Tag Archives: General Data Protection Regulation

WHOIS Limits Under GDPR Will Make Pirates Harder to Catch, Groups Fear

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/whois-limits-under-gdpr-will-make-pirates-harder-to-catch-groups-fear-180413/

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation in EU law covering data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union.

As more and more personal data is gathered, stored and (ab)used online, the aim of the GDPR is to protect EU citizens from breaches of privacy. The regulation applies to all companies processing the personal data of subjects residing in the Union, no matter where in the world the company is located.

Penalties for non-compliance can be severe. While there is a tiered approach according to severity, organizations can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 million, whichever is greater. Needless to say, the regulations will need to be taken seriously.

Among those affected are domain name registries and registrars who publish the personal details of domain name owners in the public WHOIS database. In a full entry, a person or organization’s name, address, telephone numbers and email addresses can often be found.

This raises a serious issue. While registries and registrars are instructed and contractually obliged to publish data in the WHOIS database by global domain name authority ICANN, in millions of cases this conflicts with the requirements of the GDPR, which prevents the details of private individuals being made freely available on the Internet.

As explained in detail by the EFF, ICANN has been trying to resolve this clash. Its proposed interim model for GDPR compliance (pdf) envisions registrars continuing to collect full WHOIS data but not necessarily publishing it, to “allow the existing data
to be preserved while the community discussions continue on the next generation of WHOIS.”

But the proposed changes that will inevitably restrict free access to WHOIS information has plenty of people spooked, including thousands of companies belonging to entertainment industry groups such as the MPAA, IFPI, RIAA and the Copyright Alliance.

In a letter sent to Vice President Andrus Ansip of the European Commission, these groups and dozens of others warn that restricted access to WHOIS will have a serious effect on their ability to protect their intellectual property rights from “cybercriminals” which pose a threat to their businesses.

Signed by 50 organizations involved in IP protection and other areas of online security, the letter expresses concern that in attempting to comply with the GDPR, ICANN is on a course to “over-correct” while disregarding proportionality, accountability and transparency.

A small sample of the groups calling on ICANN

“We strongly assert that this model does not properly account for the critical public and legitimate interests served by maintaining a sufficient amount of data publicly available while respecting privacy interests of registrants by instituting a tiered or layered access system for the vast majority of personal data as defined by the GDPR,” the groups write.

The letter focuses on two aspects of “over-correction”, the first being ICANN’s proposal that no personal data whatsoever of a domain name registrant will be made available “without appropriate consideration or balancing of the countervailing interests in public disclosure of a limited amount of such data.”

In response to ICANN’s proposal that only the province/state and country of a domain name registrant be made publicly available, the groups advise the organization that publishing “a natural person registrant’s e-mail address” in a publicly accessible WHOIS directory will not constitute a breach of the GDPR.

“[W]e strongly believe that the continued public availability of the registrant’s e-mail address – specifically the e-mail address that the registrant supplies to the registrar at the time the domain name is purchased and which e-mail address the registrar is required to validate – is critical for several reasons,” the groups write.

“First, it is the data element that is typically the most important to have readily available for law enforcement, consumer protection, particularly child protection, intellectual property enforcement and cybersecurity/anti-malware purposes.

“Second, the public accessibility of the registrant’s e-mail address permits a broad array of threats and illegal activities to be addressed quickly and the damage from such threats mitigated and contained in a timely manner, particularly where the abusive/illegal activity may be spawned from a variety of different domain names on different generic Top Level Domains,” they add.

The groups also argue that since making email addresses is effectively required in light of Article 5.1(c) ECD, “there is no legitimate justification to discontinue public availability of the registrant’s e-mail address in the WHOIS directory and especially not in light of other legitimate purposes.”

The EFF, on the other hand, says that being able to contact a domain owner wouldn’t necessarily require an email address to be made public.

“There are other cases in which it makes sense to allow members of the public to contact the owner of a domain, without having to obtain a court order,” EFF writes.

“But this could be achieved very simply if ICANN were simply to provide something like a CAPTCHA-protected contact form, which would deliver email to the appropriate contact point with no need to reveal the registrant’s actual email address.”

The groups’ second main concern is that ICANN reportedly makes no distinction between name registrants that are “natural persons versus those that are legal entities” and intends to treat them all as if they are subject to the GDPR, despite the fact that the regulation only applies to data associated with an “identified or identifiable natural person”.

They say it is imperative that EU Data Protection Authorities are made to understand that when registrants obtain a domain for illegal purposes, they often only register it as a “natural person” when registering as a legal person (legal entity) would be more appropriate, despite that granting them less privacy.

“Consequently, the test for differentiating between a legal and natural person should not merely be the legal status of the registrant, but also whether the registrant is, in fact, acting as a legal or natural person vis a vis the use of the domain name,” the groups note.

“We therefore urge that ICANN be given appropriate guidance as to the importance of maintaining a distinction between natural person and legal person registrants and keeping as much data about legal person domain name registrants as publicly accessible as possible,” they conclude.

What will happen with WHOIS on May 25 still isn’t clear. It wasn’t until October 2017 that ICANN finally determined that it would be affected by the GDPR, meaning that it’s been scrambling ever since to meet the compliance date. And it still is, according to the latest available documentation (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/facebook_and_ca.html

In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, news articles and commentators have focused on what Facebook knows about us. A lot, it turns out. It collects data from our posts, our likes, our photos, things we type and delete without posting, and things we do while not on Facebook and even when we’re offline. It buys data about us from others. And it can infer even more: our sexual orientation, political beliefs, relationship status, drug use, and other personality traits — even if we didn’t take the personality test that Cambridge Analytica developed.

But for every article about Facebook’s creepy stalker behavior, thousands of other companies are breathing a collective sigh of relief that it’s Facebook and not them in the spotlight. Because while Facebook is one of the biggest players in this space, there are thousands of other companies that spy on and manipulate us for profit.

Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff calls it “surveillance capitalism.” And as creepy as Facebook is turning out to be, the entire industry is far creepier. It has existed in secret far too long, and it’s up to lawmakers to force these companies into the public spotlight, where we can all decide if this is how we want society to operate and — if not — what to do about it.

There are 2,500 to 4,000 data brokers in the United States whose business is buying and selling our personal data. Last year, Equifax was in the news when hackers stole personal information on 150 million people, including Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver’s license numbers.

You certainly didn’t give it permission to collect any of that information. Equifax is one of those thousands of data brokers, most of them you’ve never heard of, selling your personal information without your knowledge or consent to pretty much anyone who will pay for it.

Surveillance capitalism takes this one step further. Companies like Facebook and Google offer you free services in exchange for your data. Google’s surveillance isn’t in the news, but it’s startlingly intimate. We never lie to our search engines. Our interests and curiosities, hopes and fears, desires and sexual proclivities, are all collected and saved. Add to that the websites we visit that Google tracks through its advertising network, our Gmail accounts, our movements via Google Maps, and what it can collect from our smartphones.

That phone is probably the most intimate surveillance device ever invented. It tracks our location continuously, so it knows where we live, where we work, and where we spend our time. It’s the first and last thing we check in a day, so it knows when we wake up and when we go to sleep. We all have one, so it knows who we sleep with. Uber used just some of that information to detect one-night stands; your smartphone provider and any app you allow to collect location data knows a lot more.

Surveillance capitalism drives much of the internet. It’s behind most of the “free” services, and many of the paid ones as well. Its goal is psychological manipulation, in the form of personalized advertising to persuade you to buy something or do something, like vote for a candidate. And while the individualized profile-driven manipulation exposed by Cambridge Analytica feels abhorrent, it’s really no different from what every company wants in the end. This is why all your personal information is collected, and this is why it is so valuable. Companies that can understand it can use it against you.

None of this is new. The media has been reporting on surveillance capitalism for years. In 2015, I wrote a book about it. Back in 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an award-winning two-year series about how people are tracked both online and offline, titled “What They Know.”

Surveillance capitalism is deeply embedded in our increasingly computerized society, and if the extent of it came to light there would be broad demands for limits and regulation. But because this industry can largely operate in secret, only occasionally exposed after a data breach or investigative report, we remain mostly ignorant of its reach.

This might change soon. In 2016, the European Union passed the comprehensive General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The details of the law are far too complex to explain here, but some of the things it mandates are that personal data of EU citizens can only be collected and saved for “specific, explicit, and legitimate purposes,” and only with explicit consent of the user. Consent can’t be buried in the terms and conditions, nor can it be assumed unless the user opts in. This law will take effect in May, and companies worldwide are bracing for its enforcement.

Because pretty much all surveillance capitalism companies collect data on Europeans, this will expose the industry like nothing else. Here’s just one example. In preparation for this law, PayPal quietly published a list of over 600 companies it might share your personal data with. What will it be like when every company has to publish this sort of information, and explicitly explain how it’s using your personal data? We’re about to find out.

In the wake of this scandal, even Mark Zuckerberg said that his industry probably should be regulated, although he’s certainly not wishing for the sorts of comprehensive regulation the GDPR is bringing to Europe.

He’s right. Surveillance capitalism has operated without constraints for far too long. And advances in both big data analysis and artificial intelligence will make tomorrow’s applications far creepier than today’s. Regulation is the only answer.

The first step to any regulation is transparency. Who has our data? Is it accurate? What are they doing with it? Who are they selling it to? How are they securing it? Can we delete it? I don’t see any hope of Congress passing a GDPR-like data protection law anytime soon, but it’s not too far-fetched to demand laws requiring these companies to be more transparent in what they’re doing.

One of the responses to the Cambridge Analytica scandal is that people are deleting their Facebook accounts. It’s hard to do right, and doesn’t do anything about the data that Facebook collects about people who don’t use Facebook. But it’s a start. The market can put pressure on these companies to reduce their spying on us, but it can only do that if we force the industry out of its secret shadows.

This essay previously appeared on CNN.com.

EDITED TO ADD (4/2): Slashdot thread.

Не е само Фейсбук – следят ви хиляди компании

Post Syndicated from Григор original http://www.gatchev.info/blog/?p=2127


Попаднах днес на статия в CNN от Брюс Шнайер – експерт по ИТ сигурност, който уважавам изключително много. След кратък размисъл реших, че ще я преведа и пусна тук. Да, нарушение на копирайт е – но е толкова важно и така нужно да се знае от всеки, че съм склонен да поема риска.

—-

Събудени от скандала с Cambridge Analytica, новинарски статии и коментатори се съсредоточиха върху това какво знае Facebook за нас. Оказва се, че е много. Събира данни от нашите публикации, лайковете ни, снимките ни. От нещата, които започваме да пишем, но се отказваме да ги публикуваме. Дори неща, които правим, докато не сме логнати в него – или дори когато сме офлайн. Купува информация за нас от други фирми. И може да разбере от тях за нас и много повече – сексуалната ни ориентация, политическите ни възгледи, дали сме обвързани, какви лекарства пием и много личностови характеристики. Дори ако не сме попълвали личностовия тест на Cambridge Analytica. (Чрез който тази фирма източваше данните ни и данните на приятелите ни – Григор.)

Но при всяка статия, която описва колко гадно ни следи Facebook, хиляди други компании въздъхват с облекчение. Че тези статии обсъждат Facebook, а не тях. Защото е вярно, че Facebook е един от най-големите играчи в тази игра, но и хиляди други фирми ни шпионират и манипулират за своя финансова изгода.

Професорката в Харвард Бизнес Скул Шошана Лубоф нарича това „следящ капитализъм“. Колкото и плашещ да се оказва Facebook, цялостната тази индустрия е далеч по-плашеща. Тя съществува тайно от вече прекалено дълго време, и е крайно време законодателите да изкарат тези фирми пред очите на публиката. За да можем всички да решим така ли искаме да действа нашето общество, и ако не, какво следва да се направи.

В Съединените Щати има между 2500 и 4000 брокери, които се занимават с това да купуват и продават нашите лични данни. Преди година в новините попадна Equifax, когато хакери откраднаха от нея личната информация на 150 милиона души, включително номерата на социалните им осигуровки, рождените дати, адресите и номерата на шофьорските им книжки. (Тоест, абсолютно всичко, което в САЩ идентифицира дадена личност – Григор.)

Вие с гаранция не сте давали на тази фирма разрешение да събира личната ви информация. Equifax е една от хилядите фирми – брокери на информация, за повечето от които дори не сте чували. И които продават личната ви информация без ваше знание и съгласие на всеки, който плати.

Следящият капитализъм докарва нещата още по-нататък. Фирми като Google и Facebook ви предлагат безплатни услуги в замяна на информацията ви. За следенето на Google не съобщават в новините, но то е стряскащо прилепчиво. Ние никога не лъжем търсачките, които използвате. Интересите и любопитствата ни, надеждите и страховете ни, желанията и сексуалните привличания – всичко това бива събирано и съхранявано. Добавете към това следенето кои уебсайтове посещаваме, което Google извършва чрез рекламната си мрежа, нашите акаунти в Gmail, движението ни по Google Maps и каквото може да събере от смартфоните ни.

Телефонът вероятно е най-ефективното проследяващо устройство, създадено някога. Той непрекъснато следи къде се намираме, така че знае къде живеем, работим и прекарваме времето си. Той е първото и последното нещо, което поглеждаме през деня, така че знае кога се събуждаме и кога заспиваме. Всички го имаме, така че той знае и с кого спим. Юбер използва част от тази информация, за да открива забежките за по една нощ. Мобилният ви доставчик и всяко приложение в телефона, което има достъп до услугите за локация, знаят много повече.

Следящият капитализъм поддържа немалка част от Интернет. Той стои зад повечето „безплатни“ услуги, а и зад много платени. Целта му е да ви манипулира психологически, например чрез таргетирано рекламиране, за да ви убеди да купите нещо или да направите нещо, например да гласувате за определен кандидат. Масовото, базирано на индивидуални профили манипулиране, което бяха хванати да вършат Cambridge Analytica, може да звучи отвратително – но това е, което в края на краищата се бори да постигне всяка компания. Вашата лична информация бива събирана именно затова, и то е, което я прави ценна. Компаниите, които разбират това, могат да я използват срещу вас.

Нищо от това не е новост. Медиите съобщават за следящия капитализъм от години. През 2015 г. написах книга на тази тема. Още през 2010 г. Уолстрийт Джърнъл публикува двегодишна серия статии, спечелила награди, как хората биват следени онлайн и офлайн, под заглавието „Какво знаят те“.

Следящият капитализъм е дълбоко вграден в нашето все по-компютризирано общество, и ако размерите му излязат на бял свят, ще има масов натиск за ограничения и регулации. Но тъй като тази индустрия оперира предимно тайно, и само отвреме навреме изтича информация за някоя кражба на данни или някоя разследваща статия, повечето от нас остават в неизвестност за всеобхватността ѝ.

Това може скоро да се промени. През 2016 г. Европейският съюз прие широкообхватния регламент General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Подробностите в този закон са прекалено сложни, за да бъдат обяснени тук. Някои от нещата, които той постановява, са че личните данни на европейски граждани могат да бъдат събирани и съхранявани само за „специфични, изрично обявени и легитимни цели“, и единствено с изричното съгласие на потребителя. Съгласието не може да бъде заровено из условията за използване (EULA) на това или онова, нито пък може да бъде смятано за дадено, ако потребителят не го изключи изрично. Законът влиза в сила през май, и компаниите по целия свят се подготвят да влязат в съгласие с него.

Тъй като на практика всеки следящ капитализъм събира данните на европейци, това ще освети тази индустрия като нищо досега. Ето ви само един пример. Подготвяйки се за този закон, PayPal тихомълком публикува списък на над 600 компании, с които вашата информация може да бъде споделяна. Какво ще стане, когато на всяка компания се наложи да публикува тази информация и да обясни изрично как използва личните ни данни? Очертава се да разберем.

Когато този скандал се надигна, дори Марк Цукърбърг каза, че вероятно неговата индустрия трябва да бъде регулирана. Надали обаче си е пожелавал сериозна и принципна регулация, каквато GDPR въвежда в сила в Европа.

Прав е. Следящият капитализъм е действал безконтролно твърде дълго време. И напредъкът както в анализа на големи количества лични данни, така и в изкуствения интелект ще направят утрешните му приложения далеч по-плашещи от днешните. Единственото спасение от това е регулацията.

Първата стъпка към всяка регулация е прозрачността. Кой има нашите данни? Точни ли са? Какво прави той с тях? Продава ли ги? Как ги опазва? Можем ли да го накараме да ги изтрие? Не виждам никаква надежда Конгресът на САЩ да прокара в обозримото бъдеще закон за защита на данните, подобен на GDPR, но не е непредставимо да се въведат закони, които задължават тези компании да бъдат по-прозрачни в действията си.

Едно от последствията на скандала с Cambridge Analytica е, че някои хора си изтриха акаунтите във Facebook. Това е трудно да се направи както трябва, и не изтрива данните, които Facebook събира за хора без акаунт в него. Но все е някакво начало. Пазарът може да окаже натиск върху тези компании да ограничат следенето ни, но само ако накараме тази индустрия да излезе от сенките на светло.

—-

И аз съм писал по въпроса, още през 2012 г. – тук и тук. Не зная дали тогава помогнах на някого да разбере нещо – май по-скоро не, ако съдя по коментарите под тях. Не зная дали ще помогна на някого и сега. Но се чувствам длъжен да опитам.

Ако съдя по личните си наблюдения, нито една от онлайн фирмите, която ви дава възможност да си изтриете информацията от нея, не я изтрива истински. Знам случаи, когато информацията от „изтрити“ акаунти бива откривана в пакети продадени впоследствие лични данни. Знам и фирми, които твърдят, че не съхраняват никаква лична информация, но всъщност съхраняват и продават на всеки платежоспособен и мълчалив всеки бит от нея, който успеят да докопат. Така че съм скептичен, че регулацията ще постигне кой знае колко.

Има обаче нещо, което можем сами да направим за себе си – и то е просто да спрем да използваме които услуги на подобни събирачи можем. Без мобилен телефон трудно се живее, но трябва ли да имате акаунти във всички социални мрежи, за които сте чували? И т.н.

Надявам се след този скандал проектите за децентрализиран и опазващ личната информация аналог на Facebook да получат нов тласък. Надявам се и поне този 1% от хората, които не са идеално кръгли идиоти във вакуум, да почнат да вземат някакви мерки да опазят себе си и своите начинания.

The 600+ Companies PayPal Shares Your Data With

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/the_600_compani.html

One of the effects of GDPR — the new EU General Data Protection Regulation — is that we’re all going to be learning a lot more about who collects our data and what they do with it. Consider PayPal, that just released a list of over 600 companies they share customer data with. Here’s a good visualization of that data.

Is 600 companies unusual? Is it more than average? Less? We’ll soon know.

Backblaze and GDPR

Post Syndicated from Andy Klein original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/gdpr-compliance/

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation

Over the next few months the noise over GDPR will finally reach a crescendo. For the uninitiated, “GDPR” stands for “General Data Protection Regulation” and it goes into effect on May 25th of this year. GDPR is designed to protect how personal information of EU (European Union) citizens is collected, stored, and shared. The regulation should also improve transparency as to how personal information is managed by a business or organization.

Backblaze fully expects to be GDPR compliant when May 25th rolls around and we thought we’d share our experience along the way. We’ll start with this post as an introduction to GDPR. In future posts, we’ll dive into some of the details of the process we went through in meeting the GDPR objectives.

GDPR: A Two Way Street

To ensure we are GDPR compliant, Backblaze has assembled a dedicated internal team, engaged outside counsel in the United Kingdom, and consulted with other tech companies on best practices. While it is a sizable effort on our part, we view this as a waypoint in our ongoing effort to secure and protect our customers’ data and to be transparent in how we work as a company.

In addition to the effort we are putting into complying with the regulation, we think it is important to underscore and promote the idea that data privacy and security is a two-way street. We can spend millions of dollars on protecting the security of our systems, but we can’t stop a bad actor from finding and using your account credentials left on a note stuck to your monitor. We can give our customers tools like two factor authentication and private encryption keys, but it is the partnership with our customers that is the most powerful protection. The same thing goes for your digital privacy — we’ll do our best to protect your information, but we will need your help to do so.

Why GDPR is Important

At the center of GDPR is the protection of Personally Identifiable Information or “PII.” The definition for PII is information that can be used stand-alone or in concert with other information to identify a specific person. This includes obvious data like: name, address, and phone number, less obvious data like email address and IP address, and other data such as a credit card number, and unique identifiers that can be decoded back to the person.

How Will GDPR Affect You as an Individual

If you are a citizen in the EU, GDPR is designed to protect your private information from being used or shared without your permission. Technically, this only applies when your data is collected, processed, stored or shared outside of the EU, but it’s a good practice to hold all of your service providers to the same standard. For example, when you are deciding to sign up with a service, you should be able to quickly access and understand what personal information is being collected, why it is being collected, and what the business can do with that information. These terms are typically found in “Terms and Conditions” and “Privacy Policy” documents, or perhaps in a written contract you signed before starting to use a given service or product.

Even if you are not a citizen of the EU, GDPR will still affect you. Why? Because nearly every company you deal with, especially online, will have customers that live in the EU. It makes little sense for Backblaze, or any other service provider or vendor, to create a separate set of rules for just EU citizens. In practice, protection of private information should be more accountable and transparent with GDPR.

How Will GDPR Affect You as a Backblaze Customer

Over the coming months Backblaze customers will see changes to our current “Terms and Conditions,” “Privacy Policy,” and to our Backblaze services. While the changes to the Backblaze services are expected to be minimal, the “terms and privacy” documents will change significantly. The changes will include among other things the addition of a group of model clauses and related materials. These clauses will be generally consistent across all GDPR compliant vendors and are meant to be easily understood so that a customer can easily determine how their PII is being collected and used.

Common GDPR Questions:

Here are a few of the more common questions we have heard regarding GDPR.

  1. GDPR will only affect citizens in the EU.
    Answer: The changes that are being made by companies such as Backblaze to comply with GDPR will almost certainly apply to customers from all countries. And that’s a good thing. The protections afforded to EU citizens by GDPR are something all users of our service should benefit from.
  2. After May 25, 2018, a citizen of the EU will not be allowed to use any applications or services that store data outside of the EU.
    Answer: False, no one will stop you as an EU citizen from using the internet-based service you choose. But, you should make sure you know where your data is being collected, processed, and stored. If any of those activities occur outside the EU, make sure the company is following the GDPR guidelines.
  3. My business only has a few EU citizens as customers, so I don’t need to care about GDPR?
    Answer: False, even if you have just one EU citizen as a customer, and you capture, process or store data their PII outside of the EU, you need to comply with GDPR.
  4. Companies can be fined millions of dollars for not complying with GDPR.
    Answer:
    True, but: the regulation allows for companies to be fined up to $4 Million dollars or 20% of global revenue (whichever is greater) if they don’t comply with GDPR. In practice, the feeling is that such fines will be reserved (at least initially) for egregious violators that ignore or merely give “lip-service” to GDPR.
  5. You’ll be able to tell a company is GDPR compliant because they have a “GDPR Certified” badge on their website.
    Answer: There is no official GDPR certification or an official GDPR certification program. Companies that comply with GDPR are expected to follow the articles in the regulation and it should be clear from the outside looking in that they have followed the regulations. For example, their “Terms and Conditions,” and “Privacy Policy” should clearly spell out how and why they collect, use, and share your information. At some point a real GDPR certification program may be adopted, but not yet.

For all the hoopla about GDPR, the regulation is reasonably well thought out and addresses a very important issue — people’s privacy online. Creating a best practices document, or in this case a regulation, that companies such as Backblaze can follow is a good idea. The document isn’t perfect, and over the coming years we expect there to be changes. One thing we hope for is that the countries within the EU continue to stand behind one regulation and not fragment the document into multiple versions, each applying to themselves. We believe that having multiple different GDPR versions for different EU countries would lead to less protection overall of EU citizens.

In summary, GDPR changes are coming over the next few months. Backblaze has our internal staff and our EU-based legal council working diligently to ensure that we will be GDPR compliant by May 25th. We believe that GDPR will have a positive effect in enhancing the protection of personally identifiable information for not only EU citizens, but all of our Backblaze customers.

The post Backblaze and GDPR appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

Join Us for AWS Security Week February 20–23 in San Francisco!

Post Syndicated from Craig Liebendorfer original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/join-us-for-aws-security-week-february-20-23-in-san-francisco/

AWS Pop-up Loft image

Join us for AWS Security Week, February 20–23 at the AWS Pop-up Loft in San Francisco, where you can participate in four days of themed content that will help you secure your workloads on AWS. Each day will highlight a different security and compliance topic, and will include an overview session, a customer or partner speaker, a deep dive into the day’s topic, and a hands-on lab or demos of relevant AWS or partner services.

Tuesday (February 20) will kick off the week with a day devoted to identity and governance. On Wednesday, we will dig into secure configuration and automation, including a discussion about upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements. On Thursday, we will cover threat detection and remediation, which will include an Amazon GuardDuty lab. And on Friday, we will discuss incident response on AWS.

Sessions, demos, and labs about each of these topics will be led by seasoned security professionals from AWS, who will help you understand not just the basics, but also the nuances of building applications in the AWS Cloud in a robust and secure manner. AWS subject-matter experts will be available for “Ask the Experts” sessions during breaks.

Register today!

– Craig

Introducing the New GDPR Center and “Navigating GDPR Compliance on AWS” Whitepaper

Post Syndicated from Chad Woolf original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/introducing-the-new-gdpr-center-and-navigating-gdpr-compliance-on-aws-whitepaper/

European Union flag

At AWS re:Invent 2017, the AWS Compliance team participated in excellent engagements with AWS customers about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), including discussions that generated helpful input. Today, I am announcing resulting enhancements to our recently launched GDPR Center and the release of a new whitepaper, Navigating GDPR Compliance on AWS. The resources available on the GDPR Center are designed to give you GDPR basics, and provide some ideas as you work out the details of the regulation and find a path to compliance.

In this post, I focus on two of these new GDPR requirements in terms of articles in the GDPR, and explain some of the AWS services and other resources that can help you meet these requirements.

Background about the GDPR

The GDPR is a European privacy law that will become enforceable on May 25, 2018, and is intended to harmonize data protection laws throughout the European Union (EU) by applying a single data protection law that is binding throughout each EU member state. The GDPR not only applies to organizations located within the EU, but also to organizations located outside the EU if they offer goods or services to, or monitor the behavior of, EU data subjects. All AWS services will comply with the GDPR in advance of the May 25, 2018, enforcement date.

We are already seeing customers move personal data to AWS to help solve challenges in complying with the EU’s GDPR because of AWS’s advanced toolset for identifying, securing, and managing all types of data, including personal data. Steve Schmidt, the AWS CISO, has already written about the internal and external work we have been undertaking to help you use AWS services to meet your own GDPR compliance goals.

Article 25 – Data Protection by Design and by Default (Privacy by Design)

Privacy by Design is the integration of data privacy and compliance into the systems development process, enabling applications, systems, and accounts, among other things, to be secure by default. To secure your AWS account, we offer a script to evaluate your AWS account against the full Center for Internet Security (CIS) Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1.1. You can access this public benchmark on GitHub. Additionally, AWS Trusted Advisor is an online resource to help you improve security by optimizing your AWS environment. Among other things, Trusted Advisor lists a number of security-related controls you should be monitoring. AWS also offers AWS CloudTrail, a logging tool to track usage and API activity. Another example of tooling that enables data protection is Amazon Inspector, which includes a knowledge base of hundreds of rules (regularly updated by AWS security researchers) mapped to common security best practices and vulnerability definitions. Examples of built-in rules include checking for remote root login being enabled or vulnerable software versions installed. These and other tools enable you to design an environment that protects customer data by design.

An accurate inventory of all the GDPR-impacting data is important but sometimes difficult to assess. AWS has some advanced tooling, such as Amazon Macie, to help you determine where customer data is present in your AWS resources. Macie uses advanced machine learning to automatically discover and classify data so that you can protect data, per Article 25.

Article 32 – Security of Processing

You can use many AWS services and features to secure the processing of data regulated by the GDPR. Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (Amazon VPC) lets you provision a logically isolated section of the AWS Cloud where you can launch resources in a virtual network that you define. You have complete control over your virtual networking environment, including the selection of your own IP address range, creation of subnets, and configuration of route tables and network gateways. With Amazon VPC, you can make the Amazon Cloud a seamless extension of your existing on-premises resources.

AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) is a managed service that makes it easy for you to create and control the encryption keys used to encrypt your data, and uses hardware security modules (HSMs) to help protect your keys. Managing keys with AWS KMS allows you to choose to encrypt data either on the server side or the client side. AWS KMS is integrated with several other AWS services to help you protect the data you store with these services. AWS KMS is also integrated with CloudTrail to provide you with logs of all key usage to help meet your regulatory and compliance needs. You can also use the AWS Encryption SDK to correctly generate and use encryption keys, as well as protect keys after they have been used.

We also recently announced new encryption and security features for Amazon S3, including default encryption and a detailed inventory report. Services of this type as well as additional GDPR enablers will be published regularly on our GDPR Center.

Other resources

As you prepare for GDPR, you may want to visit our AWS Customer Compliance Center or Tools for Amazon Web Services to learn about options for building anything from small scripts that delete data to a full orchestration framework that uses AWS Code services.

-Chad

Me on the Equifax Breach

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/11/me_on_the_equif.html

Testimony and Statement for the Record of Bruce Schneier
Fellow and Lecturer, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School

Hearing on “Securing Consumers’ Credit Data in the Age of Digital Commerce”

Before the

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
Committee on Energy and Commerce
United States House of Representatives

1 November 2017
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today concerning the security of credit data. My name is Bruce Schneier, and I am a security technologist. For over 30 years I have studied the technologies of security and privacy. I have authored 13 books on these subjects, including Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World (Norton, 2015). My popular newsletter CryptoGram and my blog Schneier on Security are read by over 250,000 people.

Additionally, I am a Fellow and Lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government –where I teach Internet security policy — and a Fellow at the Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. I am a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, AccessNow, and the Tor Project; and an advisory board member of Electronic Privacy Information Center and VerifiedVoting.org. I am also a special advisor to IBM Security and the Chief Technology Officer of IBM Resilient.

I am here representing none of those organizations, and speak only for myself based on my own expertise and experience.

I have eleven main points:

1. The Equifax breach was a serious security breach that puts millions of Americans at risk.

Equifax reported that 145.5 million US customers, about 44% of the population, were impacted by the breach. (That’s the original 143 million plus the additional 2.5 million disclosed a month later.) The attackers got access to full names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver’s license numbers.

This is exactly the sort of information criminals can use to impersonate victims to banks, credit card companies, insurance companies, cell phone companies and other businesses vulnerable to fraud. As a result, all 143 million US victims are at greater risk of identity theft, and will remain at risk for years to come. And those who suffer identify theft will have problems for months, if not years, as they work to clean up their name and credit rating.

2. Equifax was solely at fault.

This was not a sophisticated attack. The security breach was a result of a vulnerability in the software for their websites: a program called Apache Struts. The particular vulnerability was fixed by Apache in a security patch that was made available on March 6, 2017. This was not a minor vulnerability; the computer press at the time called it “critical.” Within days, it was being used by attackers to break into web servers. Equifax was notified by Apache, US CERT, and the Department of Homeland Security about the vulnerability, and was provided instructions to make the fix.

Two months later, Equifax had still failed to patch its systems. It eventually got around to it on July 29. The attackers used the vulnerability to access the company’s databases and steal consumer information on May 13, over two months after Equifax should have patched the vulnerability.

The company’s incident response after the breach was similarly damaging. It waited nearly six weeks before informing victims that their personal information had been stolen and they were at increased risk of identity theft. Equifax opened a website to help aid customers, but the poor security around that — the site was at a domain separate from the Equifax domain — invited fraudulent imitators and even more damage to victims. At one point, the official Equifax communications even directed people to that fraudulent site.

This is not the first time Equifax failed to take computer security seriously. It confessed to another data leak in January 2017. In May 2016, one of its websites was hacked, resulting in 430,000 people having their personal information stolen. Also in 2016, a security researcher found and reported a basic security vulnerability in its main website. And in 2014, the company reported yet another security breach of consumer information. There are more.

3. There are thousands of data brokers with similarly intimate information, similarly at risk.

Equifax is more than a credit reporting agency. It’s a data broker. It collects information about all of us, analyzes it all, and then sells those insights. It might be one of the biggest, but there are 2,500 to 4,000 other data brokers that are collecting, storing, and selling information about us — almost all of them companies you’ve never heard of and have no business relationship with.

The breadth and depth of information that data brokers have is astonishing. Data brokers collect and store billions of data elements covering nearly every US consumer. Just one of the data brokers studied holds information on more than 1.4 billion consumer transactions and 700 billion data elements, and another adds more than 3 billion new data points to its database each month.

These brokers collect demographic information: names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, gender, age, marital status, presence and ages of children in household, education level, profession, income level, political affiliation, cars driven, and information about homes and other property. They collect lists of things we’ve purchased, when we’ve purchased them, and how we paid for them. They keep track of deaths, divorces, and diseases in our families. They collect everything about what we do on the Internet.

4. These data brokers deliberately hide their actions, and make it difficult for consumers to learn about or control their data.

If there were a dozen people who stood behind us and took notes of everything we purchased, read, searched for, or said, we would be alarmed at the privacy invasion. But because these companies operate in secret, inside our browsers and financial transactions, we don’t see them and we don’t know they’re there.

Regarding Equifax, few consumers have any idea what the company knows about them, who they sell personal data to or why. If anyone knows about them at all, it’s about their business as a credit bureau, not their business as a data broker. Their website lists 57 different offerings for business: products for industries like automotive, education, health care, insurance, and restaurants.

In general, options to “opt-out” don’t work with data brokers. It’s a confusing process, and doesn’t result in your data being deleted. Data brokers will still collect data about consumers who opt out. It will still be in those companies’ databases, and will still be vulnerable. It just don’t be included individually when they sell data to their customers.

5. The existing regulatory structure is inadequate.

Right now, there is no way for consumers to protect themselves. Their data has been harvested and analyzed by these companies without their knowledge or consent. They cannot improve the security of their personal data, and have no control over how vulnerable it is. They only learn about data breaches when the companies announce them — which can be months after the breaches occur — and at that point the onus is on them to obtain credit monitoring services or credit freezes. And even those only protect consumers from some of the harms, and only those suffered after Equifax admitted to the breach.

Right now, the press is reporting “dozens” of lawsuits against Equifax from shareholders, consumers, and banks. Massachusetts has sued Equifax for violating state consumer protection and privacy laws. Other states may follow suit.

If any of these plaintiffs win in the court, it will be a rare victory for victims of privacy breaches against the companies that have our personal information. Current law is too narrowly focused on people who have suffered financial losses directly traceable to a specific breach. Proving this is difficult. If you are the victim of identity theft in the next month, is it because of Equifax or does the blame belong to another of the thousands of companies who have your personal data? As long as one can’t prove it one way or the other, data brokers remain blameless and liability free.

Additionally, much of this market in our personal data falls outside the protections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. And in order for the Federal Trade Commission to levy a fine against Equifax, it needs to have a consent order and then a subsequent violation. Any fines will be limited to credit information, which is a small portion of the enormous amount of information these companies know about us. In reality, this is not an effective enforcement regime.

Although the FTC is investigating Equifax, it is unclear if it has a viable case.

6. The market cannot fix this because we are not the customers of data brokers.

The customers of these companies are people and organizations who want to buy information: banks looking to lend you money, landlords deciding whether to rent you an apartment, employers deciding whether to hire you, companies trying to figure out whether you’d be a profitable customer — everyone who wants to sell you something, even governments.

Markets work because buyers choose from a choice of sellers, and sellers compete for buyers. None of us are Equifax’s customers. None of us are the customers of any of these data brokers. We can’t refuse to do business with the companies. We can’t remove our data from their databases. With few limited exceptions, we can’t even see what data these companies have about us or correct any mistakes.

We are the product that these companies sell to their customers: those who want to use our personal information to understand us, categorize us, make decisions about us, and persuade us.

Worse, the financial markets reward bad security. Given the choice between increasing their cybersecurity budget by 5%, or saving that money and taking the chance, a rational CEO chooses to save the money. Wall Street rewards those whose balance sheets look good, not those who are secure. And if senior management gets unlucky and the a public breach happens, they end up okay. Equifax’s CEO didn’t get his $5.2 million severance pay, but he did keep his $18.4 million pension. Any company that spends more on security than absolutely necessary is immediately penalized by shareholders when its profits decrease.

Even the negative PR that Equifax is currently suffering will fade. Unless we expect data brokers to put public interest ahead of profits, the security of this industry will never improve without government regulation.

7. We need effective regulation of data brokers.

In 2014, the Federal Trade Commission recommended that Congress require data brokers be more transparent and give consumers more control over their personal information. That report contains good suggestions on how to regulate this industry.

First, Congress should help plaintiffs in data breach cases by authorizing and funding empirical research on the harm individuals receive from these breaches.

Specifically, Congress should move forward legislative proposals that establish a nationwide “credit freeze” — which is better described as changing the default for disclosure from opt-out to opt-in — and free lifetime credit monitoring services. By this I do not mean giving customers free credit-freeze options, a proposal by Senators Warren and Schatz, but that the default should be a credit freeze.

The credit card industry routinely notifies consumers when there are suspicious charges. It is obvious that credit reporting agencies should have a similar obligation to notify consumers when there is suspicious activity concerning their credit report.

On the technology side, more could be done to limit the amount of personal data companies are allowed to collect. Increasingly, privacy safeguards impose “data minimization” requirements to ensure that only the data that is actually needed is collected. On the other hand, Congress should not create a new national identifier to replace the Social Security Numbers. That would make the system of identification even more brittle. Better is to reduce dependence on systems of identification and to create contextual identification where necessary.

Finally, Congress needs to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to set minimum security standards for data brokers and to give consumers more control over their personal information. This is essential as long as consumers are these companies’ products and not their customers.

8. Resist complaints from the industry that this is “too hard.”

The credit bureaus and data brokers, and their lobbyists and trade-association representatives, will claim that many of these measures are too hard. They’re not telling you the truth.

Take one example: credit freezes. This is an effective security measure that protects consumers, but the process of getting one and of temporarily unfreezing credit is made deliberately onerous by the credit bureaus. Why isn’t there a smartphone app that alerts me when someone wants to access my credit rating, and lets me freeze and unfreeze my credit at the touch of the screen? Too hard? Today, you can have an app on your phone that does something similar if you try to log into a computer network, or if someone tries to use your credit card at a physical location different from where you are.

Moreover, any credit bureau or data broker operating in Europe is already obligated to follow the more rigorous EU privacy laws. The EU General Data Protection Regulation will come into force, requiring even more security and privacy controls for companies collecting storing the personal data of EU citizens. Those companies have already demonstrated that they can comply with those more stringent regulations.

Credit bureaus, and data brokers in general, are deliberately not implementing these 21st-century security solutions, because they want their services to be as easy and useful as possible for their actual customers: those who are buying your information. Similarly, companies that use this personal information to open accounts are not implementing more stringent security because they want their services to be as easy-to-use and convenient as possible.

9. This has foreign trade implications.

The Canadian Broadcast Corporation reported that 100,000 Canadians had their data stolen in the Equifax breach. The British Broadcasting Corporation originally reported that 400,000 UK consumers were affected; Equifax has since revised that to 15.2 million.

Many American Internet companies have significant numbers of European users and customers, and rely on negotiated safe harbor agreements to legally collect and store personal data of EU citizens.

The European Union is in the middle of a massive regulatory shift in its privacy laws, and those agreements are coming under renewed scrutiny. Breaches such as Equifax give these European regulators a powerful argument that US privacy regulations are inadequate to protect their citizens’ data, and that they should require that data to remain in Europe. This could significantly harm American Internet companies.

10. This has national security implications.

Although it is still unknown who compromised the Equifax database, it could easily have been a foreign adversary that routinely attacks the servers of US companies and US federal agencies with the goal of exploiting security vulnerabilities and obtaining personal data.

When the Fair Credit Reporting Act was passed in 1970, the concern was that the credit bureaus might misuse our data. That is still a concern, but the world has changed since then. Credit bureaus and data brokers have far more intimate data about all of us. And it is valuable not only to companies wanting to advertise to us, but foreign governments as well. In 2015, the Chinese breached the database of the Office of Personal Management and stole the detailed security clearance information of 21 million Americans. North Korea routinely engages in cybercrime as way to fund its other activities. In a world where foreign governments use cyber capabilities to attack US assets, requiring data brokers to limit collection of personal data, securely store the data they collect, and delete data about consumers when it is no longer needed is a matter of national security.

11. We need to do something about it.

Yes, this breach is a huge black eye and a temporary stock dip for Equifax — this month. Soon, another company will have suffered a massive data breach and few will remember Equifax’s problem. Does anyone remember last year when Yahoo admitted that it exposed personal information of a billion users in 2013 and another half billion in 2014?

Unless Congress acts to protect consumer information in the digital age, these breaches will continue.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

IoT Cybersecurity: What’s Plan B?

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/10/iot_cybersecuri.html

In August, four US Senators introduced a bill designed to improve Internet of Things (IoT) security. The IoT Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2017 is a modest piece of legislation. It doesn’t regulate the IoT market. It doesn’t single out any industries for particular attention, or force any companies to do anything. It doesn’t even modify the liability laws for embedded software. Companies can continue to sell IoT devices with whatever lousy security they want.

What the bill does do is leverage the government’s buying power to nudge the market: any IoT product that the government buys must meet minimum security standards. It requires vendors to ensure that devices can not only be patched, but are patched in an authenticated and timely manner; don’t have unchangeable default passwords; and are free from known vulnerabilities. It’s about as low a security bar as you can set, and that it will considerably improve security speaks volumes about the current state of IoT security. (Full disclosure: I helped draft some of the bill’s security requirements.)

The bill would also modify the Computer Fraud and Abuse and the Digital Millennium Copyright Acts to allow security researchers to study the security of IoT devices purchased by the government. It’s a far narrower exemption than our industry needs. But it’s a good first step, which is probably the best thing you can say about this legislation.

However, it’s unlikely this first step will even be taken. I am writing this column in August, and have no doubt that the bill will have gone nowhere by the time you read it in October or later. If hearings are held, they won’t matter. The bill won’t have been voted on by any committee, and it won’t be on any legislative calendar. The odds of this bill becoming law are zero. And that’s not just because of current politics — I’d be equally pessimistic under the Obama administration.

But the situation is critical. The Internet is dangerous — and the IoT gives it not just eyes and ears, but also hands and feet. Security vulnerabilities, exploits, and attacks that once affected only bits and bytes now affect flesh and blood.

Markets, as we’ve repeatedly learned over the past century, are terrible mechanisms for improving the safety of products and services. It was true for automobile, food, restaurant, airplane, fire, and financial-instrument safety. The reasons are complicated, but basically, sellers don’t compete on safety features because buyers can’t efficiently differentiate products based on safety considerations. The race-to-the-bottom mechanism that markets use to minimize prices also minimizes quality. Without government intervention, the IoT remains dangerously insecure.

The US government has no appetite for intervention, so we won’t see serious safety and security regulations, a new federal agency, or better liability laws. We might have a better chance in the EU. Depending on how the General Data Protection Regulation on data privacy pans out, the EU might pass a similar security law in 5 years. No other country has a large enough market share to make a difference.

Sometimes we can opt out of the IoT, but that option is becoming increasingly rare. Last year, I tried and failed to purchase a new car without an Internet connection. In a few years, it’s going to be nearly impossible to not be multiply connected to the IoT. And our biggest IoT security risks will stem not from devices we have a market relationship with, but from everyone else’s cars, cameras, routers, drones, and so on.

We can try to shop our ideals and demand more security, but companies don’t compete on IoT safety — and we security experts aren’t a large enough market force to make a difference.

We need a Plan B, although I’m not sure what that is. E-mail me if you have any ideas.

This essay previously appeared in the September/October issue of IEEE Security & Privacy.

ЕС: защита на данните – правила за оценка на въздействието

Post Syndicated from nellyo original https://nellyo.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/dp-20/

Работната група за защита на данните (Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, WP29) е публикувала проект за ръководни правила за оценка на въздействието на регламента за защита на данните (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR).

 Проектът за правила

Filed under: Digital, EU Law, Media Law Tagged: dp

AWS and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

Post Syndicated from Stephen Schmidt original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/aws-and-the-general-data-protection-regulation/

European Union image

Just over a year ago, the European Commission approved and adopted the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR is the biggest change in data protection laws in Europe since the 1995 introduction of the European Union (EU) Data Protection Directive, also known as Directive 95/46/EC. The GDPR aims to strengthen the security and protection of personal data in the EU and will replace the Directive and all local laws relating to it.

AWS welcomes the arrival of the GDPR. The new, robust requirements raise the bar for data protection, security, and compliance, and will push the industry to follow the most stringent controls, helping to make everyone more secure. I am happy to announce today that all AWS services will comply with the GDPR when it becomes enforceable on May 25, 2018.

In this blog post, I explain the work AWS is doing to help customers with the GDPR as part of our continued commitment to help ensure they can comply with EU Data Protection requirements.

What has AWS been doing?

AWS continually maintains a high bar for security and compliance across all of our regions around the world. This has always been our highest priority—truly “job zero.” The AWS Cloud infrastructure has been architected to offer customers the most powerful, flexible, and secure cloud-computing environment available today. AWS also gives you a number of services and tools to enable you to build GDPR-compliant infrastructure on top of AWS.

One tool we give you is a Data Processing Agreement (DPA). I’m happy to announce today that we have a DPA that will meet the requirements of the GDPR. This GDPR DPA is available now to all AWS customers to help you prepare for May 25, 2018, when the GDPR becomes enforceable. For additional information about the new GDPR DPA or to obtain a copy, contact your AWS account manager.

In addition to account managers, we have teams of compliance experts, data protection specialists, and security experts working with customers across Europe to answer their questions and help them prepare for running workloads in the AWS Cloud after the GDPR comes into force. To further answer customers’ questions, we have updated our EU Data Protection website. This website includes information about what the GDPR is, the changes it brings to organizations operating in the EU, the services AWS offers to help you comply with the GDPR, and advice about how you can prepare.

Another topic we cover on the EU Data Protection website is AWS’s compliance with the CISPE Code of Conduct. The CISPE Code of Conduct helps cloud customers ensure that their cloud infrastructure provider is using appropriate data protection standards to protect their data in a manner consistent with the GDPR. AWS has declared that Amazon EC2, Amazon S3, Amazon RDS, AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM), AWS CloudTrail, and Amazon Elastic Block Storage (Amazon EBS) are fully compliant with the CISPE Code of Conduct. This declaration provides customers with assurances that they fully control their data in a safe, secure, and compliant environment when they use AWS. For more information about AWS’s compliance with the CISPE Code of Conduct, go to the CISPE website.

As well as giving customers a number of tools and services to build GDPR-compliant environments, AWS has achieved a number of internationally recognized certifications and accreditations. In the process, AWS has demonstrated compliance with third-party assurance frameworks such as ISO 27017 for cloud security, ISO 27018 for cloud privacy, PCI DSS Level 1, and SOC 1, SOC 2, and SOC 3. AWS also helps customers meet local security standards such as BSI’s Common Cloud Computing Controls Catalogue (C5) that is important in Germany. We will continue to pursue certifications and accreditations that are important to AWS customers.

What can you do?

Although the GDPR will not be enforceable until May 25, 2018, we are encouraging our customers and partners to start preparing now. If you have already implemented a high bar for compliance, security, and data privacy, the move to GDPR should be simple. However, if you have yet to start your journey to GDPR compliance, we urge you to start reviewing your security, compliance, and data protection processes now to ensure a smooth transition in May 2018.

You should consider the following key points in preparation for GDPR compliance:

  • Territorial reach – Determining whether the GDPR applies to your organization’s activities is essential to ensuring your organization’s ability to satisfy its compliance obligations.
  • Data subject rights – The GDPR enhances the rights of data subjects in a number of ways. You will need to make sure you can accommodate the rights of data subjects if you are processing their personal data.
  • Data breach notifications – If you are a data controller, you must report data breaches to the data protection authorities without undue delay and in any event within 72 hours of you becoming aware of a data breach.
  • Data protection officer (DPO) – You may need to appoint a DPO who will manage data security and other issues related to the processing of personal data.
  • Data protection impact assessment (DPIA) – You may need to conduct and, in some circumstances, you might be required to file with the supervisory authority a DPIA for your processing activities.
  • Data processing agreement (DPA) – You may need a DPA that will meet the requirements of the GDPR, particularly if personal data is transferred outside the European Economic Area.

AWS offers a wide range of services and features to help customers meet requirements of the GDPR, including services for access controls, monitoring, logging, and encryption. For more information about these services and features, see EU Data Protection.

At AWS, security, data protection, and compliance are our top priorities, and we will continue to work vigilantly to ensure that our customers are able to enjoy the benefits of AWS securely, compliantly, and without disruption in Europe and around the world. As we head toward May 2018, we will share more news and resources with you to help you comply with the GDPR.

– Steve