THIS IS DRAFT !
Assessment of the GDPR implications on eduGAIN constituency was conducted and the results are presented in the Assessment of DP legislation implications document.
Based on this assessment, following action points can be attributed to eduGAIN central function (in table only eduGAIN), REFEDS, Identity Federation Operators, Service Providers and Identity Providers.
We recognise that there are differences in legal requirements for Identity Federations within the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) and in the rest of the world, but believe this advisory represents best current practice for all Identity Federations so have not distinguished our advice to different regions.
| Action Topic | Who | Description | Advisory | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Publishing contacts in metadata | eduGAIN | Operational contact information for individual administrators IdPs, SPs, AAs and Identity Federations is collected in the metadata published by Identity Federation Operators. In this case, eduGAIN is processor of this information. The information is held and published in the eduGAIN database and in the eduGAIN metadata. The current eduGAIN Metadata Profile says: that if present, <md:EmailAddress> SHOULD not | Identity Federations should register contact information intended for publication in metadata that is not personal but is a functional role. eduGAIN will publish guidelines and recommendations to the eduGAIN Steering Group (SG). Update the wiki.edugain.org with such examples and practices, and in future BCP guidelines. Since at the moment, there is no strict requirements that defines using functions as contact information, and substantial number of entities are publishing personal contacts, adapt (new) eduGAIN Privacy Notice accordingly. Where personal data does exists, all the usual rights of the user under GDPR will apply. | |
| Identity Federations | Operational contact information published in metadata for administrators of IdPs, SPs and AAs is collected in the process of registering their metadata. | For metadata that is published, identity federation should adapt entity metadata registration practice to request entity administrators to publish contacts in metadata that are not personal but rather to functions. In this case, identity federation can claim that no personal data is collected or processed for publishing the metadata. For internal administration processes, identity federation will need to manage personal data for authorisation processes and should adapt its own Privacy Notice accordingly. | ||
| REFEDS | When registering entities, Identity Federations will gather several different types of contact data. Some of this will be for internal administrative purposes and some will be to publish in metadata. The REFEDS Metadata Registration Practice Statement should be updated to include guidance on what type of contacts should be gathered for each role. | |||
| SG members contacts | eduGAIN | Contact information for the eduGAIN Steering Group delegate and deputy of all member federations are collected and published on the technical website. | Inform member federations that information about their SG delegate and deputy is collected. This information should be added in the (new) eduGAIN Privacy Notice. Consult with the SG if keeping this information publicly is needed. | |
| Data Processor Agreements - DPA | IdPs, SPs | GDPR regulates the release of personal information from an IdP/AA to SP. Scalable minimal attribute assertions should be addressed with use of entity categories. However, where scalable models do not apply, the contracting parties can make bilateral DPA agreements, such as those embedded in site licenses. | IdPs and SPs have the option to use a bilateral agreement where more specific agreements (not supported by entity categories) are needed or in place - such as via a specific procurement or other agreement. Other approaches that are more scalable will typically be preferred but will not always fit. | |
| Identity Federations | Support the IdPs and SPs, and help them identify where scalable models do not apply. | |||
| eduGAIN /REFEDS | Consider developing a sample bilateral Data Processor Agreement in the BCP package, with the caveat that implementation must be at the risk of the contracting parties. | |||
| GÉANT Data Protection Code of Conduct - CoCo | eduGAIN | The current version of the CoCo describes an approach to meet the requirements of the EU DPD. It defines behavioural rules for SPs that want to receive attributes from IdPs/AAs about the user that logs in to the service. | Update GÉANT CoCo to reflect the changes between the new GDPR and the old DPD. After completion, new CoCo v2.0 should be submitted to the EU GDPR competent supervisory authority of approved codes of conduct as described in GDPR Article 40. After the submission of CoCo v2.0. GÉANT shall work together with the competent supervisory authority to get CoCo v2.0 approved as an official GDPR Code of Conduct, effective after 25 May 2018. In parallel with the approval process, adoption and use of CoCo v2.0 within eduGAIN will be formalised as Best Practice for both SPs and IdPs. | The work on a new version of CoCo commenced by a small team of identity federation specialists with support from DLA Piper. The draft version has been substantially completed and has been sent out to consultation within the international identity federation community.The interim working draft was published in June 2017 and an explanatory memorandum is being prepared in parallel. Second draft was published in January 2018 and consultation period is finished in February 2018. |
| Identity Federations | Prepare the tooling and processes to enable adoption of GÉANT CoCo v2 by IdPs and SPs. Promote usage of CoCo v2 when it's approved. | |||
| IdPs, SPs | Given the lack of maturity of approaches under Article 40 of the GDPR (Codes of Conduct), the demonstrable application of safeguards and privacy via CoCo and the high-risk impact of other solutions by the user (using commercial logins) there is a strong case to continue using the existing CoCo v1 until CoCo v2 is approved. | |||
| REFEDS Research and Scholarship Entity Category -REFEDS R&S | REFEDS | REFEDS R&S is designed to allow data to flow to research and scholarship interaction SPs, that have a legitimate interest in the data.The attributes supported in REFEDS R&S are chosen to represent a privacy baseline such that further minimisation achieves no particular benefit. The impact of the GDPR is low due to the fact that REFEDS R&S is based on necessary use of the service and utilises the minimal Attribute Assertion (shared user identifier, person name, email address and the optional organisational affiliation). | Guidance on the use of REFEDS R&S and GDPR has been developed by REFEDS and published. REFEDS is considering the potential of making R&S a Certification but this will be a long process. | https://wiki.refeds.org/display/ENT/Guidance+on+justification+for+attribute+release+for+RandS |
| eduGAIN | Incorporate REFEDS R&S as BCP within eduGAIN. -where, how ? | |||
| Identity Federations | Develop a lightweight audit process for Identity Federations to use before applying the REFEDS R&S tag to ensure that the data in the attribute bundle is legitimately required by SP. This is supported by a risk management toolkit to help organisations make effective decisions when supporting REFEDS R&S. | |||
| IdPs | As REFEDS R&S is based on necessary use by legitimate interest, the IdPs can remove the consent question. Transparent privacy notice in which the IdP explains to the end user which attributes are released and why can be used instead. **ANC: fully agree with this statement, so a bit puzzled why you're mentioning "consent" as something REFEDs should be reviewing in the R&S context above? ** PAx: Consent CAN ONLY be used with R&S for export outside EU/EEA due to the legal basis legitimate interest. But how to do decide when to do a consent request or not? | |||
| Security Incident Response Trust Framework for Federated Identity – SIRTFI | eduGAIN | SIRTFI aims to enable the coordination of incident response across federated organisations. This assurance framework comprises a list of assertions which an organisation can attest in order to be declared SIRTFI compliant. In GDPR Chapter IV Section 2 the security practices for data breach of personal data are defined. Security incidents involving breach of personal data are in scope for SIRTFI. | The recommended way to meet the requirement of the GDPR with regard to handling communications around data breaches within the federated environment is to use the SIRTFI framework. SIRTFI Best Practice will therefore be positioned formally within eduGAIN as recommended practice, and supported by the central function for data breaches. **ANC: note that the Article 29 draft guidance on breach notification makes their strongest statement yet that all data controllers should have an effective process to detect and deal with security incidents | The SIRTFI framework was finalised in late 2016, and adoption of SIRTFI throughout the eduGAIN membership is underway. SIRTFI has also been included in the GÉANT CoCo v2.0 specification to address GDPR requirements on incident response. SIRTFI states that the use of the Traffic Light Protocol (TLP) must be used to facilitate such information sharing. |
| Use of Consent | IdPs | Where consent is applicable, all consent should always be given freely, and be specific, informed and unambiguous.When Attribute Assertion is based on one of the defined necessary processing models in Chapter II Article 6, consent is not considered applicable. Negative consent cannot be used, i.e IdP cannot ask the user to uncheck a box in order to stop information being shared. | Consent should only be used when the Attribute Assertion is not necessary. When one of the entity categories CoCo or REFEDS R&S is used for Attribute Assertion, IdPs should not ask for consent. Consent mechanisms may be adapted to support the requirement for transparent privacy notices rather than explicit consent. | |
| Identity Federations, eduGAIN | Further, specific investigation of the relationship between use of consent and other attribute release mechanisms is recommended, including seeking specific legal opinion when preparing Best Common Practice (BCP). **ANC: whenever I've raised this the problem seems to be that protocols don't provide an SP with a way to say "I can use this attribute but I don't need it". As far as I can see it's only those kinds of attributes where consent might be a valid legal ground. I agree a further investigation would be useful (though I think it's a technical one, not a legal one) to conclude and document either the BCP for how to express that kind of attribute or to say that it can't be done with current protocols ** PAx: Or strategy up til today has been to only work with "simple" releases of either a small standard bundle or using strict neccesariy attributes. | |||
| Interoperability with Jurisdictions outside the EU and EEA | SPs outside of EU/EEA | The increased territorial scope in the GDPR makes all SP that supply services to end users within the EU/EEA affected by the GDPR. | SPs outside the EU/EEA must comply with the GDPR for their European users and if they cannot fulfil this requirement they should not offer the services to federated users from within the EU/EEA. **ANC: I disagree. It's up to the IdP to decide whether or not the benefit of providing a service to its users justifies the risk. And it's also up to the SP to decide whether the risk of offering services to EEA users is justified. So "SPs outside the EU/EEA SHOULD comply with the GDPR, and EEA IdPs SHOULD assess the risks of releasing attributes to them". But, since no one actually knows what a "compliant" non-EEA SP looks like (and the status of any SP could easily change, for example if Privacy Shield is cancelled), by saying this MUST you're giving the perfect excuse to universities who are already saying "unless you can guarantee compliance then we're turning eduGAIN off"; to user communities who would rather use GoogleAuth; and to service management who are nervous about offering services through eduGAIN. "Google isn't saying this scary stuff, so clearly it's safer to use Google" ** PAx: I would right this as an recommendation, not a must. Is always a risc based descision. The entity categories CoCo and REFEDS R&S should be used to handle Attribute Assertions from IdPs within the EU/EEA to SPs outside. | |
| Rights of the Data Subject | SPs, Identity Federations, eduGAIN | The rights of the data subject are fundamental to the GDPR and therefore it is important for organisations to fully understand and respect these rights. | Create a privacy policy that describes what and how personal data is used in the service. It is recommended that appropriate privacy policies are published for all levels of identity federation services, from eduGAIN centrally to federations to IdPs and SPs to demonstrate transparency of compliance to the GDPR. The upcoming version 2 of the CoCo will contain information on how to uphold the rights of the End User that can be adapted to provide a framework for such privacy policies. **ANC: a lot of GDPR is about individuals being able to exercise their rights. If you're drafting template policies at the different levels, I think it would also be helpful to map out which level individuals should contact to exercise each of their rights. ** PAx: Very true. For all templatet we do, policies, notices and others, we should add information where the users should excersive their rights. |
