Sunday, November 06, 2016

De ce are nevoie SRI de protecția Ministerului Comunicațiilor - olazin@g.ucla.edu - Google Apps for UCLA Mail

What needs protection SRI Ministry of Communications - olazin@g.ucla.edu - Google Apps for UCLA Mail :

How does the Ministry of Communications in the controversial project SII SRI Analytics collects personal data about all Romanians

As you already know, SRI won a European funded project that intends to purchase software and hardware of Euro 25 million for "strengthening and ensuring the interoperability of information systems." In connection with this project, several NGOs have expressed concern that this is a program of mass surveillance conducted by SRI ( details here ).
Romania Clean demonstrated here that there are good chances that this project is not eligible, and in these circumstances the money should come from the national budget. The agency that issued the call for funding is Comunicaţiilor- IB Ministry for the Promotion of Information Society. Moreover, SRI has submitted the project on the same day it was released call, which is proof that the intelligence service knew in advance of this call and what must contain the application form and looked like they advance to be made public all documents call.  
On 28 September, Bogdan Manolea the Association for Technology and Internet sent a request for access to public information to find out what's in SRI project (as shown in the grant application, the grant agreement, the evaluation report and others). Answer-IB Communications Ministry for the Promotion of the Information Society sought-ICU can be read here
Response Ministry of Communications on the draft SII Analytics by SRI shows practical - if proof were needed - that the ministry is complicit in attempts SRI to implement European money a project that does not lend itself at least on EU law regarding protection personal data. At the same time, the ministry shows that he does not feel any responsibility to the citizens that indirectly finance or for the results and impact of this project, and generally likely to project results.
Below render arguments:
  1. Basically, the Intermediary Body (IB) for Promotion of Information Society say yes, we received your request to provide information about the project but basically you are able to ask them. But rest assured, we respect the law and provide these documents to the European Commission and those authorized to conduct an audit when necessary. OI should know that if law-abiding, not really respect the spirit of the law. European regulations exist to ensure sound financial manage their programs and projects for compliance with European and horizontal principles (transparency, equal opportunities, sustainability) and not to hide behind them and mimic legality.
  2. OI PSI us "clarifies" that "the project manager (ie SRI) has undertaken to keep confidential documents, materials, data and information in connection with the project, but that does not prejudice her rights verification, control, audit incumbent upon all mechanisms empowered in this regard ". In other words, OI has requested approval to disclose SRI information on a project it financed with European money (??? !!!!!). OI normally do that? Not the other, but it is anti-European and discriminatory, not to mention illegal. It would be recommended that OI to state under whose laws beneficiaries of European funds can invoke confidentiality.
  3. OI also states that "the project manager" (ie SRI, but avoids call him) has taken measures of information and publicity relating to communication of public information on the project, both in terms of announcing the commencement of the project and the conduct of proceedings procurement [...] ". No one knows the basis of what makes OI these statements, given that the project SRI was selected in June, the grant agreement would be signed at the end of July (July 28, 2016 - August 28, 2018 according to the press release SRI ) and so short a period to October would have been enough to make reporting (reports are generally 6 months). OI prejudge the accuracy and quality without mentioning the project and what is the basis. Otherwise, less frequently in Romania managing authority or intermediate body that defends with such flair and trust beneficiaries. 
  4. OI response provides little additional information to those you know from previous communications. Even with the limited data we have, there are two problems that would be displayed: Mismatch purpose of the project objectives and results. In other words, it is still unclear what specific wishes through this project. OI response that "the goal is the development of online services and state institutions streamline their internal activities contributing to improved decision-making processes in the management of public institutions by developing an integrated system for their specific business management." The description is unclear and too vague to understand what the role of SRI in decision making in public institutions, without these being referred.
  5. Further in response OI are that the project will make use of a software tool that will provide "transforming data from databases consolidated SII Infrastructure (not limited to) the information and knowledge that will enable public institutions beneficiary (without mentioning which) building processes extensive exploration, discovery and investigation of situations generating phenomena of organized crime and tax evasion nationally and facts associated phenomena of corruption and terrorist financing in order to reduce and prevent them). "
Information provided above are entirely without clarity on the contrary. We do not know which are the institutions that SRI is the beneficiary and for which stands as an intermediary in providing services to improve "decision making" and more, it is unclear whether Romanian citizens, whose data are managed, are terror suspects or tax evasion. SRI ambiguous response pushes us to such conclusions and make even greater need for information, and again completely legitimate and justified any action to find information about this project.
  1. Another problem is the project financed indicators that OI mentions, and I quote:
"Number of institutions using / accessing information: 3; Applications developed using techniques of big time: 3; number of users of the project: 2000; number of users accessing the system secure mobility conditions: 20; number of data sources integrated in the platform big time: 10. "In light of these data, evaluator or journalist or any person using his logic would require less rigor and would ask that the three institutions are the first indicator that will make those apps the second indicator, the 2,000 users who are, are they individuals or institutions and so on? Again, information is truncated and is fully justified request evaluation grid.
  1. Maybe it makes sense to remember OI that the mere citation and compliance procedures for project management is not a project SRI eligible, and if they assign the right to hide information to citizens and to embrace obscure interests, we can allocate right to "look" at such institutions EC. Finally the citizens who will pay the project if the project declared non-compliant and CE ineligible and will not reimburse with it.
In the context of the lack of information we can even imagine stake collusion between OI and SRI on siphoning off tens of millions of euros: it can be political, such as an agreement to increase capacity SRI EU money that would be simpler and n -ar May put pressure on the national budget. I fear, however, another scenario, one in which the stakes of this project is simply to allocate part of the pie by some companies that revolve around SRI outcome of the project is in the first abstract and unclear, precisely because not pursue any concrete result, but spending money on paper.



'Via Blog this'
Post a Comment