The Official (ISC)2 SSCP CBK Reference. Mike Wills

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ much depth about any of these particular frameworks, legal systems, or regulatory systems. Regardless, it's important that as an SSCP you become aware of the expectations in law and practice, for the communities that your business serves, in regard to protecting the confidentiality of data you hold about individuals you deal with.

      PII and NPI

Many information security professionals are too well aware of personally identifiable information (PII) and the needs in ethics and law to protect its privacy. If you've not worked in the financial services sector, you may not be aware of the much broader category of nonpublished personal information (NPI). The distinction between these two seems simple enough:

       PII is that information that is used to identify, locate, or contact a specific person.

       NPI is all information regarding that person that has not been made public and is not required to be made public.

      However, as identity and credential attacks have grown in sophistication, many businesses and government services providers have been forced to expand their use of NPI as part of their additional authentication challenges, when a person tries to initiate a session with them. Your bank, for example, might ask you to confirm or describe some recent transactions against one of your accounts, before they will let a telephone banking consultation session continue. Businesses may issue similar authentication challenges to someone calling in, claiming to be an account representative from a supplier or customer organization.

      Three important points about NPI and PII need to be kept in mind:

       Legal definitions are imprecise and subject to continuous change. Many different laws, in many jurisdictions, may directly specify what types of information are considered as PII or NPI. Other laws may make broad categorical statements about what is or is not PII or NPI. These laws are updated often and subject to review by the courts in many nations.

       Doing business in a jurisdiction does not require physical presence there. If your organization has one customer or supplier in a jurisdiction – possibly even a single prospective such relationship – that government may consider its laws and regulations now apply to you. Ignoring this is a frequent and costly mistake that many businesses make.

       Persons include companies and organizations as well as natural people. Businesses and organizations share significant quantities and types of information with each other, much of which they do not wish to have made public. Privacy considerations and the need for information security protections apply here, as well as they do to data about individual people.

      It may be safest to treat all data you have about any person you deal with as if it is NPI, unless you can show where it has been made public. You may then need to identify subsets of that NPI, such as health care, education, or PII, as defined by specific laws and regulations, that may need additional protections or may be covered by audit requirements.

      Private and Public Places

Part of the concept of privacy is connected to the reasonable expectation that other people can see and hear what you are doing, where you are (or are going), and who might be with you. It's easy to see this in examples: Walking along a sidewalk, you have every reason to think that other people can see you, whether they are out on the sidewalk as well, looking out the windows of their homes, offices, or passing vehicles. The converse is that when out on that public sidewalk, out in the open spaces of the town or city, you have no reason to believe that you are not visible to others. This helps differentiate between public places and private places.

       Public places are areas or spaces in which anyone and everyone can see, hear, or notice the presence of other people and observe what they are doing, intentionally or unintentionally. There is little to no degree of control as to who can be in a public place. A city park is a public place.

       Private places are areas or spaces in which, by contrast, you as owner (or person responsible for that space) have every reason to believe that you can control who can enter, participate in activities with you (or just be a bystander), observe what you are doing, or hear what you are saying. You choose to share what you do in a private space with the people you choose to allow into that space with you. In law, this is your reasonable expectation of privacy, because it is “your” space; and the people you allow to share that space with you share in that reasonable expectation of privacy.

      Your home or residence is perhaps the prime example of what we assume is a private place. Typically, business locations can be considered private in that the owners or managing directors of the business set policies as to whom they will allow into their place of business. Customers might be allowed into the sales floor of a retail establishment but not into the warehouse or service areas, for example. In a business location, however, it is the business owner (or its managing directors) who have the most compelling reasonable expectation of privacy, in law and in practice. Employees, clients, or visitors cannot expect that what they say or do in that business location (or on its IT systems) is private to them and not “in plain sight” to the business. As an employee, you can reasonably expect that your pockets or lunch bag are private to you, but the emails you write or the phone calls you make while on company premises are not necessarily private to you. This is not clear-cut in law or practice, however; courts and legislatures are still working to clarify this.

      The pervasive use of the Internet and the web and the convergence of personal information technologies, communications and entertainment, and computing have blurred these lines. Your smart watch or personal fitness tracker uplinks your location and exercise information to a website, and you've set the parameters of that tracker and your web account to share with other users, even ones you don't know personally. Are you doing your workouts today in a public or private place? Is the data your smart watch collects and uploads public or private data?

“Facebook-friendly” is a phrase we increasingly see in corporate policies and codes of conduct these days. The surfing of one's social media posts, and even one's browsing histories, has become a standard and important element of prescreening procedures for job placement, admission to schools or training programs, or acceptance into government or military service. Such private postings on the public web are also becoming routine elements in employment termination actions. The boundary between “public” and “private” keeps moving, and it moves because of the ways we think about the information, not because of the information technologies themselves.

      GDPR and other data protection regulations require business leaders, directors, and owners to make clear to customers and employees what data they collect and what they do with it, which in turn implements the separation of that data into public and private data. As an SSCP, you'll probably not make specific determinations as to whether certain kinds of data are public or private; but you should be familiar with your organization's privacy policies and its procedures for carrying out its data protection responsibilities. Many of the information security measures you will help implement, operate, and maintain are vital to keeping the dividing line between public and private data clear and bright.

      Privacy versus Security, or Privacy and Security

      It is interesting to see how the Global War on Terror has transformed attitudes about privacy throughout the Western world. Prior to the 1990s, most Westerners felt quite strongly about their individual rights to privacy; they looked at government surveillance as intrusive and relied upon legal protections to keep it in check. “That's none of your business” was often the response when a nosy neighbor or an overly zealous official tried to probe too far into what citizens considered as private matters. This agenda changed in 2001 and 2002, as national security communities in the СКАЧАТЬ