There is a lot of heated debated about the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) – is it a Y2K damp squib or PPI/Libor/Forex all over again?
The General Data Protection Regulation is more certainty much more than Information Security and Privacy-by-Design which are just table stakes in the future.
The Regulation covers:
- the right to be informed of personally identifiable information gathered and processed
- the right of access to personally identifiable information
- the right to rectification of mistakes
- the right to erasure of personally identifiable information
- the right to restrict processing personally identifiable information
- the right to data portability to a new supplier
- the right to object to marketing, scientific and historical research
- the right to not be subject to automated decision making and profiling.
I agree that the maximum fine will probably never be levied but the range is sufficient to put it in the same impact levels of the fines that banks have suffered in the last decade. The fine will be based on the ability to pay and the perceived damage caused by a breach. There is also threat of private civil action by those individuals who can claim damages for breaches of the regulation.
The challenge for technologists is to provide compliant holistic solutions that meet the very inexact wording of the regulation around what are reasonable measures. These requirements themselves will be driven by newly formed governance bodies, internal and external compliance, legal counsel, marketers, external suppliers and data processors. A technology programme with a multitude of stakeholders and vague requirements is seldom a success.
The personally identifiable information itself is usually scattered among a number of front office, back office and supplier systems usually without good links to relate the information. There is also the risk that the data resides in the Shadow IT of the organisation away from the control of the technology department.
There are also technical challenges in the solutions proposed, for example, the regulation says that data must be encrypted but as any infosec expert will attest encryption is only as good as the algorithm and where you store the encryption keys. As for the right of erasure, that will be the topic of a future post on the technical challenges of achieving that requirement.
I applaud vendors such as Microsoft this week certifying their solutions can support making an organisation GDPR compliant but that shouldn’t take the focus off the overall organisational and technological change required.
At the moment, it seems we suffer from the streetlight effect in only looking for problems that are perceivably the easiest to fix.