Google User Search Logs – Is it Personal Data or Information as per LAW?

Google User Search Logs – Is it Personal Data or Information?

Privacy concerns relate to personally information or personal data, that is, as defined in The IT Rules under The ITAct, 2000 i.e “Personal information” means any information that relates to a natural person, which, either directly or indirectly, in combination with other information available or likely to be available with a body corporate, is capable of identifying such person. Information which can be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a specific individual person. Federal privacy legislation protects personal data in a number of contexts, such as health information, financial data, or credit reports. Similarly, the European data protection framework applies to "personal data," defined as "any

information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity."

Information that cannot be linked to an individual person is not problematic from a privacy standpoint. Imagine we have highly revealing data about Sify user 200805, but we do not know, nor can we find out, who the user is. Or consider I tell you that X is a drugs-addicted, searches for teen sex, who earns Rs.80,000 a month, half of which is spent on online porn. Absent any indication as to the identity of X, this information is meaningless from a privacy perspective.

Do users' search logs constitute "personal data"?

Can the data in search logs be traced to specific individuals?

I show that they do, and therefore raise serious privacy problems. First, as noted above, search engines log a user's queries under such user's IP address. An IP address is a unique string of numbers assigned to a user's computer by his/her Internet Service Provider (ISP) in order to communicate with her computer on the network. Simply put, it is the cyberspace equivalent of a real space street address or phone number. An IP address may be dynamic, meaning a different address is assigned to a user each time He/she logs on to the network; or static, that is assigned to a computer by an ISP to be its permanent Internet address. The question of whether an IP address constitutes "personal data" has been much debated in the EU. It is equivalent to asking whether "Plot no. 435, Malabar Hill, Mumbai" or "919821763157" constitutes personal data. The answer depends on whether the address might be linked to an "identified or identifiable natural person" through reasonable means. Clearly, a static address is more "personal" than a dynamic address; and in either case, an address is more "personal" in the possession of an ISP, which has the capacity to link it to a specific user's registration information, than in the hands of other parties. The European data protection watchdog, the Article 29 Working Party, has already opined that even dynamic IP addresses constitute "personal data." It stated that "unless the ISP is in a position to distinguish with absolute certainty that the data correspond to users that cannot be identified, it will

have to treat all IP information as personal data, to be on the safe side."

Consequently, even if Google could not link an IP address (and therefore her search log) to a specific individual, the fact that ISPs have such capability and that the government may order them to do so renders search logs "personal data" for privacy purposes. It is the capacity to link, not the actual linking, that makes the data personal.

Second, to overcome the difficulty of profiling users who access search engines using a dynamic IP address, search engines set "cookies" which tag users' browsers with unique identifying numbers. Such cookies enable search engines to recognize a user as a recurring visitor to the site and amass her search history, even if she connects to the Internet via a different IP address. As a result of pressure by EU data protection

regulators, Google has already shortened the duration of its cookie,

which was initially set to expire in 2038, to a period of two years after a user's last Google search. The privacy benefits of such a move are doubtful, however, since as long as Google remains the Internet's leading search engine, users are bound to renew the two-year period on a daily basis.

The Google privacy policy states: "When you use our services or view content provided by Google, we may automatically collect and store certain information inserver logs. This may include: cookies that may uniquely identify your browser or your Google Account.

We use various technologies to collect and store information when you visit a Google service, and this may include sending one or more cookies or anonymous identifiers to your device. We also use cookies and anonymous identifiers when you interact with services we offer to our partners, such as advertising services or Google features that may appear on other sites. You may also set your browser to block all cookies, including cookies associated with our services, or to indicate when a cookie is being set by us. However, it’s important to remember that many of our services may not function properly if your cookies are disabled. For example, we may not remember your language preferences”. See Privacy Policy of Google. As a matter of fact, few users change their browser's default settings to reject cookies

One of the major weaknesses of a cookie as a tracking device is the fact that it is accessibly only by the web server that placed it on a user's computer. In other words, the Times of India cookie is read by the Times of India web site, but not by Yahoo or Wikipedia. You might therefore think of a cookie as a device that helps one snoop after a guest in his/her own house, but not in neighboring houses or public areas. However, this weakness has been overcome by Google in its takeover of advertising powerhouse DoubleClick. DoubleClick was the leading provider of Internet-based advertising, tracking users' behavior across

cyberspace and placing advertising banners on web sites. The company is a long-time nemesis of privacy advocates. In February 2000, EPIC filed a complaint with the FTC alleging that DoubleClick was unlawfully tracking the online activities of Internet users and combining surfing records with detailed personal profiles contained in a national marketing database. The case ended in a settlement, pursuant to which DoubleClick undertook a line of commitments to improve its data collection practices, increase transparency and provide users with opt out options. DoubleClick continues to utilize third-party cookies as well as its "DART" (Dynamic, Advertising Reporting, and Targeting) technology to track user activity across multiple web sites.

In its complaint to the FTC about the Google-DoubleClick merger, EPIC

had alleged that by purchasing Doubleclick, Google expanded its ability to pervasively monitor users not only on its web site but also on cyberspace as a whole.

Third, much like IP addresses, cookies are arguably not "personal data" because they identify a specific browser (typically, a computer) as opposed to an individual person. Yet, if a cookie and related search log could be cross-referenced with an individual's name, the cookie itself would become personal data. Think of the cookie as a label on

a "box of personal data" of an unnamed person, who is under investigation by a Investigating Officer. Typically, the label says something like "740674ce2123e969," and thus does not implicate anyone's privacy. Yet, once the Investigating Officer comes across the person's name, she immediately affixes it to the label, rendering the

contents of the box "personal data." The box of personal data is of course analogous to a user's search log and Google to the Investigating Officer. And there are plenty of instances in which Google comes across a user's real name. In addition to its search engine, Google provides users with a wide array of online services, many of which require registration using real name and e-mail address credentials. First and

foremost is Gmail, the ubiquitous web based e-mail service launched in April 2004 as a private beta release by invitation only and opened to the public in February 2007.

Gmail gained its prominence and notoriety by providing a simple bargain for users: get an unprecedented amount of online storage space; [When Gmail was initially launched in 2004 with 1GB of storage space, Hotmail, its leading competitor, provided users with 2MB (that is, 0.2% of what Gmail gave). ] gave Google the opportunity to scan your e-mails' contents and add to them context-sensitive advertisements. The launch of Gmail turned out to be one of the most controversial product launches in the history of the Internet and placed Google at the center of a fierce privacy debate.

Privacy advocates criticized the precedent set by Google of eliminating a person's expectation of privacy in the contents of her communications, as well as the consequential violation of non-subscribers' privacy interests in their correspondence.

This Blog does not address the serious privacy issues raised by Gmail itself, but rather the synergetic privacy risk created by cross-referencing user search logs with information collected by Gmail as part of the registration process. In other words,registration to Gmail or additional Google services such as Google Talk (instant messaging service), Google Reader (RSS feeds), Google Calendar (a user’s schedule),

or Google Wallet (credit card/payment information for use on other sites), places the missing "name tag" on a user's search log, thereby rendering its contents highly combustive from a privacy perspective.Notice that cross-referencing user search logs with registration information is distinct from Google correlating search logs with users' e-mail contents, the prospect of which is an additional cause of concern for privacy advocates. It simply means Google can pick the name of a user off of his/her registration form and attach it to a cookie, which serves as the key to her search log.

In other words, because Google uses the same cookie to maintain a particular user's search history and to identify her when she logs-on to her Gmail account, the anonymous nature of the cookie is lost and the search log becomes sensitive personal data.

Finally, even thoroughly anonymized search logs can be traced back to their originating user. This can be done by combing search queries for personal identifiers, such as a social PAN Numbers or credit card details. It becomes simpler yet by the tendency of users to run "ego

searches" (also known as "vanity searches" or "egosurfing"), the practice of searching for one's own name on Google (once, twice, or many times per day). In fact, in its effort to quash the government subpoena issued in Gonzales v. Google, Google itself  posited that "search query contents can disclose identities and personally identifiable information such as user-initiated searches for their own social security or credit card

numbers, or their mistakenly pasted but revealing text."

There is also Google Web History, of course, which provides consenting users with a personalized search experience linked to a personal account. Hence, Google Web History explicitly de-anonymizes one's search log.

While it is true that users may register for services such as Gmail with a false or pseudonymous name, I suspect few do. I use Gmail as my main e-mail account due to its geographic and chronological versatility (you do not have to change e-mail addresses each time you relocate or switch jobs) and storage space. I use my real name, since I would not want colleagues or friends to receive e-mails from

"ADV" or "Prashant197" and have to guess that I am the sender.

To sum, the contents of user search logs are clearly personal in nature. The question is whether such contents may be traced to a specific user. Google's ability to combine IP addresses, persistent cookies and user registration information renders the data in search logs not only personal but also personally identifiable.

I suggest this in to be added in the definition of “personal data” of The Indian Privacy (Protection) Act,2013 an also in the definition of “Personal Information” as defined in The IT Act,2000

..Adv Prashant Mali is an Renowed Cyber Law & Cyber Security Expert Lawyer based out of Mumbai

Google and Indian Privacy Laws (Part I)

Google and Indian Privacy Laws (Part I)

Search engines are the most important actors on the Internet today and Google is the undisputed king of search. Google dominates the Internet, guiding users to the information they seek through an ocean of unrelated data with astonishing precision and speed. It is a powerful tool, evoking ambivalent feelings. On the one hand, we adore Google for its simple, modest-looking interface masking a hyper-complicated algorithm, which is the very essence of online ingenuity. We admire it for providing superb services at no (evident) cost, a practical miracle in today's market economy.

On the other hand, we grow wary of Google's increasing clout as the ultimate arbiter of commercial success ("to exist is to be indexed by a search engine") and as a central database for users' personal information, not only logging their search queries but also storing their e-mail (Gmail), calendars (Calendar), photos (Picasa), videos (YouTube), blogs (Blogger), documents (Docs & Spreadsheets), social networks (facebook), news feeds (Reader), credit card information (Checkout) – in short, their entire digital lives.

Google's access to and storage of vast amounts of personal data create a serious privacy problem, Princeton computer scientist Edward Felten had called "perhaps the most difficult privacy [problem] in all of human history." Every day, millions upon millions of users provide Google with unfettered access to their interests, needs, desires, fears, pleasures and intentions. Counter to conventional wisdom, this information is logged and maintained in a form which may facilitate the identification of specific users for various purposes, including not only their targetingwith effective advertising but also prosecution by the government or pursuit by private litigants. Let us put it like this, "link by link, click by click, search is building possibly the most lasting, ponderous, and significant cultural artifact in the history of humankind: the Database of Intentions." This "Database of Intentions" constitutes a honey pot for various actors, ranging from the CBI ,NIA, NTRO etc which expend crores of rupees on online surveillance and cannot overlook Google's information treasure trove, to hackers and data thieves, who routinely overcome information security systems no matter how robust.

A leading advocate for human rights, Privacy International, had initially ranked Google's privacy practices as the worst out of more than 20 leading Internet service providers, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon and eBay. ¹Privacy International describes Google as "an endemic threat to privacy."It criticizes Google's "aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies and techniques" and claims the company "fails to follow generally accepted privacy practices such as the OECD Privacy

Guidelines and elements of EU data protection law." EU data protection regulators time and again have also launched an investigation into Google's data retention and privacy practices, which was quickly expanded to cover other search engines as well. China’s Blockage is well known to the world.

How did Google evolve from being a benevolent giant seeking to "do no evil" into a privacy menace, an unruly private sector "big brother" reviled by human rights advocates worldwide? Are the fears of Google's omniscient presence justified or overstated? What personal data should Google be allowed to retain and for how long? Is Google Intermediary as per The IT Act,2000? What rules should govern access to Google's database? What are the legal protections currently available in India  and are they sufficient to quell the emerging privacy crisis? What does India's New The Privacy Protection Act,2013 have to say? These are the main issues I will address in Part II

1.Privacy International, A Race to the Bottom - Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies, A Consultation report

New Malware to Steal your Credit or Debit Card Details

Your Ultimate Bank Money Stealer is Here.. 

A new malware is discovered called “Dump Memory Grabber,” which has already been used to steal debit and credit card information from customers using major US banks including Chase, Citibank and Capital One, The malicious code is evidently being installed directly into point-of-sale (POS) hardware (meaning registers or kiosks) and ATMs, and transmitting the harvested information straight out of the magnetic stripes on credit and debit cards - which includes everything from account numbers, to first and last names and expiration dates.

How are attackers infecting physical systems? It is your favourite USB drives are the likely culprits, as modern register systems often have accessible ports, as well as direct connections to the Web.

The harvested information is then used to produce cloned cards, and they are likely succeeding with the help of individuals with direct access to the POS systems and ATMs - which could include employees.

Please think twice where to use your credit and debit cards !!!!

Denial-of-service (DoS) attack what it is ??

Denial-of-service (DoS) attack

Now all major organizations face DDoS attacks on their public facing servers, mainly banking and finance companies face the most with demands of ransom from attackers sitting in any corner of the world. Old approaches and solutions sometimes seem to not work, but remaining educated about the same(DoS or DDoS Attacks) always helps.

What is DoS ?

In a denial-of-service (DoS) attack, an attacker attempts to prevent legitimate users from accessing information or services. By targeting your computer and its network connection, or the computers and network of the sites you are trying to use, an attacker may be able to prevent you from accessing email, websites, online accounts (banking, etc.), or other services that rely on the affected computer.

The most common and obvious type of DoS attack occurs when an attacker "floods" a network with information. When you type a URL for a particular website into your browser, you are sending a request to that site's computer server to view the page. The server can only process a certain number of requests at once, so if an attacker overloads the server with requests, it can't process your request. This is a "denial of service" because you can't access that site.

An attacker can use spam email messages to launch a similar attack on your email account. Whether you have an email account supplied by your employer or one available through a free service such as Yahoo or Hotmail, you are assigned a specific quota, which limits the amount of data you can have in your account at any given time. By sending many, or large, email messages to the account, an attacker can consume your quota, preventing you from receiving legitimate messages.

What is a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack?

In a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, an attacker may use your computer to attack another computer. By taking advantage of security vulnerabilities or weaknesses, an attacker could take control of your computer. He or she could then force your computer to send huge amounts of data to a website or send spam to particular email addresses. The attack is "distributed" because the attacker is using multiple computers, including yours, to launch the denial-of-service attack.

How do you avoid being part of the problem?

Unfortunately, there are no effective ways to prevent being the victim of a DoS or DDoS attack, but there are steps you can take to reduce the likelihood that an attacker will use your computer to attack other computers:

·         Install and maintain updated anti-virus software (Please be it Legal avoid freeware)

·         Install a firewall, and configure it to restrict traffic coming into and leaving your computer (Avoid free ones and avoid two at a time).

·         Follow good security practices for distributing your email address. Applying email filters may help you manage unwanted traffic.(Check what solutions your ISP also uses)

How do you know if an attack is happening?

Not all disruptions to service are the result of a denial-of-service attack. There may be technical problems with a particular network, or system administrators may be performing maintenance. However, the following symptoms could indicate a DoS or DDoS attack:

·         unusually slow network performance (opening files or accessing websites)

·         unavailability of a particular website

·         inability to access any website

·         dramatic increase in the amount of spam you receive in your account

What do you do if you think you are experiencing an attack?

Even if you do correctly identify a DoS or DDoS attack, it is unlikely that you will be able to determine the actual target or source of the attack. Contact the appropriate technical professionals for assistance.

·         If you notice that you cannot access your own files or reach any external websites from your work computer, contact your network administrators. This may indicate that your computer or your organization's network is being attacked.

·         If you are having a similar experience on your home computer, consider contacting your internet service provider (ISP). If there is a problem, the ISP might be able to advise you of an appropriate course of action.

Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data in India-provisions required

ITA Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive

Personal Data or Information Rules 2011

The Personal Information Security Rules were notified in April 2011 and serve as

the most comprehensive form of data protection in India. The Rules prescribe procedures

and protocol by which body corporate must adhere to. The Rules can be brought in line

with the National Privacy Principles through the following changes:

1. Notice

Existing Provisions

o Privacy Policy: Anybody corporate that collects, receives, possesses, stores,

deals, or handles information must provide a privacy policy that provides for clear

and easily accessible statements of its practices and policies, type of personal or

sensitive personal data or information collected, purpose of collection and usage

of such information, disclosure of information, and reasonable security practices

and procedures. Rule 4

o During Collection: While collecting information directly from the person

concerned the body corporate shall take steps to ensure that the individual knows

that the information is being collected, the purpose for which the information is

being collected, the intended recipients of the information, the name and address

of the agency collecting the information and the agency that will retain the

information. Rule 5(3)

Missing Provisions

o Data Breach: If a data breach occurs, affected individuals must be notified

immediately.

o Legal Access: If information is legally accessed, the access must be notified at the

close of the investigation.

o Change in privacy policy: Any changes in a body corporate privacy policy

should be notified to the public and the individual.

o Process to access and correct: At the time of collection body corporates must

provide notice of the processes available to data subjects to access and correct

their own personal information.

2. Choice & Consent

Existing Provisions

o Individual Consent: Body corporates must obtain consent in writing through

letter or Fax, or email from the provider of the sensitive personal data or

information regarding purpose of usage before collection. Rule 5(1)

o Right to withdraw and opt in/opt out: Prior to collection of information, body

corporate must provide the individual not to provide the data sought. The provider

of information will have the right to withdraw consent at any time while availing

services. Rule 5(7)

Missing Provisions

o Mandatory provision: When provision of information is mandated by is should

be in compliance with all other National Privacy Principles. Information collected

on a mandatory basis should be anonymized within one year if published in public

databases.

3. Collection Limitation

Existing Provisions

o Necessary & Relevant: Body corporate shall not collect sensitive personal data

unless the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function

or activity of the body corporate. The collection of sensitive personal data is

considered necessary for the purpose. Rule 5(2)

4. Purpose Limitation

Existing Provisions

o Definition of Sensitive Personal Data: password, financial information such as

Bank account or credit card or debit card or other payment instrument details,

physical, physiological and mental health conditions, sexual orientation, medical

records and history, biometric information, any detail relating to the above as

provided to body corporate for providing service, any of this information received

by body corporate for processing, stored or processed under lawful contract. Any

information that is available or accessible in public domain or furnished under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 will not be regarded as sensitive personal data. Rule 3

o Retention: The Body Corporate holding sensitive personal data will not retain

that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the

information may be lawfully used or is required under any other law in force.Rule 5(4)

o Use: The information collected will be used for the purpose for which it has been

collected. Rule 5(5)

Missing Provisions

o Adequate and Relevant: Personal data collected and processed by an

organization must be adequate and relevant to the purposes for which they are

processed.

o Change in purpose: If there is a change in purpose, this must be notified to the

data subject.

o Destruction: After personal information has been used in accordance with the

identified purpose, it must be destroyed as per the identified procedures.

o Data Retention: Data retention mandates by the government should be in

compliance with the National Privacy Principles.

5. Access & Correction

Existing Provisions

o Access: Body corporate must permit the providers of information, when

requested, to review the information they had provided and ensure that any

personal information or sensitive personal data or information found to be

inaccurate or deficient shall be corrected or amended as feasible. Rule 5(6)

Missing Provisions:

o Confirmation of personal information: Data subjects should be able to confirm

that an organization holds or is processing information about them.

o Copy of personal information: Data subjects should be able to obtain a copy of

the personal data undergoing processing.

o Limitation to Access: The information may not be given or access permitted if it

is not possible to do so without disclosing information about another person unless

that persona has consented to the disclosure.

6. Disclosure of Information

Existing Provisions

O Consent for Disclosure: Disclosure of sensitive personal data or information by

body corporate to any third party shall require prior permission from the provider

of such information, unless disclosure has been agreed to by contract or is

necessary by legal obligation. Rule 6

o Prohibition on publishing: The body corporate will not publish the sensitive

personal data or information. Rule 6(3)

o Non-disclosure: The third party receiving the sensitive personal data will not

disclose it further. Rule 6(4)

o Transfer of Information: A body corporate may transfer sensitive personal data

to any body, organization, or country that ensures the same level of data

protection. The transfer can only take place for the performance of a lawful

contract or where the transfer has been consented to. Rule 7

Missing Provisions

o Notice of disclosure: Body corporate must provide notice of disclosure to third

parties.

o Bound to Principles: All third parties must be bound to the National Privacy

Principles.

Conflicting Provisions

o Authorized Agencies: Information will be share with Government Agencies

mandated under law without obtaining prior consent for the purposes of

verification of identity, for prevention, detection, investigation including cyber

incidents, prosecution, and punishments of offences. Rule 6

7. Security

Existing Provisions

o Security standards: A body corporate or person must have a comprehensive

documented information security program and information security policies that

contain managerial, technical, operational, and physical security control measures.

In the event of a breach, the body corporate must be able to demonstrate that they

have implemented security control measures. This includes being IS/ISO/IEC

27001 compliant. Rule 8(1)

o Audit: On any annual basis the body corporate must undergo an audit of his/her

reasonable security practices. Rule 8(4)

8. Openness

Missing Provisions

Transparency: Body corporate must make available to the public information

regarding the steps taken to ensure compliance with the National Privacy Principles

9. Accountability

Existing Provisions

· System of Complaints: Body Corporates must address any discrepancies and

grievances of their provider of the information with respect to the processing of

information in a time bound manner. To achieve this, a Grievance Officer must be

appointed to address these grievances. Rule 5(9)

Missing Provisions

o External verification: All processes related to the handling of sensitive personal

information [in addition to security systems] should undergo external verification

on a regular basis.

o Support to Privacy Commissioner: Body corporate should be held responsible

for giving support to the Privacy Commissioner and complying with general/specific

orders of the privacy commissioner.

10. Verification

Existing Provisions:

· Liability of accuracy: A body corporate is not responsible for the authenticity of

the personal information or sensitive personal data or information supplied by the

provider of information. Rule 5(6)

**Source - Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy

Adv Prashant Mali took session for police officers from 4 states on "IT Act, 2000,Digital Evidence,Investigation etc " at the Rajasthan Police Academy,Jaipur for a course named "Investigation of Cyber Crime" Sponsored by Bureau of Police Research &Development(BPR&D) in India.

Officers were found concentrating due to high number of Information technology related cases in almost all the police stations including those from rural areas

Computer Forensics Tools – Attacks-Legal Stand

Attacks on Computer Forensics Tools – Legal Stand

Direct attacks on the computer forensics process are the newest type of Anti-Forensics and potentially the most threatening.

There are six phases in the process of digital forensics; all are open to attack:

1. Identification refers to the method by which an investigator learns that there is some incident to investigate. This phase can be undermined by obscuring the incident, or hiding the nexus between the

digital device and the event under investigation.

2. Preservation describes the steps by which the integrity of the evidence is maintained. This phase can be undermined by interrupting the evidence chain or calling into doubt the integrity of the evidence

itself.

3. Collection is the process by which data from the evidence medium is acquired. This step can be undermined by limiting the completeness of the data being collected or calling into question the

hardware, software, policies, and procedures by which evidence is gathered.

4. Examination addresses how the evidence data is viewed. This part of the process can be undermined by showing that the tools themselves are inadequate, incomplete, or otherwise not scientifically valid.

5. Analysis is the means by which an investigator draws conclusions from the evidence. This phase relies on the tools, investigative prowess of the examiner, and the rest of the evidence that was found. If a

case hinges solely on digital evidence, the interpretation of the evidence is the part most open to attack.

6. Presentation refers to the methods by which the results of the digital investigation are presented to the court, jury, or other fact-finders. If the evidence is otherwise solid, anti-forensics tools and methods will be used to attack the reliability and thoroughness of the reports -- or the examiner.

Courts throughout the world have long had to deal with scientific evidence and have had to establish rules for

what is acceptable and unacceptable in this realm.

In the U.S., the guiding principle in federal courts and many

state courts is patterned after the seminal case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (SC- United States-1993). According to Daubert, a judge can determine the admissibility of scientific evidence

based upon four factors:

• Testing: Can -- and has -- the procedure been tested?

• Error Rate: Is there a known error rate of the procedure?

• Publication: Has the procedure been published and subject to peer review?

• Acceptance: Is the procedure generally accepted in the relevant scientific community?