[License-review] GDPR compliance through software license terms? (Re: Approval Request - ViraTrace Public Source License 1.0)
wayne at viratrace.us
Fri Dec 11 17:04:15 UTC 2020
You raise an interesting set of questions and I will admit that when it comes to the “ins-and-outs” of GDPR and HIPPA compliance, I am probably not as well versed as yourself or our attorneys. That being said, we at ViraTrace have from the very beginning sought to ensure that the products we develop for automated contact tracing are the most secure and privacy-protective on the market.
As you may be aware from your work with TraceTogether, there is a large percentage of the populations across the globe who object to the concept of automated contact tracing. These objections are generally centered around privacy. Here in the United States, everyone is concerned with government eavesdropping and monitoring – they think that by using an automated contact tracing application they are providing the government with a means to track their day-to-day activities and to glean nefarious insights into that data. This is of course an oversimplification of the issues, but I believe it is nonetheless a powerful one.
My co-founders are citizens of former Eastern Bloc countries and these concerns are just as real for them as they are for everyone else, if not more so. Their countries are seeking to release automated contact tracing applications which have little to no privacy protections for users and then to make these applications mandatory, and this has led to backlash from the population. Although some of this is a result of rampant political corruption, a large portion of it is the result of a lack of knowledge on how to release something that is more secure and privacy-centric. This provided an opening for ViraTrace to engage in ongoing negotiations with these governments to develop and maintain an automated contact tracing solution.
The solutions and frameworks we have developed are designed from the ground-up to ensure end-users that their data is safe and that automated contact tracing is confidential, private and secure from governmental intrusion.
Thus far, we have developed:
1) A cross-platform mobile application.
2) A cross-platform BLE/GPS/WiFi-based device-to-device communications protocol for use in third-party automated contact tracing applications.
3) A secure, delay tolerant communications protocol for device-to-secure enclave communications.
4) A second-generation mutli-node propogation infection model which utilizes distributed simulations to determine infection risk for users. This model has been peer reviewed by professors at Oxford and University of Torino and proven to be 85% more effective than other models and has already been deployed to over 150+ million users via the Aarogya Setu app.
5) A secure enclave processing environment which is designed to strip confidential data obtained from the infection model and our communications protocol and output a cleansed and sanitized data set for analysis.
6) A web dashboard which allows government health workers to utilize the cleansed and sanitized data set and communicate anonymously with end users.
We have released (or are planning to release) each and every one of these technologies as open source for implementation by anyone developing contact tracing platforms. Because of the nature of each component being separate and designed to operate independently, there are a number of potential data privacy violations that could be introduced by downstream developers.
As the maintainer and inventor of the underlying technologies, ViraTrace believe we are responsible for ensuring that data privacy violations are not introduced and that end users of automated contact tracing applications enjoy a consistent level of data security and privacy.
This brings me to your specific question regarding software license terms as an element of compliance.
Our software is used as a means of processing data that is protected by GDPR and HIPPA.
It is the position of ViraTrace that as a maintainer and inventor of these underlying technologies, the only way we can ensure a consistent level of data security and privacy for end users is to include provisions within our license that provide for oversight consistent with our goals.
The software we have, are and will release under the proposed license has undergone stringent legal review for both HIPPA and GDPR compliance in terms of automated contact tracing applications. It has been determined to be fully compliant with both regulations by the Information Commissioner’s Office for the EU and the Attorney General’s Office of the United States.
By including the provisions at issue within our license, we ensure that we remain responsible for legal compliance with data privacy regulations and that end users have a central point of contact for questions or concerns regardless of where or how, or by whom the technology is deployed.
Our review process as specified for in the proposed license is used to review the modifications and implementation of our software source code and to determine if it meets compliance standards at every point in a developer’s implementation. If it does not, the license provides a process by which the developer must rectify the deficiencies or withdraw the software from the market upon license termination.
Although one could argue that it is the responsibility of the party deploying the automated contact tracing solution to comply with data privacy regulations in the means you describe, we fully believe that it is our responsibility to the end users, as the maintainer and inventor of the underlying technologies used for data processing, to ensure that the software we provide and that is deployed based on our technologies remains fully compliant with GDPR and HIPPA.
We would acknowledge that this is not normal practice within the industry, but neither is it precluded.
Hopefully that helps answer questions. If not, you can of course respond within this thread or if you have other questions or comments, you may contact me directly at the number/email within my signature below.
Best to you and yours.
Wayne M. Thornton, B.S., CPDT
Co-Founder & Project Manager
720-766-0254 – Direct
Be sure to join our https://teams.microsoft.com/join/lw83179ktnqf channel for updates and to contribute!
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that you are strictly prohibited from disseminating or distributing this information (other than to the intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail. Thank you.
---- On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 20:39:10 -0700 Roland Turner <roland at rolandturner.com> wrote ----
First, regarding rationale: Our company is in the business
of creating frameworks and software products which facilitate
automated contact tracing initiatives across the globe. These
frameworks and products must be GDPR- and HIPPA-compliant and
have been designed to be such, with strict, ongoing legal
review processes undertaken to ensure this. The frameworks and
products that we create are designed to be utilized by
governmental agencies and private corporations in the creation
of applications and platforms which aid in the fight against
COVID-19 and future pandemic scenarios. In order for this to
be of benefit, the frameworks and software we develop must be
open source, so that the governmental agencies and private
corporations can be free to utilize them. Unfortunately, due
to the legal compliance issues vis-a-vis GDPR and HIPPA, a
level of control regarding development must be maintained. It
is our position that the GNU and other OSI-approved licenses
do not provide this level of control.
Others are addressing the appearance of a profound
incompatibility between what you're proposing ("free to utilise"
vs. "level of control [by Viratrace]") and the Open Source
I'm interested in the concept of software license terms as an
element of GDPR compliance. Can you explain how you see license
terms being a relevant part of this? It is my understanding that
data protection law in most jurisdictions is about the legal
obligations of organisations in control of personal data both with
respect to that data and to people that it relates to (and often
to regulators), and legal/contractual obligations of other
organisations processing that data on their behalf; software
licensors are not part of the picture. As neither Viratrace nor
likely licensees would be looking to establish a
controller/processor relationship through the license, the
relevance is not immediately clear to me.
(For a sense of where I'm coming from:
Although this is my first ever post to license-review, I've
been involved in open-source license advocacy for rather a long
time. It was I who initially proposed late last century (!) a
multi-license approach for Mozilla.
I serve as Chief Privacy Officer for my employer — a
specialist processor of personal data — and in that capacity
have assisted customers with data protection obligations across
a dozen jurisdictions on four continents.
Although the specific concerns of Free Software are largely
out of scope here, I am an advocate of the approach and have
spoken in public about the overlapping objectives of Software
Freedom and of GDPR data subject rights.
I am tangentially involved in Singapore's TraceTogether
program as an independent expert, both on the technology and on
personal data protection.
I am working on a design for a system to extend TraceTogether
which coincidentally also uses secure enclaves, although for a
much simpler purpose that the one that you appear to be
1: nor the analogous relationships in other jurisdictions
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review