CYBER CRIME STATISTICS FOR 2013 & 2020

Every second at least 12 internet users in the WORLD fall victim to cyber criminals and the number keeps increasing every year, it has been revealed. A surge in viruses targeting mobile apps is a new disturbing trend in cyber-attacks. 

A significant number attacks – 19 percent – target financial assets, while the number of cybercrimes organized with the purpose of mere mischief-making is now extremely low. 

According to one of the recent surveys by computer security firm Kaspersky Labs and B2B International, 62 percent of respondents had at least one incident of cybercriminals attempting to steal financial information. 

The convenience of online shopping and banking services are among the major risk factors for end users

According to experts at RSA security, cybercrime continues to improve its techniques and the way it organizes and targets victims. The RSA Anti-Fraud Command Center (AFCC) has developed the following list of the top cybercrime trends it expects to see evolve:

• As the world goes mobile, cybercrime will follow
• The privatization of banking, trojans and other malware
• Hacktivism and the ever-targeted enterprise
• Account takeover and increased use of manually-assisted cyber attacks
• Cybercriminals will leverage Big Data principles to increase the effectiveness of attacks

Cybercrime activities are globally diffused, financially-driven acts. Such computer-related fraud is prevalent, and makes up around one third of acts around the world.

Another conspicuous portion of cybercrime acts are represented by computer content, including child pornography, content related to terrorism offenses, and piracy. Another significant portion of crime relates to acts against confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of computer systems. That includes illegal access to a computer system, which accounts for another one third of all acts.

The McAfee security firm estimated that cybercrime and cyber espionage are costing the US economy $100 billion per year, and the global impact is nearly $300 billion annually. Considering that the World Bank estimated that global GDP was about $70,000 billion in 2011, the overall impact of cybercrime is 0.04 percent of global income, an amazing figure.

Cyber criminals are improving ways to be non-traceable and to be more resistant in their malicious structures to take down operations by law enforcement. Hackers are improving their infrastructure, for example adopting peer-to-peer protocols, or hiding command and control infrastructures in anonymizing environments, such as the Tor Network.

What’s the end user impact of cybercrime? What’s the perception of the risks related to principal cyber threats?

The Symantec security firm has just released the 2013 Norton Report, the annual research study which examines the consumers’ online behaviors, the dangers and financial cost of cyber crime.

Also, their data confirms the concerning results of other analysis. Cyber criminal activities and related profit are in constant growth, the cost per cybercrime victim is up 50 percent, and the global price tag of consumer cyber crime is $113 billion annually. That’s a result of the concerns security analysts consider. It also effects the actual global economic scenario and the difficulties faced by enterprises.

This data was reported in the Norton Report, a document considered one of the world’s “largest consumer cyber crime studies, based on self-reported experiences of more than 13,000 adults across 24 countries, aimed at understanding how cybercrime affects consumers, and how the adoption and evolution of new technologies impacts consumers’ security.”

CYBER CRIME SCENARIO BY 2020

What will the cybercrime landscape look like in 2020? It’s difficult to predict the evolution of such a complex ecosystem. Technologies evolve at impressive speed, and with them, opportunities for cyber crime.

The European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) at Europol, and the International Cyber Security Protection Alliance (ICSPA) presented in a study titled Project 2020: Scenarios for the Future of Cybercrime – White Paper for Decision Makers, an overall predictable scenario of cyber crime in 2020. They evaluated a scenario under three different perspectives, from an individual, company and government point of view.

The document proposed worst-case scenarios, highlighting:

• Increased abuse for cloud infrastructures. Cyber criminals will increase the use of cloud technology to launch DDOS attacks, or host botnets. Underground market offerings will mature to support cyber gangs in the organization of sophisticated cyber attacks.
• It will be very difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal activity.
• Data protection is already a challenge in relation to the internet. The future reality of large scale Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) deployment, global sensor proliferation, aggregation of data and highly personalized, augmented services will require the legal frameworks for privacy and security to further adapt.
• Increased need for identity protection due the enlargement of individuals’ online experiences.
• Regarding privacy; as governments establish more privacy laws, the risk of incompatibility between countries increases, creating more roadblocks for responding to cyber crime.
• The heterogeneous legal framework will allow criminals to choose optimal target countries for illegal activities, and the best sources to engage attacks.
• A lack of unity in internet governance means a lack of unity in cyber security. Regardless of the precise number of governance authorities operating in 2020, there’ll need to be broad consensus on standards, to ensure interoperability of emerging internet mediated technologies, including augmented reality and “the Internet of Things.”
• A consolidation of user encryption management to avoid surveillance activities operated by governments could give cyber criminals an advantage.
• Threats will continue to blur the distinction between cyber and physical attacks (such as human implants, SCADA systems, etc.) Virtual reality technologies may lead to psychological attacks.
• Conventional thinking of protected and absolute control of intellectual property may lead to conditional control, as some governments may become dovish in responding to the increasingly prevalent (legal and illegal) access to IP. (However unlikely governments are to shift traditional thinking, they may enact policies that move with the punches of an increasing risk of IP theft, rather than put up a fight.)
• Data protection tools and laws will have to meet the increasing accessibility and proliferation of data.

The principal threats related to cyber crime activities could be grouped into the following categories:

• Intrusion for monetary or other benefits
• Interception for espionage
• Manipulation of information or networks
• Data destruction
• Misuse of processing power
• Counterfeit items
• Evasion tools and techniques

In the next year, almost all these cyber menaces will continue to concern authorities. The principal losses will be attributable to cyber espionage and sabotage activities. SMBs will be most impacted by cyber crime. That’s why it’s necessary that cyber strategies of governments include a series of mitigation countermeasures for principal cyber threats. Critical infrastructure and defense systems will represent privileged targets for cyber criminals and state sponsored hackers. The two categories of attackers will be difficult to distinguish in chaotic cyberspace.

“Evolved threats to critical infrastructure and human implants will increasingly blur the distinction between cyber and physical attack, resulting in offline destruction and physical injury.”

I predict That ..Attacks on Satellite in Space or infecting them and Worms infecting Devices used in Human Body and the new breed of Doctors fixing infection to devices fitted in Human Body called the "Cyber Doctors would evolve. 

Net neutrality slowly would expire..Google & fb to dominate

Net neutrality what it is?
Net neutrality is an idea which stipulates that internet service providers (ISPs) only enable general web connectivity and cannot selectively connect to one website and not the other. Whether you are reading the news or browsing photographs on the web, you get the same internet speed. All ISPs open all (legal) websites whether they like it or not. They do not slow down access to Facebook or speed up access to YouTube. They do not charge extra money from Twitter or Flickr for speeding up connection to these websites. In sum, ISPs are content-agnostic. They just provide the connection at a speed for which a user is paying. Also, unlike cable TV where you have to pay for channels, for the internet you just pay for the connection.

Net neutrality has some obvious advantages. It is great from the perspective of freedom of speech. It is up to a user to access what he wants on the web.

But a bigger advantage of net neutrality is that it creates a level-playing field for all web services and websites. Whether it is a blog owned and managed by one person or Facebook, which employs thousands of engineers, all websites have access to the same connection speed. This allows people to innovate. Imagine, there is no net neutrality and ISPs provide connection speed to a particular website or service depending on how much that service pays. In this case a website like Facebook, which is big and rich will be able to pay more to get better connection speed. But a startup, which wants to challenge Facebook, will not have the same kind of resources. It won't be able to pay ISPs what Facebook can. Result? For users, Facebook will open faster on their computers. The website of the new startup will be slow and hence will never get popular.

Net neutrality sounds like a nice idea. So why do some companies not want to follow it?

While net neutrality is just an idea, albeit the one that has shaped the internet, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the US has been putting in place some rules for the last 10 years to make sure that this idea continues to drive the internet industry forward. However, powerful ISPs in the US are not very happy about it. They argue that they should be allowed to shape and manage the internet traffic the way they want because that is the future. These ISPs say that building internet infrastructure is expensive and as more and more people connect to the web and new services like YouTube and Netflix, which consume lots of bandwidth, come online, they have to shape traffic to maintain quality.

The ISPs also argue that when companies like Google are making huge sums of money from services like YouTube, which has high bandwidth requirement, they should be allowed to charge for connecting consumers to these services. In sum, they want a share in the money companies like YouTube and Netflix are making.

Finally, the argument is that traffic also needs to be shaped so that some services can get higher priority over others. ISPs say that internet speed for critical services like credit card payment should get priority over something like opening a video of cats playing with dogs.

In 2010, FCC came up with a set of new rules to maintain net neutrality. ISPs did not like that and in 2011 challenged the rules in court. On January 14, a federal appeals court termed the FCC rules invalid.

What did the appeals court in the US say?

There are lots of legalities and technicalities in the court order that invalidates the FCC rules. It doesn't invalidate the idea of net neutrality. It only says that the 2010 FCC rules have no legal basis. Here is a key passage from the ruling:

We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers. Given the Commission's still-binding decision to classify broadband providers not as providers of "telecommunications services" but instead as providers of "information services," see supra at 9-10, such treatment would run afoul of section 153(51): "A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services."

Does the court order spell death of net neutrality?

No, it does not, although it definitely allows ISPs a little more wiggle room to experiment with how they provide internet services. In an interview with Recode, a technology website, Susan Crawford, a law professor, explained that the FCC has an easy way out to enforce net neutrality. At least technically by classifying ISPs as common carriers. "All it has to do is relabel these services as common carriage services. It's likely that's what they'll end up doing," Crawford said.

However, the debate over net neutrality is not just about the rules. There is lots of politics involved and different players have different stake in this game. ISPs in the US are powerful and have strong political ties. They can lobby hard to get what they want. At one of point of time, companies like Google and Facebook were staunchly in support for net neutrality but now when they rule the web, they don't show the same agility in protecting the nature of internet that allowed them to grow so big.

Still, the idea of net neutrality is the foundation of the web as we know it. And it will be difficult to do away with it for any company, a group of organizations or even a government without forging a broad coalition.

How is the ruling going to impact you, the user?

Currently, there is going to be no impact on end users. Even in the US, consumers will likely get the same internet access. In the long run, however, there could be some impact. The biggest impact of this ruling is that it is going to embolden ISPs. They will like to keep the status quo and resist if FCC attempts to formulate new rules to protect the idea of net neutrality. Gradually, ISPs will like to move towards a system of web connectivity where they have more control over the traffic flowing through their servers.

But whenever that happens, the change will be gradual and not without any resistance. Any move to shape traffic in a significant way will likely attract lawsuits in the US, given that this continues to be a grey area and law is not very clear on it. One day, maybe the US Supreme Court will rule on the topic of net neutrality. Or maybe the US lawmakers take up the matter and come out with a set of rules that will either enforce net neutrality or do away with it. But all of this is not happening any time soon. For now you can keep on using your internet connection the way you want.

Facebook Wants to Listen to Your Phone Calls and invade Privacy

Facebook Wants to Listen to Your Phone Calls !!
Cellphone users who attempt to install the Facebook Messenger app are asked to agree to terms of service that allow the social networking giant to use the microphone on their device to record audio at any time without their permission.
As the screenshot above illustrates , users are made to accept an agreement that allows Facebook to “record audio with the microphone….at any time without your confirmation.”
The Terms Of Sservice also authorizes Facebook to take videos and pictures using the phone’s camera at any time without permission, as well as directly calling numbers, again without permission, that could incur charges.
But wait, there’s more! Facebook can also “read your phone’s call log” and “read data about contacts stored on your phone, including the frequency with which you’ve called, emailed or communicated in other ways with specific individuals.”
Although most apps on Android and Apple devices include similar terms to those pictured above, this is easily the most privacy-busting set of mandates we’ve seen so far.
Since the vast majority of people will agree to these terms without even reading them, cellphone users are agreeing to let Facebook monitor them 24/7, green lighting the kind of open ended wiretap that would make even the NSA jealous.

Online Banking & Credit Card Fraud Advisory !!

Online Banking & Credit Card Fraud Advisory !!

After listening to plight of sufferers from various online and credit card banking related frauds and handling so many cases of fraud right from Rs. 15 thousand  to Rs. 52 Lakhs, i have humbly by experience come to following conclusion and Advisory

1. Every Net banking users should have two bank accounts

2. One in technology oriented banks like icici, hdfc,axis,yes,sbi etc with online banking option etc

3. One account in any other cooperative bank but balance up to Rs. 100000/- only na d if you want to have more balance at hand Rs. 1 lakh each in different trustworthy cooperative banks. Rest can be in fixed Deposits 

[ This is said coz RBI only insures up to 1 lakh i.e if the bank goes kaput up to 1lakh RBI will pay you]

4. In the technology oriented bank maintain only amount needed for handling online transactions as Bill payment or ticketing e.t.c

5. When ever required, money can be transferred to online banking account by cheque/DD/cash etc

6. Go back to your banks and check whether in your account opening form you have ticked for Online Banking or Mobile Banking , please untick the same

7. Please go to your bank immediately and ask them to issue chip based credit/debit cards to avoid cloning(this can take time but RBI had asked banks to do this by june 2013)

8. Any extra cash in the online banking account can be moved to Fixed deposits .

9. Avoid Mobile Banking / mobile payment gateway completely till standards, rules and regulations are formulated, take my word i m getting ready to handle mobile banking and payment related frauds as cases have started tickling. 

10. Even though i personally  hate handling cash, but in Indian markets cash still remains a king and various frauds in banking are asserting the faith in cash based economy again..

God Bless You by Lots of Money and Bless You further to Keep it safe safe and safe always

What is Sensitive Personal Data or Information in India ?

What is Sensitive Personal Data or Information in India ? 

[ DATA PROTECTION LAWS IN INDIA ]

Sensitive Personal Data or Information though not directly defined in The Section 2 of The IT Act, 2000. But the definition which has force of law is  defined under the section 3  of  THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (REASONABLE SECURITY PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES AND SENSITIVE PERSONAL DATA OR INFORMATION) RULES, 2011 made by Central Government In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ob) of sub­section (2) of section 87 read with section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Section 3 reads as 

3.    Sensitive personal data or information.—

 Sensitive personal data or information of a person means such personal information which consists of 

 information relating to;―

(i)  password;

     (ii) financial information such as Bank account or credit card or debit card or other payment instrument details ;

       (iii) physical, physiological and mental health condition;

       (iv) sexual orientation;

       (v) medical records and history;

       (vi) Biometric information

      (vii) any detail relating to the above clauses as provided to body corporate for providing service; and

      (viii) any of the information received under above clauses by body corporate for processing, stored or processed under lawful contract or otherwise:

        provided that, any information that is freely available or accessible in public domain or furnished under  the Right to Information Act, 2005 or any other law for the time being in force shall not be regarded as  sensitive personal data or information for the purposes of these rules. 

        To enlarge this definition further 

Definition’s of

1.   Data

2.   Information

3.   Personal Information 

4.   Body corporate

Have to be added to the definition of “Sensitive Personal Data or Information” as legislature have defined them separately.

Section 2(1)(o) of The IT ACT,2000 Defines "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer;

Section 2(1)(v) of The IT ACT,2000 Defines "Information" as

        "Information" includes data, message, text, images, sound, voice, codes, computer programs, software and databases or micro film or computer generated micro fiche; 

Section 2(1)(i) defines Personal Information as “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.

        "Body Corporate" is defined under Explanation (i) of The Section 43-A of The IT Act, 2000 as "Body corporate" means any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other  association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities; 

      

       So the full length definition of Sensitive Personal Data or Information would be 

       Sensitive personal data or information of a person 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 any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities, is capable of identifying such person  which consists of  data, message, text, images, sound, voice, codes, computer programs, software and databases or micro film or computer generated micro fiche relating to;―

         (i)  password;

        (ii) financial information such as Bank account or credit card or debit card or   other payment instrument details ;

        (iii) physical, physiological and mental health condition;

        (iv) sexual orientation;

        (v) medical records and history;

        (vi) Biometric Information

        (vii) any detail relating to the above clauses as provided to body corporate for providing service; and

       (viii) any of the information received under above clauses by body corporate for processing, stored or  processed under lawful contract or otherwise:

        provided that, any information that is freely available or accessible in public domain or furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or any other law for the time being in force shall not be regarded as 

       sensitive personal data or information for the purposes of these rules. 

       Also, reading carefully clause (viii) above the further intention of legislature could also be found out that Information any information that is NOT freely available or accessible in public domain or furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or any other law for the time being in force shall  be regarded as sensitive personal data or information for the purposes of these rules. 

       even though presence of the word shall gives it a directive meaning.

       So the questions could be :

if someone lays hand on my mobile phone  CDR(Call Data Record) illegally and finds out  whether i am calling which Specialist Doctor or psychiatrist or Specialist Lab like Thyrocare e.t.c does it reveal my medical record or history or Mental health condition or it gives certain conclusion to the  person who has illegally procured  my CDR. 

 I feel Yes !!

        If i am calling my banker or my stock broker or private equity guy or any lender or investor isn't the CDR revealing it all my financial details.

 I feel Yes !!

       CDR (call data record) thus falls under definition of Sensitive Personal Data or Information under the IT Act, 2000

Other Examples of Sensitive Personal Data would be:

1.   Pathology Lab Reports.

2.   Sex determination test.

3.   Height or Weight of the person

4.   Bank Statement.

5.   Credit card /Debit card Statements.

6.   Cheque or Demand Draft or Pay order or echeque details

7.   PIN Number

8.   DIN Number

9.   Secret Question to reveal password

10. Electronic keys e.t.c

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted the right to life to mean right to dignified life in Kharak Singh case especially the minority judgment of Subba Rao, J. In Gobind v. State of M.P, Mathew J.,

delivering the majority judgment asserted that the right to privacy was itself a fundamental right, but subject to some restrictions on the basis of compelling public interest. Privacy as such interpreted by our Apex Court in its various judgments means different things to different people. Privacy is a desire to be left alone, the desire to be paid for

ones data and ability to act freely.

Right to privacy relating to a person’s correspondence has become a debating issue due to the technological developments. In R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court observed that, the Court will not tolerate safeguards for the protection of the citizen to be imperilled by permitting the police to proceed by unlawful or irregular methods. Telephone tapping is an invasion of right to privacy and freedom of speech and expression and also Government cannot impose prior restraint on publication of defamatory materials against its officials and if it does so, it would be violative of Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India the Supreme Court held that right to hold a telephonic conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as right to privacy. In this case the Supreme Court had laid down certain procedural guidelines to conduct legal interceptions, and also provided for a high-level review committee to investigate the relevance for such interceptions.

Conclusion :

So if Body Corporate Do not follow reasonable security practices to safe guard Sensitive Personal Data or Information of all the data they possess have to pay severe compensation to the entity/ person whose data so gets compromised.

Sensitive Personal Data or Information though defined in the IT Rules of 2011under The IT Act, cannot be construed strictly as it is said law lies in its interpretation and history has shown interpretation differs in different times .The definition cannot be strictly construed for two reasons. One because the definition encompasses various words which are defined separately and cognizance have to be taken to arrive at intentions of the legislature and society at large and Second because what can be sensitive to one person at one time cannot be sensitive to other person at different timings. As today if we get Call Data Records of Harshad Mehta or Nathuram Ghodse even though the data so obtained would remain personal but not sensitive coz of time has passed by and so is relevance.

      

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