FCW Insider

Blog archive

FCW Insider: A clever approach to managing personal data

FCW does not often cover the international arena, but I periodically visit the Web sites of the U.K., E.U. and other governments just to see what's going on. That's how I came across this little gem.


The U.K.'s National Technical Authority for Information Assurance, has proposed a new approach to managing the security of sensitive data, according to the E-government Bulletin, produced by Headstar, a London-based publisher.


The U.K., like the U.S., is especially concerned about what our federal government calls personally identifiable information. A planned national ID card program (or "programme") involving biometrics has heightened those concerns.


In any case, the U.K. has developed a strategy to replace traditional security designations, such as "confidential" or "secret," with "business impact codes" ranging from 0 to 6.


The number indicates the level of "adverse impact" that would be felt by an agency if the data were compromised. The higher the number, the worse the consequences would be.


For example, I would guess that a Labor spreadsheet showing unemployment information by state, but containing no personal data, would rate a 0 or 1. On the other hand, an NIH database of personal health information for study participants would rank a 6.


That is to say, there probably would not be a lot of fuss if Labor were to lose a laptop with that spreadsheet. But GAO would come calling if NIH misplaced those health records.


But here is the clever part of this approach: Each impact code would be associated with a particular set of information assurance measures, which are fairly simple at the lower levels but increasingly complex as the number goes up.


In effect, the system provides a built-in business case for buying security solutions. If an agency (perhaps with help from GAO or the IG) determines that a particular database rates a 5 or 6, it is fairly easy to justify the more costly security measures.


This approach also focuses oversight by GAO or the IG. They would answer two questions: Did the agency apply the appropriate impact code? If so, did they apply the appropriate measures? If the answer to either question is no, the subsequent conversation with the agency is fairly straightforward.


I can't really imagine the U.S. federal government latching onto something like this, but hey, who knows? Change is in the air.

Posted by John Stein Monroe on Nov 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM


Featured

  • Cybersecurity

    DHS floats 'collective defense' model for cybersecurity

    Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen wants her department to have a more direct role in defending the private sector and critical infrastructure entities from cyberthreats.

  • Defense
    Defense Secretary James Mattis testifies at an April 12 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Mattis: Cloud deal not tailored for Amazon

    On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sought to quell "rumors" that the Pentagon's planned single-award cloud acquisition was designed with Amazon Web Services in mind.

  • Census
    shutterstock image

    2020 Census to include citizenship question

    The Department of Commerce is breaking with recent practice and restoring a question about respondent citizenship last used in 1950, despite being urged not to by former Census directors and outside experts.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.