting mechanism, who should what, emergency numbers, internal training and all other necessary steps to be followed so as to contain and reduce the harm caused due to such an accident to the extent possible.

Similarly, a security breach policy will aid an organization to respond to such a data breach within a matter of minutes and enable them to take necessary actions so as to contain and reduce the harm. Additionally, such a policy will enable an organization to comply with the provisions of Article 33 (1) of GDPR, i.e. to report a data breach within a time frame of 72 hours.

In reference to Article 33 of GDPR data controllers may consider following points while considering the implementation of policy in their organization:

  1. Scope and intent of the policy will define how it will be implemented. There are two ways to define a scope, either you can have policy document regulating each and every aspect of GDPR to be followed all across the organization or there can be a series of policies implemented, for example, a policy specifically for security breach and notification thereunder. The second option will allow you to focus and concentrate on minute details of processes, controls, and compliances to be made at each level.
  2. Setting goals for the policy will provide you with accountability and definitive purpose for the whole organization. While setting goals for the policy do think about:
    • Practicality: Ensure that goals that you make are approachable and are ordinary in nature. At the same time keep in mind that these goals are solving the purpose of their implementation, including a way to maintain an internal log, audit trail of how data is used.
    • Risk Management: Focus on what kind of data is at risk? this may be dependent on the industry you might be doing business in. Focus on how a data breach can occur? What are the weaknesses of your system?
    • Flexibility: Try to keep your policy adaptive in nature i.e. it should be able to safeguard you in all sort of data breach situations.
    • Compliance: It should be compliant with law and aid in efficient compliance.

Data controllers, in particular, shall implement processes to identify and respond to data breaches as soon as the event occurs, to have evidence in place to show that where, when and how did data breach occur. Demonstrating that adequate security procedures were in place is essential in order to claim reduced penalties as well.

Status of data protection in India:

Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules thereunder, ie. Rule 8 of Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information, Rules 2011, provides that in case of information security breach, the body corporate shall be able to demonstrate that it has implemented security control measures as per their documented information security programme and information security policies. It would be beneficial if the Rules also provided for notification of breach as well. If personal data is a Fundamental Right of the Indian citizen, then, citizens should have a right to know if such personal data has been subject to a data breach.

If an Indian company is processing data of an EU resident, then GDPR compliances become mandatory. In other cases, Indian companies can adopt best practices such as having detailed policies covering above aspects, periodical audit and availability of audit report to be shared to an external party, maintaining a log of what, how, who, why, where, data is processed. Currently, Government is not included under the ambit.

ISO 27001 certification for data security is also useful.

India would do well in having these gold-standards for data protection and it would augur well if even Government is included to follow the compliance requirements.

Author: Technology Practice Group @ NovoJuris Legal