Tag: privacy rights

The Current Debate on the UK Digital ID (“BritCard”) is Misleading – Here’s Why!

nielharper

The current negative debate about the BritCard is misleading because it largely relies on outdated assumptions about technology and centralization, ignoring the fundamental privacy safeguards that several countries have proven work effectively. The central flaw in the critical narrative is that it assumes a 21st-century digital ID is equivalent to the 1950s physical paper card or a single, insecure database. As with any technology, there are pros and cons to digital ID, but to act like it’s mass surveillance or gratuitous privacy violating is just wrong. What’s even more concerning to me is that a lot of the misinformation is being peddled by “privacy experts”.

Progressive countries like Singapore, Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, UAE, and Germany all have digital ID systems. Digital ID facilitates streamlined access to services, increased efficiency, financial inclusion, reduced fraud, and enhanced security. Regarding privacy, they actually allow for contextual data sharing, which privacy experts have asked for repeatedly.

Data protection legislation and digital identity legislation have been coupled together in many countries to establish standards for security, user consent, data protection, and independent regulation. Moreover, privacy and security controls like zero knowledge protocol, unique ID verification, secure storage, data minimization, decentralized data exchange, and biometric safeguards, among others are employed to protect the privacy of individuals.

I have digital IDs for Denmark, Estonia, and Germany, and they are nothing like what these negative arguments suggest.

NOTE: The proposed central use case for the BritCard of combating illegal immigration is ill conceived and distorts the debate around the pros and cons of digital ID.

Comments on the Barbados Cybercrime Bill (2023)

nielharper

PART II – PROHIBITED CONDUCT

Illegal access

Part II (4) (1-2) is far too broad in its scope and can implicate innocent or well meaning individuals such as cybersecurity professionals, researchers, activists, and whistleblowers. It’s even more problematic where judicial officers aren’t trained to understand how to distinguish criminality from activities that serve the public interest, protect organizations, or advance the cybersecurity profession.* Certain guidance should be included with the legislation to distinguish between acceptable and criminal behaviours.

For example, the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) includes 172 recitals – also known as preamble – that provides context and explains the reasons for the regulations. There was also an explanatory memorandum that provided further details on the proposed legislation.

Misuse of devices

Part II (9) (a-b) There are a number of dual use programmes and applications which can be and are used for both legitimate testing and protection of computer systems and conversely for malicious intent. There should be language here which acknowledges such and removes criminality in cases of ethical hacking for instance.

Disclosure of access codes

Part II (11) (1) There are several legitimate reasons for sharing access codes or credentials without authority, and this alone should not be illegal. The qualifier for criminality should be when the individual knowingly or has reason to believe that it is likely to cause loss, damage or injury to any person or property.

Critical information infrastructure system

Part II (12) (1) The list of critical information infrastructure (CII) systems is too limited in scope. A broader list should be published as an appendix or guidance note when the act is proclaimed (e.g., financial services, water utility, transportation, healthcare, hospitality, etc.). This should not be vague or left up to interpretation.

Note: Complementary critical infrastructure (CI) protection legislation is needed to ensure that:

  • There is a legal framework or a mechanism to identify operators of critical information infrastructure.
  • Operators of critical (information) infrastructure are required to assess and manage cyber risks and/or implement cybersecurity measures.
  • Public sector organizations are required to assess and manage cyber risks and/or implement cybersecurity measures.
  • A competent authority has been designated and allocated powers to supervise the implementation of cyber/information security measures.

Malicious communications

Part II (19) (3) This is deeply problematic and can be used to stifle freedom of expression or valuable public commentary. It can also be leveraged to prevent criticisms of politicians/public personalities or for the purpose of political persecution. This same vague language exists in the Computer Misuse Act 2005, and has been improperly used for the same abuses identified. There must be safeguards and/or independent supervision in place to ensure that such vague clauses are not abused. This applies to several other elements of this Bill.**

Cyber bullying

Part II (20) (1) – Same as the previous comment.

Cyber terrorism

Part II (21) (1-2) This is too limited in scope and should include any use of computer systems for terrorism or organized crime. It should also include preparatory acts for terrorism or organized crimes (these are not the crimes themselves but the precipitating actions).

PART III – INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Search and seizure

Part III (23) (1-2) gives law enforcement excessively broad powers when it comes to confiscation and access to computer systems (including smaller form factors such as tablets and mobile phones). These types of powers require independent and effective oversight functions (as does this entire Act).

Assisting a police officer

Part III (24) (1-5) Some of the provisions in this section are concerning and can be used to force individuals to grant access to their personal devices, especially in the event that the grounds for disclosure have not been met. Again, this requires independent and effective oversight functions, and the oath of a police officer shouldn’t be enough to obtain a warrant that grants such far reaching powers.

Production of data for criminal proceedings

Part III (26) (1) This gives law enforcement excessively broad and intrusive surveillance powers when it comes to intercepting Internet communications, compelling service providers to handover subscriber data and Internet activity, and other potentially disproportionate collection or interception of online communications. These types of powers require independent and effective oversight functions. Again, the oath of a police officer shouldn’t be enough to obtain a warrant that allows for such intrusive acts.

Preservation of data for criminal proceedings

Part III (28) (1-3) There is no discussion of the conditions and safeguards for adequate protection of human rights and liberties when collecting and storing (preservation) data for criminal proceedings. This includes maintaining the “chain of custody”, protection of personal data in line with the Data Protection Act, handling of sensitive data, retention periods, adequate security measures, automated decisions (e.g., use of AI), sharing personal or sensitive data with third-parties, records of how data is accessed and used, etc. The provisions should also include judicial or other independent supervision, grounds justifying application, and limitation of the scope and the duration of such power or procedure.

General observations – Part III

Part III (Investigation and enforcement) is missing key provisions related to:

  • Joint investigations or joint investigation teams
  • Expert witness testimony by video conferencing
  • Emergency mutual assistance (which is different to expedited disclosure)

ALIGNMENT WITH THE BUDAPEST CONVENTION

2nd Protocol of the Budapest Convention

It is clear that the Cybercrime Bill was patterned after the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Budapest Convention, which has been deemed as outdated or deficient for several reasons. The Additional Protocol and the Second Additional Protocol of the Budapest Convention treat additional issues around racism, xenophobia, enhanced cooperation, and access to electronic evidence (e-evidence). The drafters of this Bill do not appear to have integrated the substantive updates from the additional protocols or consider the protections and safeguards required by the Budapest Convention to protect human rights. So it looks like the government is essentially looking to enact legislation that is outdated and not in step with current technology developments or evolving jurisprudence.

* Training of judicial officers, especially with regards to technology law and privacy law, is a major problem in the country. Because these specialist areas of law are emerging, there is poor understanding of the issues by magistrates, judges, prosecutors, etc. and limited case law to refer to locally or in other regional jurisdictions. Consequently, many rulings / decisions have flawed bases, and individuals are often under- or over-penalised.

** The Budapest Convention, on which the Cybercrime Bill is based has an accompanying 60-page explanatory report that specifies the additional checks and balances and rule of law-based environment that countries like Barbados should have underpinning their cybercrime legislation. The explanatory report also covers the background, scope, objectives, and main provisions of the Convention, as well as the challenges and opportunities of cybercrime.

The current version of the Cybercrime Bill (2023) can be found here: https://bit.ly/3uLrSQC

UPDATE: On 6 May 2024, I presented a more detailed critique of the Cybercrime Bill to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee. The presentation can be found HERE.