Your complete digital life - including data from your social media accounts, banking and credit card details -- can be sold by cybercriminals for less than US $50, scientists say.

While many of us have heard of, or even fallen victim to, cybercrimes such as data and identity theft, it seems that relatively few know the value of the information stolen from us.&nbsp;

Scientists from the Kaspersky Lab, a cybersecurity company in Russia, found that while our identity may not be worth a lot in terms of dollars, it is a significant asset to criminals in other ways.

The research uncovered an appetite among cybercriminals for data stolen from popular services - including via social media accounts and remote access to gaming websites.

User confusion about what their data is worth could result in a haphazard approach to security, making it all too easy for thieves to steal data and commit crime.

Data stolen due to people's lax security may have limited resale value, but can be put to many uses.

This can cause huge problems for an individual victim, who may lose money and their reputation, find themselves being chased for debt that somebody else has incurred in their name, or even suspected of a crime that somebody else has committed using their identity as a cover.

Kaspersky Lab investigated 'Dark Web' markets to find out how much personal data is worth, and how it is used by criminals.&nbsp;

The dark web, also referred to as the darknet, is an encrypted portion of the internet that is not indexed by search engines. These networks use the internet but require specific software, configurations, or authorisation to access.

The researchers found that criminals can sell someone's complete digital life for less than US $50; including data from stolen social media accounts, banking details, remote access to servers or desktops, and even data from popular services like Uber, Netflix, and Spotify, as well as gaming websites, dating apps, and porn websites which might store credit card information.

Meanwhile, researchers found that the price paid for a single hacked account is lower, with most selling for about US $1 per account, and with criminals offering up discounts for bulk-buying.

The most common way criminals steal this sort of data in the first place is via spear phishing campaigns or by exploiting a web related security vulnerability in an application's software.

After a successful attack, the criminal gets password dumps which contain a combination of emails and passwords for the hacked services. With many people using the same password for several accounts, attackers might be able to use this information to access accounts on other platforms too.

Some criminals selling data even provide their buyers with a lifetime warranty, so if one account stops working, the buyer will receive a new account for free.

"It is clear that data hacking is a major threat to us all, and this applies at both an individual and societal level, because stolen data funds many social evils," said David Jacoby, Senior Security Researcher at Kaspersky Lab.

"Fortunately, there are steps we can take to prevent it, including by using cybersecurity software, and being aware of how much data we are giving away for free - particularly on publicly available social media profiles, or to organisations," said Jacoby.

People can avoid such risks by taking several easy security steps, which should become an integral part of any Internet user's digital life.

To stay safe from phishing, always check that the link address and the sender's email are genuine before clicking anything. A robust security solution will also warn you if you attempt to visit a phishing web page.

To avoid one data leak harming all your digital identities, never use the same password for several websites or services, researchers said.

Your complete digital life - including data from your social media accounts, banking and credit card details -- can be sold by cybercriminals for less than US $50, scientists say.

Your complete digital life - including data from your social media accounts, banking and credit card details -- can be sold by cybercriminals for less than US $50, scientists say. While many of us have heard of, or even fallen victim to, cybercrimes such as data and identity theft, it seems that relatively few know the value of the information stolen from us. Scientists from the Kaspersky Lab, a cybersecurity company in Russia, found that while our identity may not be worth a lot in terms of dollars, it is a significant asset to criminals in other ways. The research uncovered an appetite among cybercriminals for data stolen from popular services - including via social media accounts and remote access to gaming websites. User confusion about what their data is worth could result in a haphazard approach to security, making it all too easy for thieves to steal data and commit crime. Data stolen due to people's lax security may have limited resale value, but can be put to many uses. This can cause huge problems for an individual victim, who may lose money and their reputation, find themselves being chased for debt that somebody else has incurred in their name, or even suspected of a crime that somebody else has committed using their identity as a cover. Kaspersky Lab investigated 'Dark Web' markets to find out how much personal data is worth, and how it is used by criminals. The dark web, also referred to as the darknet, is an encrypted portion of the internet that is not indexed by search engines. These networks use the internet but require specific software, configurations, or authorisation to access. The researchers found that criminals can sell someone's complete digital life for less than US $50; including data from stolen social media accounts, banking details, remote access to servers or desktops, and even data from popular services like Uber, Netflix, and Spotify, as well as gaming websites, dating apps, and porn websites which might store credit card information. Meanwhile, researchers found that the price paid for a single hacked account is lower, with most selling for about US $1 per account, and with criminals offering up discounts for bulk-buying. The most common way criminals steal this sort of data in the first place is via spear phishing campaigns or by exploiting a web related security vulnerability in an application's software. After a successful attack, the criminal gets password dumps which contain a combination of emails and passwords for the hacked services. With many people using the same password for several accounts, attackers might be able to use this information to access accounts on other platforms too. Some criminals selling data even provide their buyers with a lifetime warranty, so if one account stops working, the buyer will receive a new account for free. "It is clear that data hacking is a major threat to us all, and this applies at both an individual and societal level, because stolen data funds many social evils," said David Jacoby, Senior Security Researcher at Kaspersky Lab. "Fortunately, there are steps we can take to prevent it, including by using cybersecurity software, and being aware of how much data we are giving away for free - particularly on publicly available social media profiles, or to organisations," said Jacoby. People can avoid such risks by taking several easy security steps, which should become an integral part of any Internet user's digital life. To stay safe from phishing, always check that the link address and the sender's email are genuine before clicking anything. A robust security solution will also warn you if you attempt to visit a phishing web page. To avoid one data leak harming all your digital identities, never use the same password for several websites or services, researchers said.

Your digital data could be on sale for less than US $50: Study

By:&nbsp;Ronald Robertson*

As the 2018 midterm elections approach in the U.S., Google's power to influence undecided voters remains overshadowed by Facebook's personal data crisis.

Facebook has "taken it on the chin" for its role in the 2016 presidential election, and organisations like the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica and the Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency have dominated headlines. Yet, despite having a troubling history and collecting more personal data through more products than Facebook, Google has somehow managed to evade the public spotlight on this one. That may be changing.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently sent Google a letter asking a series of questions about the company’s personal data protection. As one of the researchers who helped discover that search engines can substantially influence users' voting preferences, I found the last question to be the most intriguing: "Are you aware of any foreign entities seeking to influence or interfere with U.S. elections through your platforms?" If Google’s response to this question exists, it has not been made public.

Search engine influence

Since 2013, I've been involved in the design and execution of a long series of experiments that have demonstrated how search engines can influence undecided voters' candidate choices through nearly undetectable manipulations to search rankings. We labeled this powerful new form of influence the search engine manipulation effect.

The way these effect works is simple: Favoritism for a particular candidate in election-related search rankings leads to people preferring that candidate. For example, a search related to an upcoming election might return results favoring candidate A higher than results favoring candidate B. That's called partisan ranking bias. Since people tend to click on and trust highly ranked results, more people will then trust and consume the information supporting candidate A. In turn, that consumption increases their preference for candidate A.

The most important aspect of this effect, however, is that most people can't detect the partisan ranking bias – and it's virtually impossible to defend yourself from influences you can't perceive. Fortunately, in three follow-up experiments, involving 3,600 participants, we demonstrated that alerting people to partisan ranking bias can help suppress the effect – though only laws or regulations actually preventing partisan ranking could eliminate the effect entirely.

Why focus on Google?

Google handles more than 60 percent of internet search activity in the U.S., and nearly 90 percent worldwide. Every year, this translates to trillions of queries related to people's private thoughts, concerns and questions.

With respect to news, search engines are a bigger source than social media. Although an often cited 2016 Pew study found that a majority, 62 percent, of U.S. adults got news on social media, the devil is in the details. If you unpack that statistic, you'll find that 18 percent do so "hardly ever." Added to the 38 percent of Americans who "never" got news on social media, the same study suggests that social media is a negligible source of news for 56 percent of Americans, also a majority.

Think about it: When you need to fact-check something or learn more about a topic, what do you do? You Google it. This fact is supported by a recent international survey that found that 74 percent of participants reported using search engines to fact-check information they found on social media. The same survey found that 68 percent reported that the information they found while searching was "important to influencing their decisions about voting."

What does Google think?

Google’s executives rarely make public responses to critiques of its search system. But in 2015, my colleague Robert Epstein published an article in Politico – entitled "How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election" – and that did the trick. Google's head of search at the time, Amit Singhal, responded with his own article, calling Epstein a conspiracy theorist, stating that "there is absolutely no truth to Epstein's hypothesis that Google could work secretly to influence election outcomes" and that "Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment."

Singhal's first claim is hard to believe, unless you dismiss our research, our replication, and the independent research built on our findings. Search engines do have the capacity to shift people's opinions, including who to vote for.

His second claim, that Google "never ever re-ranked search results," also doesn’t quite hold up: The EU recently fined the company US$2.7 billion for ranking its own services higher in search results than its competitors.

Defending democracy

Another one of the Judiciary Committee’s questions to Google also struck a chord with me: "How do you monitor the ability of foreign entities to influence and interfere with U.S. elections?"

This question struck me because I've been developing systems for exactly this purpose – preserving search rankings and analysing them for systematic differences – for several years. In the course of this work, however, I've come to believe that freeing the democratic process from technologically enabled influences is virtually impossible without the cooperation of modern tech giants.

Facebook is now offering to collaborate with academic researchers who can measure and perhaps lessen or prevent undue influence on elections, and Twitter is doing something similar. Related efforts are also bringing transparency to other platforms like YouTube and Reddit. When will Google get on board?

At an upcoming conference, I will present the latest system I've been designing with Christo Wilson, a leading scientist in the field of algorithm auditing, for monitoring search rankings for partisan bias. With a little assistance from Google, no more than Facebook is offering, accurately monitoring or preventing search engine influence in the 2018 elections is actually a feasible goal. Without the company's help, things look bleak.

Although Google is an advertising business, its core is composed of creative and intelligent individuals who care deeply about the impact their work has on the world. This is evidenced by the recent letter signed by more than 3,100 Google employees protesting the use of their work in warfare technology. Nearly a dozen Google workers went so far as to resign in protest.

Perhaps the day is fast approaching when Google will step up, as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have, to help defend democracy from the new world of computational propaganda. Perhaps there is already a letter circulating internally and gathering signatures. With state and federal primary elections already underway, let's hope so.

*Ronald Robertson is a Ph.D. Student in Network Science, Northeastern University

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-will-google-defend-democracy-96838">article</a>.)

As the 2018 midterm elections approach in the U.S., Google's power to influence undecided voters remains overshadowed by Facebook's personal data crisis

By: Ronald Robertson* As the 2018 midterm elections approach in the U.S., Google's power to influence undecided voters remains overshadowed by Facebook's personal data crisis. Facebook has "taken it on the chin" for its role in the 2016 presidential election, and organisations like the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica and the Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency have dominated headlines. Yet, despite having a troubling history and collecting more personal data through more products than Facebook, Google has somehow managed to evade the public spotlight on this one. That may be changing. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently sent Google a letter asking a series of questions about the company’s personal data protection. As one of the researchers who helped discover that search engines can substantially influence users' voting preferences, I found the last question to be the most intriguing: "Are you aware of any foreign entities seeking to influence or interfere with U.S. elections through your platforms?" If Google’s response to this question exists, it has not been made public. Search engine influence Since 2013, I've been involved in the design and execution of a long series of experiments that have demonstrated how search engines can influence undecided voters' candidate choices through nearly undetectable manipulations to search rankings. We labeled this powerful new form of influence the search engine manipulation effect. The way these effect works is simple: Favoritism for a particular candidate in election-related search rankings leads to people preferring that candidate. For example, a search related to an upcoming election might return results favoring candidate A higher than results favoring candidate B. That's called partisan ranking bias. Since people tend to click on and trust highly ranked results, more people will then trust and consume the information supporting candidate A. In turn, that consumption increases their preference for candidate A. The most important aspect of this effect, however, is that most people can't detect the partisan ranking bias – and it's virtually impossible to defend yourself from influences you can't perceive. Fortunately, in three follow-up experiments, involving 3,600 participants, we demonstrated that alerting people to partisan ranking bias can help suppress the effect – though only laws or regulations actually preventing partisan ranking could eliminate the effect entirely. Why focus on Google? Google handles more than 60 percent of internet search activity in the U.S., and nearly 90 percent worldwide. Every year, this translates to trillions of queries related to people's private thoughts, concerns and questions. With respect to news, search engines are a bigger source than social media. Although an often cited 2016 Pew study found that a majority, 62 percent, of U.S. adults got news on social media, the devil is in the details. If you unpack that statistic, you'll find that 18 percent do so "hardly ever." Added to the 38 percent of Americans who "never" got news on social media, the same study suggests that social media is a negligible source of news for 56 percent of Americans, also a majority. Think about it: When you need to fact-check something or learn more about a topic, what do you do? You Google it. This fact is supported by a recent international survey that found that 74 percent of participants reported using search engines to fact-check information they found on social media. The same survey found that 68 percent reported that the information they found while searching was "important to influencing their decisions about voting." What does Google think? Google’s executives rarely make public responses to critiques of its search system. But in 2015, my colleague Robert Epstein published an article in Politico – entitled "How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election" – and that did the trick. Google's head of search at the time, Amit Singhal, responded with his own article, calling Epstein a conspiracy theorist, stating that "there is absolutely no truth to Epstein's hypothesis that Google could work secretly to influence election outcomes" and that "Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment." Singhal's first claim is hard to believe, unless you dismiss our research, our replication, and the independent research built on our findings. Search engines do have the capacity to shift people's opinions, including who to vote for. His second claim, that Google "never ever re-ranked search results," also doesn’t quite hold up: The EU recently fined the company US$2.7 billion for ranking its own services higher in search results than its competitors. Defending democracy Another one of the Judiciary Committee’s questions to Google also struck a chord with me: "How do you monitor the ability of foreign entities to influence and interfere with U.S. elections?" This question struck me because I've been developing systems for exactly this purpose – preserving search rankings and analysing them for systematic differences – for several years. In the course of this work, however, I've come to believe that freeing the democratic process from technologically enabled influences is virtually impossible without the cooperation of modern tech giants. Facebook is now offering to collaborate with academic researchers who can measure and perhaps lessen or prevent undue influence on elections, and Twitter is doing something similar. Related efforts are also bringing transparency to other platforms like YouTube and Reddit. When will Google get on board? At an upcoming conference, I will present the latest system I've been designing with Christo Wilson, a leading scientist in the field of algorithm auditing, for monitoring search rankings for partisan bias. With a little assistance from Google, no more than Facebook is offering, accurately monitoring or preventing search engine influence in the 2018 elections is actually a feasible goal. Without the company's help, things look bleak. Although Google is an advertising business, its core is composed of creative and intelligent individuals who care deeply about the impact their work has on the world. This is evidenced by the recent letter signed by more than 3,100 Google employees protesting the use of their work in warfare technology. Nearly a dozen Google workers went so far as to resign in protest. Perhaps the day is fast approaching when Google will step up, as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have, to help defend democracy from the new world of computational propaganda. Perhaps there is already a letter circulating internally and gathering signatures. With state and federal primary elections already underway, let's hope so. *Ronald Robertson is a Ph.D. Student in Network Science, Northeastern University (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.)

Opinion: When will Google defend democracy?

According to a British parliamentary committee, Facebook has failed to answer questions from British lawmakers over data privacy and fake news.

Reports suggest that the social networking giant did not fully answer 39 queries and that it would be asked again for the missing details.

The committee had previously noted that Facebook's chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer had not addressed all its concerns during a parliamentary hearing last month after which additional questions were directed to the firm.

Meanwhile, Facebook Inc has so far suspended around 200 apps in the first stage of its review into apps that had access to large quantities of user data, in a response to a scandal around political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.

The apps were suspended pending a thorough investigation into whether they misused any data, said Ime Archibong, Facebook's vice president of product partnerships.

Facebook said it has looked into thousands of apps till date as part of an investigation that Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg announced on March 21.

Zuckerberg had said the social network will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information before the company curtailed data access in 2014.

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

Reports suggest that the social networking giant did not fully answer 39 queries and that it would be asked again for the missing details

According to a British parliamentary committee, Facebook has failed to answer questions from British lawmakers over data privacy and fake news. Reports suggest that the social networking giant did not fully answer 39 queries and that it would be asked again for the missing details. The committee had previously noted that Facebook's chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer had not addressed all its concerns during a parliamentary hearing last month after which additional questions were directed to the firm. Meanwhile, Facebook Inc has so far suspended around 200 apps in the first stage of its review into apps that had access to large quantities of user data, in a response to a scandal around political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. The apps were suspended pending a thorough investigation into whether they misused any data, said Ime Archibong, Facebook's vice president of product partnerships. Facebook said it has looked into thousands of apps till date as part of an investigation that Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg announced on March 21. Zuckerberg had said the social network will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information before the company curtailed data access in 2014. (With inputs from Reuters)

UK lawmakers say Facebook hasn't fully answered queries on data privacy

Facebook Inc on Tuesday gave an explanation for the types of posts it allows on its social network, giving far more detail than ever before on what is permitted on subjects ranging from drug use and sex work to bullying, hate speech and inciting violence.

Facebook for years has had "community standards" for what people can post. But only a relatively brief and general version was publicly available, while it had a far more detailed internal document to decide when individual posts or accounts should be removed.

Now, the company is providing the longer document on its website to clear up confusion and be more open about its operations, said Monika Bickert, Facebook's vice president of product policy and counter-terrorism.

New policies will, for the first time, allow people to appeal a decision to take down an individual piece of content. Previously, only the removal of accounts, Groups and Pages could be appealed.

Facebook is also beginning to provide the specific reason why content is being taken down for a wider variety of situations.

Facebook, the world's largest social network, has become a dominant source of information in many countries around the world. It uses both automated software and an army of moderators that now numbers 7,500 to take down text, pictures and videos that violate its rules. Under pressure from several governments, it has been beefing up its moderator ranks since last year.

Appeals

We know we need to do more. That’s why, over the coming year, we are going to build out the ability for people to appeal our decisions. As a first step, we are launching appeals for posts that were removed for nudity/sexual activity, hate speech or graphic violence.

Here’s how it works:

<ul>
	<li>If your photo, video or post has been removed because it violates our Community Standards, you will be notified, and given the option to request additional review.</li>
	<li>This will lead to a review by our team (always by a person), typically within 24 hours.</li>
	<li>If we’ve made a mistake, we will notify you, and your post, photo or video will be restored.</li>
</ul>

Participation and Feedback

Our efforts to improve and refine our Community Standards depend on participation and input from people around the world. In May, we will launch Facebook Forums: Community Standards, a series of public events in Germany, France, the UK, India, Singapore, the US and other countries where we’ll get people’s feedback directly. We will share more details about these initiatives as we finalize them.

As our CEO Mark Zuckerberg said at the start of the year: “we won’t prevent all mistakes or abuse, but we currently make too many errors enforcing our policies and preventing misuse of our tools.” Publication of today’s internal enforcement guidelines – as well as the expansion of our appeals process – will create a clear path for us to improve over time. These are hard issues and we’re excited to do better going forward.

Meanwhile, Facebook has long made clear that it does not allow people to buy and sell prescription drugs, marijuana or firearms on the social network, but the newly published document details what another speech on those subjects is permitted.

Content in which someone "admits to personal use of non-medical drugs" should not be posted on Facebook, the rulebook says.

The document elaborates on harassment and bullying, barring for example "cursing at a minor." It also prohibits content that comes from a hacked source, "except in limited cases of newsworthiness."

The new community standards do not incorporate separate procedures under which governments can demand the removal of content that violates local law.

In those cases, Bickert said, formal written requests are required and are reviewed by Facebook's legal team and outside attorneys. Content deemed to be permissible under community standards but in violation of the local law - such as a prohibition in Thailand on disparaging the royal family - are then blocked in that country, but not globally.

The community standards also do not address false information - Facebook does not prohibit it but it does try to reduce its distribution - or other contentious issues such as the use of personal data.

New policies will, for the first time, allow people to appeal a decision to take down an individual piece of content. Previously, only the removal of accounts, Groups and Pages could be appealed

Facebook Inc on Tuesday gave an explanation for the types of posts it allows on its social network, giving far more detail than ever before on what is permitted on subjects ranging from drug use and sex work to bullying, hate speech and inciting violence. Facebook for years has had "community standards" for what people can post. But only a relatively brief and general version was publicly available, while it had a far more detailed internal document to decide when individual posts or accounts should be removed. Now, the company is providing the longer document on its website to clear up confusion and be more open about its operations, said Monika Bickert, Facebook's vice president of product policy and counter-terrorism. New policies will, for the first time, allow people to appeal a decision to take down an individual piece of content. Previously, only the removal of accounts, Groups and Pages could be appealed. Facebook is also beginning to provide the specific reason why content is being taken down for a wider variety of situations. Facebook, the world's largest social network, has become a dominant source of information in many countries around the world. It uses both automated software and an army of moderators that now numbers 7,500 to take down text, pictures and videos that violate its rules. Under pressure from several governments, it has been beefing up its moderator ranks since last year. Appeals We know we need to do more. That’s why, over the coming year, we are going to build out the ability for people to appeal our decisions. As a first step, we are launching appeals for posts that were removed for nudity/sexual activity, hate speech or graphic violence. Here’s how it works: If your photo, video or post has been removed because it violates our Community Standards, you will be notified, and given the option to request additional review. This will lead to a review by our team (always by a person), typically within 24 hours. If we’ve made a mistake, we will notify you, and your post, photo or video will be restored. Participation and Feedback Our efforts to improve and refine our Community Standards depend on participation and input from people around the world. In May, we will launch Facebook Forums: Community Standards, a series of public events in Germany, France, the UK, India, Singapore, the US and other countries where we’ll get people’s feedback directly. We will share more details about these initiatives as we finalize them. As our CEO Mark Zuckerberg said at the start of the year: “we won’t prevent all mistakes or abuse, but we currently make too many errors enforcing our policies and preventing misuse of our tools.” Publication of today’s internal enforcement guidelines – as well as the expansion of our appeals process – will create a clear path for us to improve over time. These are hard issues and we’re excited to do better going forward. Meanwhile, Facebook has long made clear that it does not allow people to buy and sell prescription drugs, marijuana or firearms on the social network, but the newly published document details what another speech on those subjects is permitted. Content in which someone "admits to personal use of non-medical drugs" should not be posted on Facebook, the rulebook says. The document elaborates on harassment and bullying, barring for example "cursing at a minor." It also prohibits content that comes from a hacked source, "except in limited cases of newsworthiness." The new community standards do not incorporate separate procedures under which governments can demand the removal of content that violates local law. In those cases, Bickert said, formal written requests are required and are reviewed by Facebook's legal team and outside attorneys. Content deemed to be permissible under community standards but in violation of the local law - such as a prohibition in Thailand on disparaging the royal family - are then blocked in that country, but not globally. The community standards also do not address false information - Facebook does not prohibit it but it does try to reduce its distribution - or other contentious issues such as the use of personal data.

Facebook releases long-secret rules on how it polices the service

Facebook Inc said on Tuesday it would continue requiring people to accept targeted ads as a condition of using its service, a stance that may help keep its business model largely intact despite a new European Union privacy law.&nbsp

The EU law, which takes effect next month, promises the biggest shakeup in online privacy since the birth of the internet. Companies face fines if they collect or use personal information without permission.

Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob Sherman said the social network would begin seeking Europeans` permission this week for a variety of ways Facebook uses their data, but he said that opting out of targeted marketing altogether would not be possible.&nbsp

"Facebook is an advertising-supported service," Sherman said in a briefing with reporters at Facebook`s headquarters.&nbsp

Facebook users will be able to limit the kinds of data that advertisers use to target their pitches, he added, but "all ads on Facebook are targeted to some extent, and that`s true for offline advertising, as well."&nbsp

Facebook, the world`s largest social media network, will use what are known as "permission screens" - pages filled with text that require pressing a button to advance - to notify and obtain approval.&nbsp

The screens will show up on the Facebook website and smartphone app in Europe this week and globally in the coming months, Sherman said.&nbsp

The screens will not give Facebook users the option to hit "decline." Instead, they will guide users to either "accept and continue" or "manage data setting," according to copies the company showed reporters on Tuesday.

"People can choose to not be on Facebook if they want," Sherman said.

Regulators, investors and privacy advocates are closely watching how Facebook plans to comply with the EU law, not only because Facebook has been embroiled in a privacy scandal but also because other companies may follow its lead in trying to limit the impact of opt-outs.&nbsp

Last month, Facebook disclosed that the personal information of millions of users, mostly in the United States, had wrongly ended up in the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, leading to U.S. congressional hearings and worldwide scrutiny of Facebook`s commitment to privacy.&nbsp

Facebook Chief Financial Officer David Wehner warned in February the company could see a drop-off in usage due to the EU law, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).&nbsp

The EU law, which takes effect next month, promises the biggest shakeup in online privacy since the birth of the internet. Companies face fines if they collect or use personal information without permission

Facebook Inc said on Tuesday it would continue requiring people to accept targeted ads as a condition of using its service, a stance that may help keep its business model largely intact despite a new European Union privacy law. The EU law, which takes effect next month, promises the biggest shakeup in online privacy since the birth of the internet. Companies face fines if they collect or use personal information without permission. Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob Sherman said the social network would begin seeking Europeans` permission this week for a variety of ways Facebook uses their data, but he said that opting out of targeted marketing altogether would not be possible. "Facebook is an advertising-supported service," Sherman said in a briefing with reporters at Facebook`s headquarters. Facebook users will be able to limit the kinds of data that advertisers use to target their pitches, he added, but "all ads on Facebook are targeted to some extent, and that`s true for offline advertising, as well." Facebook, the world`s largest social media network, will use what are known as "permission screens" - pages filled with text that require pressing a button to advance - to notify and obtain approval. The screens will show up on the Facebook website and smartphone app in Europe this week and globally in the coming months, Sherman said. The screens will not give Facebook users the option to hit "decline." Instead, they will guide users to either "accept and continue" or "manage data setting," according to copies the company showed reporters on Tuesday. "People can choose to not be on Facebook if they want," Sherman said. Regulators, investors and privacy advocates are closely watching how Facebook plans to comply with the EU law, not only because Facebook has been embroiled in a privacy scandal but also because other companies may follow its lead in trying to limit the impact of opt-outs. Last month, Facebook disclosed that the personal information of millions of users, mostly in the United States, had wrongly ended up in the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, leading to U.S. congressional hearings and worldwide scrutiny of Facebook`s commitment to privacy. Facebook Chief Financial Officer David Wehner warned in February the company could see a drop-off in usage due to the EU law, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Facebook says users must accept targeted ads even under new EU law

Facebook is committed to ensure the integrity of key elections across the world, including in India, its founder Mark Zuckerberg said as he testified before the US Congress over the massive Cambridge Analytica scandal that has shaken the social media giant.

Zuckerberg's testimony came after it was revealed in March that British firm Cambridge Analytica tied to US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign improperly collected profile data of up to 87 million Facebook users.

The scandal shook confidence in Facebook, leading some people to go as far as abandoning the social media site altogether&nbspa revolt called the hashtag #DeleteFacebook.

Zuckerberg, who is also the CEO of Facebook, said data privacy and foreign interference in elections were topics that they have discussed at the Facebook board meeting.

"These are some of the biggest issues that the company has faced, and we feel a huge responsibility to get these right," Zuckerberg told lawmakers during the Congressional hearing, adding that "this is one of my top priorities in 2018".

He said Facebook was taking steps to ensure the integrity of elections in countries like the United States, India, Brazil, and Pakistan.

"2018 is is an incredibly important year for elections. Not just in the US mid-terms, but, around the world, there are important elections -- in India, Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, and Hungary -- and we want to make sure we do everything we can to protect the integrity of these elections," he said.

Zuckerberg organisation faces charges of failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica from gathering personal information of Facebook users to try to influence an election.

Zuckerberg said his one of the greatest regrets was that Facebook has been slow in identifying the Russian information operations in 2016.

"We expected them to do a number of more traditional cyber attacks, which we did identify and notify the campaigns that they were trying to hack into them," he said.

The Facebook CEO said he was now more confident as his company has set the things right. Since the 2016 election, there have been several important elections around the world where it has had a better record, he said.

There was the French presidential election. There was the German election. There was the US Senate Alabama special election last year," Zuckerberg added.

He said Facebook has deployed new Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools that better identify fake accounts, trying to interfere in elections or spread misinformation.

"Between those three elections, we were able to proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts before they could do significant harm," he said.

"And the nature of these attacks, though, is that there are people in Russia whose job is to try to exploit our systems and other internet systems, and other systems, as well. So this is an arms race, right? I mean, they're going to keep on getting better at this, and we need to invest in keeping on getting better at this, too, which is why one of the things I mentioned before is we're going to have more than 20,000 people, by the end of this year, working on security and content review across the company," he said.

Zuckerberg said they had developed tools which identify people when they try to create fake accounts.

Your content has to be authentic. So we build technical tools to try to identify when people are creating fake accounts, especially large networks of fake accounts, like the Russians have in order to remove all of that content," he said.

Zuckerberg said after the US 2016 election, Facebook's top priority was to protect the integrity of other elections around the world.

"What we're going to do is to ask a valid government identity and we're going to verify the location. We are going to do that so that someone sitting in Russia, for example, couldn't say that they're in America and, therefore, able to run an election ad," he said.

Mark Zuckerberg's testimony came after it was revealed in March that British firm Cambridge Analytica tied to US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign improperly collected profile data of up to 87 million Facebook users

Facebook is committed to ensure the integrity of key elections across the world, including in India, its founder Mark Zuckerberg said as he testified before the US Congress over the massive Cambridge Analytica scandal that has shaken the social media giant. Zuckerberg's testimony came after it was revealed in March that British firm Cambridge Analytica tied to US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign improperly collected profile data of up to 87 million Facebook users. The scandal shook confidence in Facebook, leading some people to go as far as abandoning the social media site altogether&nbspa revolt called the hashtag #DeleteFacebook. Zuckerberg, who is also the CEO of Facebook, said data privacy and foreign interference in elections were topics that they have discussed at the Facebook board meeting. "These are some of the biggest issues that the company has faced, and we feel a huge responsibility to get these right," Zuckerberg told lawmakers during the Congressional hearing, adding that "this is one of my top priorities in 2018". He said Facebook was taking steps to ensure the integrity of elections in countries like the United States, India, Brazil, and Pakistan. "2018 is is an incredibly important year for elections. Not just in the US mid-terms, but, around the world, there are important elections -- in India, Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, and Hungary -- and we want to make sure we do everything we can to protect the integrity of these elections," he said. Zuckerberg organisation faces charges of failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica from gathering personal information of Facebook users to try to influence an election. Zuckerberg said his one of the greatest regrets was that Facebook has been slow in identifying the Russian information operations in 2016. "We expected them to do a number of more traditional cyber attacks, which we did identify and notify the campaigns that they were trying to hack into them," he said. The Facebook CEO said he was now more confident as his company has set the things right. Since the 2016 election, there have been several important elections around the world where it has had a better record, he said. There was the French presidential election. There was the German election. There was the US Senate Alabama special election last year," Zuckerberg added. He said Facebook has deployed new Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools that better identify fake accounts, trying to interfere in elections or spread misinformation. "Between those three elections, we were able to proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts before they could do significant harm," he said. "And the nature of these attacks, though, is that there are people in Russia whose job is to try to exploit our systems and other internet systems, and other systems, as well. So this is an arms race, right? I mean, they're going to keep on getting better at this, and we need to invest in keeping on getting better at this, too, which is why one of the things I mentioned before is we're going to have more than 20,000 people, by the end of this year, working on security and content review across the company," he said. Zuckerberg said they had developed tools which identify people when they try to create fake accounts. Your content has to be authentic. So we build technical tools to try to identify when people are creating fake accounts, especially large networks of fake accounts, like the Russians have in order to remove all of that content," he said. Zuckerberg said after the US 2016 election, Facebook's top priority was to protect the integrity of other elections around the world. "What we're going to do is to ask a valid government identity and we're going to verify the location. We are going to do that so that someone sitting in Russia, for example, couldn't say that they're in America and, therefore, able to run an election ad," he said.

Facebook committed to ensure integrity of elections in India, other countries: Zuckerberg

Amid rising speculations of social media giant Facebook`s involvement in the alleged misuse of users` private data, WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton took to Twitter asking everyone to delete Facebook.&nbsp;

Acton, whose product was bought by Facebook in 2014 for a whopping $16 billion, took to the microblogging platform and said &quot;It is time. #deletefacebook&quot; after concerns were flagged on data privacy in the wake of revelations about Cambridge Analytica`s alleged misuse of user data.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It is time. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/deletefacebook?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#deletefacebook</a>
&mdash; Brian Acton (@brianacton) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianacton/status/976231995846963201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The rise of false news and the disclosure recently that scores of Facebook user profiles had been harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a voter-profiling company that worked on the United States President Donald Trump`s 2016 election campaign, are key issues which have emerged.&nbsp;

This has resulted in a significant plunge in the company`s shares over the last five days.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Cambridge Analytica on Tuesday suspended its chief executive, Alexander Nix, amid a furore over the access it gained to private information on more than 50 million Facebook users.&nbsp;

Brian Acton said 'It is time. #deletefacebook' after concerns were flagged on data privacy

Amid rising speculations of social media giant Facebook`s involvement in the alleged misuse of users` private data, WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton took to Twitter asking everyone to delete Facebook. Acton, whose product was bought by Facebook in 2014 for a whopping $16 billion, took to the microblogging platform and said "It is time. #deletefacebook" after concerns were flagged on data privacy in the wake of revelations about Cambridge Analytica`s alleged misuse of user data. It is time. #deletefacebook — Brian Acton (@brianacton) March 20, 2018 × The rise of false news and the disclosure recently that scores of Facebook user profiles had been harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a voter-profiling company that worked on the United States President Donald Trump`s 2016 election campaign, are key issues which have emerged. This has resulted in a significant plunge in the company`s shares over the last five days. Meanwhile, Cambridge Analytica on Tuesday suspended its chief executive, Alexander Nix, amid a furore over the access it gained to private information on more than 50 million Facebook users.

It's time to delete Facebook, says WhatsApp co-founder

Does digital-space invade private space? Does India need a data ombudsman to keep a check on all instances of data infringement?

Many might disagree with it due to India&rsquo;s dependability on export technologies. However, the online state of affairs is troubling in the age of Big Data. We have to seriously consider how a data protection law could protect the fundamentals of individual privacy.

There are many ambiguities as well questions that the committee of experts led by Justice B.N. Srikrishna needs to look into as they set about&nbsp;to craft an Indian&nbsp;data protection law.&nbsp;

India, as the largest producer of online data and as an emerging digital economy, needs to espouse a balanced data protection law to prevent misuse of personal data of its citizens and to protect its appetite for the digital economy. Here are four pointers in this regards.

First &ndash; definition &ndash; the law needs to distinguish a line between personal data and non-personal data so that the non-personal data could flow free for&nbsp;innovations. India&rsquo;s data protection law should be Indian in nature and not a replication of a stringent law like the EU data protection regulation.

Second &ndash; accessibility- the creation of data centres needs to be treated under the jurisdiction of India Law. These data centres would facilitate Indian law enforcement and investigative agencies to address diverse online and offline crime issues. The classic example is the Blackberry data turf war in 2010 due to the limitation of Mutual Legal Assistant Treaty.

Third &ndash; data flow- These data centres would enable indigenous start-ups to mushroom and give better data-driven services to the end user. Currently, the EU&rsquo;s GDPR is a strict data protection law of the digital world that keeps internet industries at bay, creating a negative effect on disruptive innovations and digital economy. However, recent talks in the EU mentioned that for free flow for digital innovations, there would be policy to leave aside &lsquo;non-personal data&rsquo;. New Delhi can learn from EU&rsquo;s mistakes.

Fourth - regulations &ndash; a strong data protection law would curb the misuse of personal data. Government of India should look into the issues of &lsquo;passive data collection&rsquo; which is often hidden in the applications. Second, it would create a trust between the user, service providers and governments. If the individual is not the owner of the data, then it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the protection of such data.

Combination of all these four factors- definition, accessibility, data flow and regulations - would open up unprecedented opportunities for India&rsquo;s $ 1 trillion digital economy.

Recently, Microsoft, Amazon and Google have opened up cloud data centres in India to provide better services to world&rsquo;s second largest internet users. This indicates that India could be a potential data hub for the South Asian countries.

In addition, estimations also suggested that by 2020 India would be a marketplace of $ 4.1 billion in cloud space industry.&nbsp;

Justice Brandeis warned against &ldquo;the progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage&rdquo;, which is why most&nbsp;tech-researchers&nbsp;are a bit suspicious about government&#39;s role in both India and abroad.

At the advent of the digital age, privacy and data protection have become two sides of the same coin. Meanwhile, the concept of privacy is socially constructed and naturally influenced by the history, culture, traditions and values of a nation.&nbsp;To address issues of different value clusters of societies, as well as, for protection of personal data, does India need a data gatekeeper? The answer to this is, yes!

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

To address issues of different value cluster of societies India needs a ?data Ombudsman? to address personal data protection issues of all Indians home and abroad

Does digital-space invade private space? Does India need a data ombudsman to keep a check on all instances of data infringement? Many might disagree with it due to India’s dependability on export technologies. However, the online state of affairs is troubling in the age of Big Data. We have to seriously consider how a data protection law could protect the fundamentals of individual privacy. There are many ambiguities as well questions that the committee of experts led by Justice B.N. Srikrishna needs to look into as they set about to craft an Indian data protection law. India, as the largest producer of online data and as an emerging digital economy, needs to espouse a balanced data protection law to prevent misuse of personal data of its citizens and to protect its appetite for the digital economy. Here are four pointers in this regards. First – definition – the law needs to distinguish a line between personal data and non-personal data so that the non-personal data could flow free for innovations. India’s data protection law should be Indian in nature and not a replication of a stringent law like the EU data protection regulation. Second – accessibility- the creation of data centres needs to be treated under the jurisdiction of India Law. These data centres would facilitate Indian law enforcement and investigative agencies to address diverse online and offline crime issues. The classic example is the Blackberry data turf war in 2010 due to the limitation of Mutual Legal Assistant Treaty. Third – data flow- These data centres would enable indigenous start-ups to mushroom and give better data-driven services to the end user. Currently, the EU’s GDPR is a strict data protection law of the digital world that keeps internet industries at bay, creating a negative effect on disruptive innovations and digital economy. However, recent talks in the EU mentioned that for free flow for digital innovations, there would be policy to leave aside ‘non-personal data’. New Delhi can learn from EU’s mistakes. Fourth - regulations – a strong data protection law would curb the misuse of personal data. Government of India should look into the issues of ‘passive data collection’ which is often hidden in the applications. Second, it would create a trust between the user, service providers and governments. If the individual is not the owner of the data, then it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the protection of such data. Combination of all these four factors- definition, accessibility, data flow and regulations - would open up unprecedented opportunities for India’s $ 1 trillion digital economy. Recently, Microsoft, Amazon and Google have opened up cloud data centres in India to provide better services to world’s second largest internet users. This indicates that India could be a potential data hub for the South Asian countries. In addition, estimations also suggested that by 2020 India would be a marketplace of $ 4.1 billion in cloud space industry. Justice Brandeis warned against “the progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage”, which is why most tech-researchers are a bit suspicious about government's role in both India and abroad. At the advent of the digital age, privacy and data protection have become two sides of the same coin. Meanwhile, the concept of privacy is socially constructed and naturally influenced by the history, culture, traditions and values of a nation. To address issues of different value clusters of societies, as well as, for protection of personal data, does India need a data gatekeeper? The answer to this is, yes! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Personal data is vulnerable. How to protect it.

Since India&rsquo;s Information Technology Act came into existence in the year 2000, the concept of data privacy has gained more importance. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Information technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) defined data as a representation of knowledge, facts, concept or instructions which have been processed in a computer system in a formalised way, and are stored internally in the memory of the computer.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

With this definition coming into force, stakeholders seriously started considering more about the privacy of data since digital data, particularly private and financial is vulnerable. The Information Technology Act, 2000 already had provisions prohibiting unauthorised access to digital data. With the 2008 amendment, unauthorised accessing, vandalising or re-fabricating the data for misuse has been made punishable. All these penal provisions actually contribute to the concept of data privacy law.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It needs to be understood that data can be of several types: publicly available data, private data and financial data. The concept of private data has got a wider scope, covering health data, professional profiles that may be used by workplaces, private pictures, pan card or Adhar card details so on and so forth. Financial data has been considered as a separate type of private data where data generator can be the bank as well as the person who uses the banking facilities, including online money transactions.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

On the other hand, public data may include those which has been made public either by the data generator, including the owner of the data or the data procession unit.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) makes the corporates responsible for the protection of the sensitive personal data, which it is dealing with, handling or processing</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) makes the corporates responsible for the protection of the sensitive personal data, which it is dealing with, handling or processing" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) makes the corporates responsible for the protection of the sensitive personal data, which it is dealing with, handling or processing. This means that any organisation, including any corporate farm, bank or Internet service provider may become responsible for protecting the data. It may be punished for a failure in its duty, particularly if it does not show due diligence to protect the data under its purview.

&nbsp;

In my experience as a cyber victim counselor,&nbsp; I have seen many victims whose private data privacy has been breached. There are several ways of breaching the data privacy and some of these have been recognised by the existing laws as well.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

One of the well-known ways of breaching data privacy is unauthorised access to the data. Popularly, this is known as hacking. Notably, the term &lsquo;hacking&rsquo; is not used in the Information Technology Act 2000. Unauthorised access to data may be done by accessing the password and username.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>In most cases of interpersonal cyber victimisation, the victim may unknowingly make personal data available to the perpetrator.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=In most cases of interpersonal cyber victimisation, the victim may unknowingly make personal data available to the perpetrator." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;What concerns me more is the victim&rsquo;s participation in breaching the privacy of the person&#39;s own data. In most cases of interpersonal cyber victimisation, the victim may unknowingly make personal data available to the perpetrator. This enables the perpetrator to carry on several types of online harassments and crimes, including the creation of fake avatar of the victim in the social media and adult entertainment sites to defame the victim, sextortion, blackmailing or spreading defamatory information about the victim to others. In this case,&nbsp; besides the perpetrators, the websites from where the personal data has been leaked may be held responsible, and even prosecuted if they fail to restrict further circulation and misuse of the data.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Victim participation may also be noted in cases of privacy breach of financial data.&nbsp; In this case, the victim, unknowingly, reveals information about banking details like banking password, Pin Numbers, etc. This is also known as phishing. In cases like this, the banks may be held responsible for failure to protect data as the verification from the bank&rsquo;s side failed to detect unauthorised users.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, it must also be understood that in cases where the mobile phone device of the victim may also have been unauthorisedly accessed as a part of victimisation, the banks may argue no responsibility as they may not be aware of the &lsquo;phone hacking&rsquo;.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>It is unfortunate to note that India still does not have any law for the protection of the privacy of the data</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=It is unfortunate to note that India still does not have any law for the protection of the privacy of the data" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It is unfortunate to note that India still does not have any law for the protection of the privacy of the data, including digital even though Data Privacy Bill was drafted way back in 2011. While the existing laws, including the Indian Penal Code (especially after 2013 Criminal Law amendment) have been supporting the victims, lacunas do exist in legal procedures and legal understanding in this regard.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Further, a majority of the victims are not even aware of the privacy settings that are offered by websites. By privacy settings,&nbsp; I mean the reporting mechanism to inform of privacy breaching. When a victim identifies a breach of privacy of data, he/she must report the content that contains the private data to the website concerned.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Further, the victims must also remain cautious of any kind of suspicious activities in the form of suspicious emails or bank verification messages. Any such activity must be reported to the body corporate and in more serious cases, to the police.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Also, the victim should not adopt an irrational coping mechanism to negotiate with the breach of data privacy; it is never advisable to contact a hacker to recover the data or approach the perpetrator.&nbsp; Often it leads to an escalation of the problem. It is, therefore, best to report the matter to the police with all evidence in hand. Above all, data privacy may be prevented if the data owner remains cautious and aware. We need to remember that we live in a digital era and, hence, we have to be extra careful about our digital data.

&nbsp;

The amended Information Technology Act (2008) has made unauthorised accessing, vandalising or re-fabricating of data a punishable offense

Since India’s Information Technology Act came into existence in the year 2000, the concept of data privacy has gained more importance. The Information technology Act, 2000(amended in 2008) defined data as a representation of knowledge, facts, concept or instructions which have been processed in a computer system in a formalised way, and are stored internally in the memory of the computer. With this definition coming into force, stakeholders seriously started considering more about the privacy of data since digital data, particularly private and financial is vulnerable. The Information Technology Act, 2000 already had provisions prohibiting unauthorised access to digital data. With the 2008 amendment, unauthorised accessing, vandalising or re-fabricating the data for misuse has been made punishable. All these penal provisions actually contribute to the concept of data privacy law. It needs to be understood that data can be of several types: publicly available data, private data and financial data. The concept of private data has got a wider scope, covering health data, professional profiles that may be used by workplaces, private pictures, pan card or Adhar card details so on and so forth. Financial data has been considered as a separate type of private data where data generator can be the bank as well as the person who uses the banking facilities, including online money transactions. On the other hand, public data may include those which has been made public either by the data generator, including the owner of the data or the data procession unit. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) makes the corporates responsible for the protection of the sensitive personal data, which it is dealing with, handling or processing × The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) makes the corporates responsible for the protection of the sensitive personal data, which it is dealing with, handling or processing. This means that any organisation, including any corporate farm, bank or Internet service provider may become responsible for protecting the data. It may be punished for a failure in its duty, particularly if it does not show due diligence to protect the data under its purview. In my experience as a cyber victim counselor, I have seen many victims whose private data privacy has been breached. There are several ways of breaching the data privacy and some of these have been recognised by the existing laws as well. One of the well-known ways of breaching data privacy is unauthorised access to the data. Popularly, this is known as hacking. Notably, the term ‘hacking’ is not used in the Information Technology Act 2000. Unauthorised access to data may be done by accessing the password and username. In most cases of interpersonal cyber victimisation, the victim may unknowingly make personal data available to the perpetrator. × What concerns me more is the victim’s participation in breaching the privacy of the person's own data. In most cases of interpersonal cyber victimisation, the victim may unknowingly make personal data available to the perpetrator. This enables the perpetrator to carry on several types of online harassments and crimes, including the creation of fake avatar of the victim in the social media and adult entertainment sites to defame the victim, sextortion, blackmailing or spreading defamatory information about the victim to others. In this case, besides the perpetrators, the websites from where the personal data has been leaked may be held responsible, and even prosecuted if they fail to restrict further circulation and misuse of the data. Victim participation may also be noted in cases of privacy breach of financial data. In this case, the victim, unknowingly, reveals information about banking details like banking password, Pin Numbers, etc. This is also known as phishing. In cases like this, the banks may be held responsible for failure to protect data as the verification from the bank’s side failed to detect unauthorised users. However, it must also be understood that in cases where the mobile phone device of the victim may also have been unauthorisedly accessed as a part of victimisation, the banks may argue no responsibility as they may not be aware of the ‘phone hacking’. It is unfortunate to note that India still does not have any law for the protection of the privacy of the data × It is unfortunate to note that India still does not have any law for the protection of the privacy of the data, including digital even though Data Privacy Bill was drafted way back in 2011. While the existing laws, including the Indian Penal Code (especially after 2013 Criminal Law amendment) have been supporting the victims, lacunas do exist in legal procedures and legal understanding in this regard. Further, a majority of the victims are not even aware of the privacy settings that are offered by websites. By privacy settings, I mean the reporting mechanism to inform of privacy breaching. When a victim identifies a breach of privacy of data, he/she must report the content that contains the private data to the website concerned. Further, the victims must also remain cautious of any kind of suspicious activities in the form of suspicious emails or bank verification messages. Any such activity must be reported to the body corporate and in more serious cases, to the police. Also, the victim should not adopt an irrational coping mechanism to negotiate with the breach of data privacy; it is never advisable to contact a hacker to recover the data or approach the perpetrator. Often it leads to an escalation of the problem. It is, therefore, best to report the matter to the police with all evidence in hand. Above all, data privacy may be prevented if the data owner remains cautious and aware. We need to remember that we live in a digital era and, hence, we have to be extra careful about our digital data.

Data privacy in modern day context

data-privacy

Data Privacy, News on Data Privacy, stories on Data Privacy, articles on Data Privacy, Data Privacy stories at Wion, Data Privacy news, Data Privacy latest news