> Law > Information and Communication Law
Back
Previous The Research on Cybersecurity Risks in 5G network: Perspectives on Global strategy Next Open Government Data in Taiwan

Artificial Intelligence Governance - Taking Deep Fake as an Example

Artificial Intelligence Governance - Taking Deep Fake as an Example

 

1.Introduction

　　With the increasing maturity of the use of neural networks, the application of artificial intelligence technologies is becoming more and more widely used. Among them, through the automated editor and convolutional neural network technology, the threshold of the technology of copying films is not very high. In November 2017, some films that superimpose the faces of social celebrities on pornographic film actors/actresses appeared in the American social networking platform, Reddit. These types of films analyze the faces of specific socialites through deep learning algorithms and superimpose their faces on the films, making them look as if the films were taken by the socialites themselves. This technology was released by developers in 2018 and was made into an app for public use. At present, such technology is generally referred to as "deep fake" internationally, and it is believed that it may contribute to the speedy invention and distribution of false information existing throughout the Internet nowadays, which has attracted the attention of legislators worldwide. As it uses fake images or films automatically generated by Deep-learning technology, it involves both dimensions of fake information prevention and artificial intelligence governance. The purpose of this paper is to observe the relevant policies, legal measures and related guidelines or principles of the international community in response to issues of deep fake and artificial intelligence governance, and to examine whether the current legal system in Taiwan can cope with the impact of deep fake so as to provide feasible recommendations.

 

2.Ethics Rules for Artificial Intelligence

　　In the governance of artificial intelligence, the European Union introduced the “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI” on April 8, 2019 to establish a framework for supervising artificial intelligence in order to make artificial intelligence trustable.

　　The guidelines first points out that Trustworthy AI requires three key characteristics: (1) it should be lawful: complying with all applicable laws and regulations; (2) it should be ethical: ensuring adherence to ethical principles and values; and (3) it should be robust: both from a technical and social perspective, to avoid AI from inadvertently causing harm.

　　Fundamental Rights are the basis of trustworthy AI. In order to comply with the above-mentioned basic human rights and to make AI reliable, their expert group believes that AI should abide by four ethical principles, including: (1) respect for human autonomy; (2) prevention of harm; (3) fairness; and (4) explicability. The four ethical principles are also transformed into the seven specific measures: “human agency and oversight”, “technical robustness and safety”, “privacy and data governance”, “transparency”, “diversity, non-discrimination and fairness”, “societal and environmental wellbeing impact evaluation” and “AI accountability”. To facilitate the true implementation of self-assessment for application developers, the Guidelines devise the Trustworthy AI Assessment List in Chapter 4 for the reference of the enterprise.

 

3.Counter measures Against the International false messages

　　In response to the prevention of false messages, the two parties in the United States also jointly proposed in 2018 the Malicious Deep Fake Prohibition Act of 2018 to amend the relevant provisions of fraud in the criminal law. This bill amends Chapter 47 of the United States Code by adding Section 1041 with regard to fraud in connection with audiovisual records. It treats the use of deep fake as a criminal offence and defines deep fake as “audiovisual record created or altered in a manner that the record would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of the actual speech or conduct of an individual”. It shall be unlawful to, using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce, to create, with the intent to distribute, a deep fake with the intent that the distribution of the deep fake would facilitate criminal or tortious conduct; or distribute an audiovisual record with actual knowledge that the audiovisual record is a deep fake, and the intent that the distribution of the audiovisual record would facilitate criminal or tortious conduct. Any person who violates the above may be sentenced to imprisonment for more than 2 years but less than 10 years. However, the bill is currently put on hold without being further reviewed.

　　In addition, in order to properly cope with the danger of deep fake, on June 28, 2019, the two parties in the US Congress jointly proposed the bill - "To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to publish an annual report on the use of deep fake technology, and for other purposes”, which may be cited as the "Deepfakes Report Act of 2019". This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to conduct research on deep fake and related issues, produce an annual report, and to request it to assess the direction of addition or revision of relevant laws and regulations. Moreover, the US senators from both parties also proposed on June 12, 2019 the bill- “Defending Each and Every Person from False Appearances by Keeping Exploitation Subject to Accountability Act of 2019”, which may be cited as “DEEP FAKES Accountability Act”. This Act is the same as the Act of 2018, both of which treat the use of deep fake as a fraudulent act by adding section 1041 to Chapter 47 of the United States Code. However, this Act does not directly define deep fake, but rather define such a type of technology as “advanced technological false personation record”, and require such records to comply with:

(1) DIGITAL WATERMARK: Any advanced technological false personation record which contains a moving visual element shall contain an embedded digital watermark clearly identifying such record as containing altered audio or visual elements.

(2) AUDIOVISUAL DISCLOSURE shall comply with the following principles:

A. clearly articulated verbal statement that identifies the record as containing altered audio and visual elements, and a concise description of the extent of such alteration; and
B. an unobscured written statement in clearly readable text appearing at the bottom of the image throughout the duration of the visual element that identifies the record as containing altered audio and visual elements, and a concise description of the extent of such alteration.

(3) VISUAL DISCLOSURE shall comply with the following principles: Any advanced technological false personation records exclusively containing a visual element shall include an unobscured written statement in clearly readable text appearing at the bottom of the image throughout the duration of the visual element that identifies the record as containing altered visual elements, and a concise description of the extent of such alteration.

(4) AUDIO DISCLOSURE shall comply with the following principles: Any advanced technological false personation records exclusively containing an audio element shall include, at the beginning of such record, a clearly articulated verbal statement that identifies the record as containing altered audio elements and a concise description of the extent of such alteration, and in the event such record exceeds two minutes in length, not less than 1 additional clearly articulated verbal statement and additional concise description at some interval during each two-minute period thereafter.

　　According to the bill, those who violate the above requirements shall be subject to legal responsibilities. In criminal liabilities, whoever knowingly violates the above requirements and (1) with the intent to humiliate or otherwise harass the person falsely exhibited, provided the advanced technological false personation record contains sexual content of a visual nature and appears to feature such person engaging in such sexual acts or in a state of nudity; (2) with the intent to cause violence or physical harm, incite armed or diplomatic conflict, or interfere in an official proceeding, including an election, provided the advanced technological false personation record did in fact pose a credible threat of instigating or advancing such; (3) in the course of criminal conduct related to fraud, including securities fraud and wire fraud, false personation, or identity theft; or (4) by a foreign power, or an agent thereof, with the intent of influencing a domestic public policy debate, interfering in a Federal, State, local, or territorial election, or engaging in other acts which such power may not lawfully undertake, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 5 years.  In civil liabilities, any person who violates the above requirements may be subject to a civil penalty of up to US$150,000 per record or alteration, as well as the compensation for the damage, if any.

　　In addition to the United States, the United Kingdom also launched the "Online Harms White Paper" in April 2019, which will establish a new "Online Safety" control structure to respond to false messages and underage pornographic videos, deep fake and online drug trafficking and so on.

　　The report points out that the new network security control framework will clarify the legal obligations of the Internet company to make the company assume more security responsibilities and avoid the harm caused by the content or actions generated by the service provided, and establish an independent regulatory agency supervising and implementing the relevant legal policies. The regulatory authority should provide relevant guidelines for compliance with the new obligations. If the company is unwilling to comply with the relevant guidelines, it must bear the burden of proof and prove that its alternative measures can achieve more effectively for the purpose of protecting the Internet users. In addition, the framework will also include elements of “Transparency, Trust, and Accountability”. The competent authority will be given the right to request an annual transparency report be submitted by the company, which the report should indicate the relevant harmful contents appeared on its platform, explain how it is handling with the problem, and publish the report on the website. Furthermore, the competent authority will have the right to request additional information from the Internet company, such as how its algorithm works.

　　In response to false messages, the report points out that current Internet companies have begun to conduct research on the prevention and control methods of fake news dissemination, including: (1) through the terms of service, users are not allowed to distort their identity on social software to spread false messages. (2) developing relevant tools to detect suspicious, false or junk accounts; (3) using automated artificial intelligence to delete or remove fake accounts; and (4) collaborating with independent fact verifying platforms. However, in the future, the government hopes that the guidelines and related policies proposed by the competent authorities must further include the following matters: (1) The company shall clarify its definition of false information in its terms of service, and state its expectations of users, and the possible penalties to users who violate the company policy; (2) The company should adopt the relevant countermeasures to deal with users with distorted identities who disseminate false messages; (3) The visibility of the disputed content currently under the fact-verifying inspection shall be reduced; (4) The fact-verifying service shall be used, especially during the election period, for fulfilling the obligation of fact verification; (5) Promote authoritative news sources; (6) Promote news circulation from different perspectives, rather than only reinforce the messages of people's existing views; (7) Users should be able to recognize that they are interacting with automated accounts and should ensure that the dissemination of automated accounts information is not abused; (8) Promote the transparency of political advertising to comply with the norms of the UK electoral law; (9) Companies should ensure that users may mark the content that they believe to be false news by themselves and let them know that the company is targeting false news for countermeasures to be taken; (10) The procedures for publishing information should be open and transparent so that the public can assess the effectiveness of the company’s response to false information, and further support the relevant research on online false message activities; (11) The relevant procedures and measures should be taken to continuously monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the processing flow of fake messages.

　　From the above-mentioned relevant international legal policy observations, it can be found that international measures related to deep fake can be classified into the following items:

(1) Establish an independent fact-verifying unit.
(2) Improve the transparency of information sources.
(3) Improve the oversight responsibility of the online platform for the messages appeared on such a platform.
(4) Deep fake is to be treated as an independent criminal act and its criminal, civil and administrative responsibilities are to be clearly regulated.
(5) On the technical level, relevant artificial intelligence tools are being developed to respond to this issue. For example, the American startup company, Deeptrace, has begun to conduct research and develop deep fake identification technology to identify the authenticity of the films.

※Artificial Intelligence Governance - Taking Deep Fake as an Example ,STLI, https://stli.iii.org.tw/en/article-detail.aspx?no=86&tp=2&i=169&d=8313 (Date:2024/04/19)
Quote this paper

Yu, He-Chien
 Legal Researcher

Release： 2019/10
Tag
Read with phone
Back
Previous The Research on Cybersecurity Risks in 5G network: Perspectives on Global strategy Next Open Government Data in Taiwan
You may be interested
The approaches to promote critical infrastructure protection in Japan

The approaches to promote critical infrastructure protection in Japan are illustrated below: 1. Coverage of Critical Information Infrastructure In the "Action Plan on Information Security Measures for Critical Infrastructure" promulgated by the Information Security Policy Council (ISPC) in 2005, critical infrastructure is defined as: Critical infrastructure which offers the highly irreplaceable service in a commercial way is necessary for people's normal lives and economic activities, and if the service is discontinued or the supply is deficient or not available, it will seriously influence people's lives and economic activities. Based on the definition of the action plan, the critical infrastructure contains: telecommunication systems, administration services of the government, finance, civil aviation, railway, logistics, power, gas, water, and medical services 2. Promoted Relevant Policies of The Past The issues regarding the CIIP are gradually being developed with the norm of information social security policy in Japan. Adopting the Action Plan of the Basic Guidelines Toward the Promotion of an Advanced Information and Telecommunications Society of 1998 proposed by the Japanese government in 1998 as a basis. The Japanese government keeps presenting polices of improvement for the relevant issues in order to acquire the stable development of telematics and telecommunications. Several years later, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) announced the Comprehensive Strategy on Information Security in 2003. The formulation of the strategy not only emphasizes the possible telematics-related risks and protection against threats that may be encountered in the information society, but it also enhances the level of information security to the level of national security and presents a comprehensive information security improvement program. Furthermore, the submission of the strategy has identified government’s responsibility in the development of information security Therefore, a division which is solely responsible for information security was established in the Cabinet Secretariat and is devoted to the development of it. In 2005, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) amended the Comprehensive Strategy on Information Security and announced the First National Strategy on Information Security based on the creation of a policy of a long-term information security task in Japan which is also the foundation for the policy of guidelines and action security concerning critical information infrastructure. This is in addition to being the most important basis for the policy of information security development. The strategy is different from the Comprehensive Strategy on Information Security in connotation. In the range of information security protection, it not only maintains information security from the perspective of the government; for instance, to divide the rights and duties on information security protection practices between the central government and the local government, and to strengthen the capacity of the government to solve emergencies such as cyber attacks, but it also tries to employ the public-private partnership on the CIIP issue to construct an extensive information security protection and to develop a Capability for Engineering of Protection, Technical Operation, Analysis and Response (CEPTOAR): one similar to the ISAC of America, to strengthen the information sharing and analysis of information security of all industry involved. According to the strategy, the METI established the Information Security Policy Council (ISPC) and the National Information Security Center (NISC) under the subordination of the Cabinet Secretariat in order to reach a goal of dependable society of information security.1 Finally, the information security policies more directly related with the CIIP are the Action Plan on Information Security Measures for Critical Infrastructure and the Standards for Information Security Measures for the Central Government Computer Systems, both of which regulate CI-related threats, information security standards, public-private partnership information sharing system, and the levels of information security standards between different governments and critical infrastructures, respectively. 3. Oraganization Framework Generally speaking, the Cabinet Secretariat is the main division of the CIIP and the information security for the Japanese government, while the ISPC and the NISC established under the Cabinet Secretariat in 2005 are the core organizations for the development of the CIIP policy. In addition, the National Policy Agency (NPA) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) also played an important role in assisting the Cabinet Secretariat with critical infrastructure protection. The part of public-private partnership is covered by the CEPTOAR which takes the responsibility for information sharing and analysis of information security between the government and private organizations. 4. Notification System For critical infrastructure protection, Japan has set up a warning and notification system in addition to the emphasis on fundamental information security protection. With the concept of public-private partnership, various messages related with information security are analyzed and shared in order to prevent information security incidents from occurring. The network of notification system in Japan mainly consists of several organizations as listed below. (1) National Incident Response Team The National Incident Response Team (NIRT) which is the information security office under the Cabinet Secretariat in the organization framework belongs to the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)2 and is first in line in the government to handle internet emergencies. According to the Action Plan for Ensuring e-Government's IT Security, the NIRT which consists of 17 experts from the government and the private organizations is responsible to (1) accurately understand and analyze emergencies, (2) develop technical strategies to solve and rehabilitate emergencies to prevent incidents from reoccurrence, (3) provide other governmental organizations the assistance to solve the information security issue, (4) collect and analyze information or intelligence so that effective solutions and strategies may be provided when an incident happens, (5) provide the governmental organization with professional knowledge and information, and (6) enhance and improve all knowledge pertinent to information security. The Japan Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center (JPCERT/cc) is the first Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) established in Japan. It consists of internet service suppliers, security products/service suppliers, governmental agencies, and associations of industry & commerce. The JPCERT/CC is also a member of the Asia Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team (APCERT) and a member of the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST). It coordinates and integrates prevention measures pertinent to information security and is consistent with other CSIRTs. (3) Telecom Information Sharing and Analysis Center In Japan, besides the mechanism responsible to notify the government, which functions as a bridge for communication between it and all those outside of it, the mechanism of information sharing and notification is also established among industries to provide each with a channel for information exchange and consultation. In 2001, Japan established the Telecom Information Sharing and Analysis Center Japan (Telecom-ISAC Japan). In addition to real-time inspection for computer intrusion incidents and conducting information collection and analysis, the Telecom-ISAC Japan proposes to e-government many suggestions related with the Transact-SQL issue as well. The reasons for launching the Telecom-ISAC are to instantaneously detect a computer intrusion incident, and to instantaneously gather and analyze its information, and then exchange this with other telecom carriers and offer them relevant countermeasures for precaution; so that in can reach the goal of ensuring telecom security since it is an important infrastructure concerning social economy. (4) Cyber Force The reasons for launching the Cyber Force are to maintain the security to use the internet by regularly "patrolling" it, searching for evidence of internet crime, and to notify the critical infrastructure operators about any unusual internet use so as to prevent the occurrence of cyber terror attacks. The Cyber Force also assists operators to solve and diminish the damage and influences when an incident occurs. (5) Portal Site of National Police Agency The National Police Agency owns the portal site "@police". It exists to prevent large-scale cyber emergencies and to provide gathered information concerning information security to government. In addition to providing the techniques related with the safe use of computer networks, @police is also dedicated to educating internet users about the concept of information security and to increase security awareness. (6) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Since 1990, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has cooperated with the JPCERT/CC and the Information Technology Promotion Agency (IPA) to provide reports on virus, intrusion, and the damage caused by them, to remind the public to pay attention. 5. Legal Norms The laws regarding critical infrastructure protection in Japan are illustrated as follows: (1) Unauthorized Computer Access Law of 1999 The Unauthorized Computer Access Law includes various conducts such as cyber intrusion, and data thefts, into the norms of criminal punishment to deter cyber crimes from spreading in order to ensure the safety of the critical information infrastructure. (2) Act on Electronic Signatures and Certification Business of 2000 With the formulation of the Act on Electronic Signatures and Certification Business, the smooth promotion of the electronic signature system is ensured and the circulation and process of electronic communication can be fostered further. (3) Basic Law on Formation of an Advanced Information and Telecommunication Network Society of 2001 Through the formulation of the Basic Law on Formation of an Advanced Information and Telecommunication Network Society, the legal basis to execute an information technology policy is enhanced, and the direction and job content for the government to execute this policy is explicitly stated. 1.http://www.nisc.go.jp/eng/pdf/national_strategy_001_eng.pdf(last accessed date: 2009/07/20). 2.http://www.nisc.go.jp/en/sisaku/h1310action.html(last accessed date: 2009/07/20).

The Organization Framework, the Notification System and the Legal Norms of Critical Infrastructure Protection in the U.S.

1. Organization Framework In the organization framework of critical infrastructure protection, there are mainly the public departments and the PPP organizations. The functions and task description of relevant organizations are as follows. (1) Department of Homeland Security After the September 11 attacks in America, the Homeland Security Act was passed in November 2002, and based on this act, 23 federal organizations, plans and offices were integrated to establish the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to take responsibility for homeland security in America. The tasks include: (1) to analyze intelligence data collected from various departments such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) so that any threats to security can be discovered in time, (2) to protect and defend critical infrastructure, (3) to coordinate and lead America to prevent and respond to the attacks from nuclear weapons, biochemical weapons and other and (4) to coordinate the tasks of the federal government, including emergency and rescue. For the task regarding critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure protection, the main units in charge are the Office of Infrastructure Protection (OIP) and the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C) subordinate to National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to reduce the risk in both physical and cyber security to maintain national security1 (2) Congress Relevant units and committees are established both in the Senate and the House of Representatives to be responsible for protection and making policies pertinent to important critical infrastructure and critical information infrastructure. (3) Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section In 1991, the Department of Justice (DOS) established the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), a section of the Criminal Division, to be responsible for all crime combating computer and intellectual property. Computer crime is referred to cases which include electronic penetrations, data thefts, and cyber attacks to the important critical infrastructure. CCIPS also prevents, investigates, and prosecutes computer crimes by working with other government agencies, the private sector, academic institutions, and foreign counterparts. (4) Other Relevant PPP Organizations 2The Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) is responsible for the information security message sharing among the industries of each critical infrastructure to ensure the liaison and cooperation among industries. Finally, for the issue on critical information infrastructure, especially cyber crimes, both the National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) and the Cross Sector Cyber Security Working Group (CSCSWG) are designated to serve as crucial roles in governmental and non-governmental internet security prevention to be responsible for techniques and education. 2. Notification System (1)Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center The Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center (CERT/CC) run by Carnegie Mellon University is the oldest and most important early-warning organization for information security in the USA. With its experts studying internet vulnerabilities and risk assessment released regularly, it reminds people of the possible dangers which exist in the information age and the need to improve internet security. (2)US Computer Emergency Readiness Team The US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) was established in 2003. It is responsible for protecting the infrastructure of the internet in America and for coordinating and providing response support and defense against national cyber attacks. It interacts with federal agencies, industry, the research community, state government, and others to disseminate reasoned and actionable cyber security information to the public. (3)Federal Bureau of Investigation The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the first early warning center of critical infrastructure at the national level, is responsible for providing the information pertinent to legal execution presently and also taking responsibility for the investigation of cyber crime. (4)Information Sharing and Analysis Centers Currently, industry in America, including finance, telecommunications, energy, traffic, water resources, together established individual Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) based on the policy made in PDD-63. The ISAC of the financial system established in October 1999 being the first established center. These ISACs further work together to form an ISAC Council to integrate the information from each of them and improve their interaction and information sharing. 3. Legal Norms In reference to the laws and regulations of critical infrastructure protection, America has aimed at critical infrastructure protection and computer crime to formulate the following regulations. (1) Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the advisory committee can be established in every federal agency to provide the public, along with received open advice, with relevant objectives, and to prevent the public from being inappropriately influenced by the policies made by the government. However, to keep the private institutions which run the critical infrastructures from worrying the inappropriate leak of the sensitive information provided and consulted by them, Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council was established so that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the right to disregard the regulations of FACA and establish an independent advisory committee. (2) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 19863 The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) was enacted and implemented in 1986. It mainly regulates computer fraud and abuse. The Act states that it is against the law for anyone to access a protected computer without authorization. However, it also recognizes the fact that accessing a computer system of electronic and magnetic records does not mean a violation of the law. According to the CFAA, what is needed is one of the following requirements to be the wrongful conduct regulated in the Act: (1) whoever intentionally accesses a computer to obtain specific information inside the government or whoever has influenced the transmission function of the computer system; (2) whoever intentionally accesses a computer to obtain a protected database (including the information contained in a financial record of a financial institution or of a card issuer, or the information contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, or the information from any department of agency of the United States, or the conduct involving an interstate transaction); (3) whoever intentionally accesses any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, and causes damage. In addition, the Act also prohibits conduct such as transmitting malicious software, and defrauding traffic in any password or similar information. For any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of the law, he/she may maintain a civil action to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. However, the Computer Abuse Amendment Act (1994) expands the above Act, planning to include the conduct of transmitting viruses and malicious program into the norms whose regulatory measures were adopted by the USA Patriot Act enacted in October 20014 (3) Homeland Security Act of 20025 The Homeland Security Act provides the legal basis for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and integrates relevant federal agencies into it. The Act also puts information analysis and measures of critical infrastructure protection into the norm. And, the norm in which private institutions are encouraged to voluntarily share with DHS the information security message of important critical infrastructure is regulated in the Critical Infrastructure Information Act: Procedures for Handling Critical Infrastructure Information. According to the Act, the DHS should have the obligation to keep the information provided by private institutions confidential, and this information is exempted from disclosure by the Freedom of Information Act. (4) Freedom of Information Act Many critical infrastructures in America are regulated by governmental laws, yet they are run by private institutions. Therefore, they should obey the law and provide the government with the operation report and the sensitive information related with critical infrastructure. However, knowing that people can file a request at will to review relevant data from the government agencies based on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), then the security of national critical infrastructure may be exposed to the danger of being attacked. Therefore, the critical infrastructure, especially the information regarding the safety system, early warning, and interdependent units, are all exempted by the Freedom of Information Act. (5) Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 20026 After the 911 Incident, Congress in America passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act to establish the mechanism to underwrite terrorism risk insurance, in which insurance companies are required to provide terrorism attack risk insurance and the federal government will also cover part of loss for severe attacks. 1.http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0794. shtm (last accessed at 21. 07. 2009). 2.http://www.thei3p.org/ (last accessed at 21. 07. 2009). 3.http://www.panix.com/~eck/computer-fraud-act. html (last accessed at 21. 07. 2009). 4.Mark G. Milone, Hacktivism：Securing the National Infrastructure, 58 Bus. Law, 389-390, 2002. 5.http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf (last accessed at 21. 07. 2009). 6.http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/financial-institution/terrorism-insurance/pdf/hr3210.pdf (last accessed at 21. 07. 2009).

Norms of Critical Infrastructure Protection in Japan

The approaches to promote critical infrastructure protection in Japan The approaches to promote critical infrastructure protection in Japan are illustrated below: 1. Coverage of Critical Information Infrastructure In the "Action Plan on Information Security Measures for Critical Infrastructure" promulgated by the Information Security Policy Council (ISPC) in 2005, critical infrastructure is defined as: Critical infrastructure which offers the highly irreplaceable service in a commercial way is necessary for people's normal lives and economic activities, and if the service is discontinued or the supply is deficient or not available, it will seriously influence people's lives and economic activities. Based on the definition of the action plan, the critical infrastructure contains: telecommunication systems, administration services of the government, finance, civil aviation, railway, logistics, power, gas, water, and medical services 2. Promoted Relevant Policies of The Past The issues regarding the CIIP are gradually being developed with the norm of information social security policy in Japan. Adopting the Action Plan of the Basic Guidelines Toward the Promotion of an Advanced Information and Telecommunications Society of 1998 proposed by the Japanese government in 1998 as a basis. The Japanese government keeps presenting polices of improvement for the relevant issues in order to acquire the stable development of telematics and telecommunications. Several years later, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) announced the Comprehensive Strategy on Information Security in 2003. The formulation of the strategy not only emphasizes the possible telematics-related risks and protection against threats that may be encountered in the information society, but it also enhances the level of information security to the level of national security and presents a comprehensive information security improvement program. Furthermore, the submission of the strategy has identified government’s responsibility in the development of information security Therefore, a division which is solely responsible for information security was established in the Cabinet Secretariat and is devoted to the development of it. In 2005, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) amended the Comprehensive Strategy on Information Security and announced the First National Strategy on Information Security based on the creation of a policy of a long-term information security task in Japan which is also the foundation for the policy of guidelines and action security concerning critical information infrastructure. This is in addition to being the most important basis for the policy of information security development. The strategy is different from the Comprehensive Strategy on Information Security in connotation. In the range of information security protection, it not only maintains information security from the perspective of the government; for instance, to divide the rights and duties on information security protection practices between the central government and the local government, and to strengthen the capacity of the government to solve emergencies such as cyber attacks, but it also tries to employ the public-private partnership on the CIIP issue to construct an extensive information security protection and to develop a Capability for Engineering of Protection, Technical Operation, Analysis and Response (CEPTOAR): one similar to the ISAC of America, to strengthen the information sharing and analysis of information security of all industry involved. According to the strategy, the METI established the Information Security Policy Council (ISPC) and the National Information Security Center (NISC) under the subordination of the Cabinet Secretariat in order to reach a goal of dependable society of information security.1 Finally, the information security policies more directly related with the CIIP are the Action Plan on Information Security Measures for Critical Infrastructure and the Standards for Information Security Measures for the Central Government Computer Systems, both of which regulate CI-related threats, information security standards, public-private partnership information sharing system, and the levels of information security standards between different governments and critical infrastructures, respectively. 3. Oraganization Framework Generally speaking, the Cabinet Secretariat is the main division of the CIIP and the information security for the Japanese government, while the ISPC and the NISC established under the Cabinet Secretariat in 2005 are the core organizations for the development of the CIIP policy. In addition, the National Policy Agency (NPA) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) also played an important role in assisting the Cabinet Secretariat with critical infrastructure protection. The part of public-private partnership is covered by the CEPTOAR which takes the responsibility for information sharing and analysis of information security between the government and private organizations. 4. Notification System For critical infrastructure protection, Japan has set up a warning and notification system in addition to the emphasis on fundamental information security protection. With the concept of public-private partnership, various messages related with information security are analyzed and shared in order to prevent information security incidents from occurring. The network of notification system in Japan mainly consists of several organizations as listed below. (1) National Incident Response Team The National Incident Response Team (NIRT) which is the information security office under the Cabinet Secretariat in the organization framework belongs to the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)2 and is first in line in the government to handle internet emergencies. According to the Action Plan for Ensuring e-Government's IT Security, the NIRT which consists of 17 experts from the government and the private organizations is responsible to (1) accurately understand and analyze emergencies, (2) develop technical strategies to solve and rehabilitate emergencies to prevent incidents from reoccurrence, (3) provide other governmental organizations the assistance to solve the information security issue, (4) collect and analyze information or intelligence so that effective solutions and strategies may be provided when an incident happens, (5) provide the governmental organization with professional knowledge and information, and (6) enhance and improve all knowledge pertinent to information security. (2) Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center The Japan Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center (JPCERT/cc) is the first Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) established in Japan. It consists of internet service suppliers, security products/service suppliers, governmental agencies, and associations of industry & commerce. The JPCERT/CC is also a member of the Asia Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team (APCERT) and a member of the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST). It coordinates and integrates prevention measures pertinent to information security and is consistent with other CSIRTs. (3) Telecom Information Sharing and Analysis Center In Japan, besides the mechanism responsible to notify the government, which functions as a bridge for communication between it and all those outside of it, the mechanism of information sharing and notification is also established among industries to provide each with a channel for information exchange and consultation. In 2001, Japan established the Telecom Information Sharing and Analysis Center Japan (Telecom-ISAC Japan). In addition to real-time inspection for computer intrusion incidents and conducting information collection and analysis, the Telecom-ISAC Japan proposes to e-government many suggestions related with the Transact-SQL issue as well. The reasons for launching the Telecom-ISAC are to instantaneously detect a computer intrusion incident, and to instantaneously gather and analyze its information, and then exchange this with other telecom carriers and offer them relevant countermeasures for precaution; so that in can reach the goal of ensuring telecom security since it is an important infrastructure concerning social economy. (4) Cyber Force The reasons for launching the Cyber Force are to maintain the security to use the internet by regularly "patrolling" it, searching for evidence of internet crime, and to notify the critical infrastructure operators about any unusual internet use so as to prevent the occurrence of cyber terror attacks. The Cyber Force also assists operators to solve and diminish the damage and influences when an incident occurs. (5) Portal Site of National Police Agency The National Police Agency owns the portal site "@police". It exists to prevent large-scale cyber emergencies and to provide gathered information concerning information security to government. In addition to providing the techniques related with the safe use of computer networks, @police is also dedicated to educating internet users about the concept of information security and to increase security awareness. (6) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Since 1990, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has cooperated with the JPCERT/CC and the Information Technology Promotion Agency (IPA) to provide reports on virus, intrusion, and the damage caused by them, to remind the public to pay attention. 5. Legal Norms The laws regarding critical infrastructure protection in Japan are illustrated as follows: (1) Unauthorized Computer Access Law of 1999 The Unauthorized Computer Access Law includes various conducts such as cyber intrusion, and data thefts, into the norms of criminal punishment to deter cyber crimes from spreading in order to ensure the safety of the critical information infrastructure. (2) Act on Electronic Signatures and Certification Business of 2000 With the formulation of the Act on Electronic Signatures and Certification Business, the smooth promotion of the electronic signature system is ensured and the circulation and process of electronic communication can be fostered further. (3) Basic Law on Formation of an Advanced Information and Telecommunication Network Society of 2001 Through the formulation of the Basic Law on Formation of an Advanced Information and Telecommunication Network Society, the legal basis to execute an information technology policy is enhanced, and the direction and job content for the government to execute this policy is explicitly stated. 1.http://www.nisc.go.jp/eng/pdf/national_strategy_001_eng.pdf(last accessed date: 2009/07/20). 2.http://www.nisc.go.jp/en/sisaku/h1310action.html(last accessed date: 2009/07/20).

 The Coverage and Policies of Critical Infrastructure Protection in U.S.

Regarding the issue of critical infrastructure protection, the emphasis in the past was put on strategic facilities related to the national economy and social security merely based on the concept of national defense and security1. However, since 911 tragedy in New York, terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and several other martial impacts in London in 2005, critical infrastructure protection has become an important issue in the security policy for every nation. With the broad definition, not only confined to national strategies against immediate dangers or to execution of criminal prevention procedure, the concept of "critical infrastructure" should also include facilities that are able to invalidate or incapacitate the progress of information & communication technology. In other words, it is elevated to strengthen measures of security prevention instead. Accordingly, countries around the world have gradually cultivated a notion that critical infrastructure protection is different from prevention against natural calamities and from disaster relief, and includes critical information infrastructure (CII) maintained so that should be implemented by means of information & communication technology into the norm. In what follows, the International CIIP Handbook 2008/2009 is used as a research basis. The Subjects, including the coverage of CIIP, relevant policies promoted in America, are explored in order to provide our nation with some references to strengthen the security development of digital age. 1. Coverage of Important Critical Information Infrastructures Critical infrastructure is mainly defined in "Uniting and Strengthening our country by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, as known as Patriot Act of the U.S., in section 1016(e)2 . The term ‘critical infrastructure’ refers to "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to our country that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters." In December 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7)3 to identify 17 Critical Infrastructures and key resources (CI/KR) ,and bleuprinted the responsibility as well as the role for each of CI/KR in the protection task. In this directive, DHS also emphasized that the coverage of CI/KR would depend on the real situations to add or delete sectors to ensure the comprehensiveness of critical infrastructure. In March 2008, DHS added Critical Manufacturing which becomes the 18th critical infrastructure correspondent with 17 other critical infrastructures. The critical infrastructures identified by DHS are: information technology, communications, chemical, commercial facilities, dams, nuclear reactors, materials and waste, government facilities, transportation systems, emergency services, postal and shipping, agriculture and food, healthcare and public health, water, energy (including natural gas, petroleum, and electricity), banking and finance, national monuments and icons, defense industrial Base, and critical manufacturing. 2. Relevant Policies Previously Promoted With Critical Infrastructure Working Group (CIWG) as a basis, the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) directly subordinate to the President was established in 1996. It consists of relevant governmental organizations and representatives from private sectors. It is responsible for promoting and drawing up national policies indicating an important critical infrastructure, including natural disasters, negligence and lapses caused by humans, hacker invasion, industrial espionage, criminal organizations, terror campaign, and information & communication war and so on. Although PCCIP no longer exists and its functions were also redefined by HDSP-7, the success of improving cooperation and communication between public and private sectors was viewed as a significant step in the subsequent issues on information security of critical infrastructure of public and private sectors in America. In May 1998, Bill Clinton, the former President of the U.S., amended PCCIP and announced Presidential Decision Directive 62, 63 (PDD-62, PDD-63). Based on these directives, relevant teams were established within the federal government to develop and push the critical infrastructure plans to protect the operations of the government, assist communications between the government and the private sectors, and further develop the plans to secure national critical infrastructure. In addition, concrete policies and plans regarding information security of critical infrastructure would contain the Defence of America's Cyberspace -- National Plan for Information Systems Protection given by President Clinton in January, 2000 based on the issue of critical infrastructure security on the Internet which strengthens the sharing mechanism of internet information security messages between the government and private organizations. After 911, President Bush issued Executive Order 13228 (EO 13228) and Executive Order 13231 to set up organizations to deal with matters regarding critical infrastructure protection. According to EO 13228, the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council were established. The duty of the former is mainly assist the U.S. President to integrate all kinds of enforcements related to the protection of the nation and critical infrastructure so as to avoid terrorist attacks, while the latter provides the President with advice on protection of homeland security and assists to solve relevant problems. According to EO 13228, the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board directly subordinate to the President was established to be responsible for offering advice on polices regarding information security protection of critical infrastructure and on cooperation plans. In addition, National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), which consists of owners and managers of national critical infrastructure, was also set up to help promote the cooperation between public and private sectors. Ever since the aforementioned executive order, critical infrastructure protection has been more concrete and specific in definition; for instance, to define critical infrastructure and its coverage through HSPD-7, the National Strategy for Homeland Security issued in 2002, the polices regarding the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace and the National Strategy for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets addressed by the White House in 2003; all of this are based on the National Strategy for Homeland Security. Moreover, the density of critical infrastructure protection which contains virtual internet information security was enhanced for the protection of physical equipment and the protection from destruction caused by humans. Finally, judging from the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), Sector-Specific Plans (SPP) supplementing NIPP and offering a detailed list of risk management framework, along with National Strategy for Information-Sharing, the public-private partnership (PPP) and the establishment of information sharing mechanism are highly estimated to ensure that the network of information security protection of critical infrastructure can be delicately interwoven together because plenty of important critical infrastructures in the U.S. still depend on the maintenance and operation of private sectors. 1.Cf. Luiijf, Eric A. M. , Helen H. Burger, and Marieke H. A. Klaver, “Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Netherlands：A Quick-scan”. In：Gattiker, Urs E. , Pia Pedersen, amd Karsten Petersen (eds. ) . EICAR Conference Best Paper Proceedings 2003, http://cip.gmu.edu/archive/2_NetherlandsCIdefpaper_2003.pdf （last accessed at 20. 07. 2009） 2.For each chapter of relevant legal cases, please visit http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/5DiseaseReport/USAPatriotAct.htm. The text regarding the definition of critical infrastructure is cited as "Critical Infrastructure Defined- In this section, the term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matter. " 1.Cf. Luiijf, Eric A. M. , Helen H. Burger, and Marieke H. A. Klaver, “Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Netherlands：A Quick-scan”. In：Gattiker, Urs E. , Pia Pedersen, amd Karsten Petersen (eds. ) . EICAR Conference Best Paper Proceedings 2003, http://cip.gmu.edu/archive/2_NetherlandsCIdefpaper_2003.pdf （last accessed at 20. 07. 2009） 2.For each chapter of relevant legal cases, please visit http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/5DiseaseReport/USAPatriotAct.htm. The text regarding the definition of critical infrastructure is cited as "Critical Infrastructure Defined- In this section, the term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matter. " 3.Introduction of Consumer Protection in Taiwan , Republic of China , Consumer Protection Commission (CPC), Executive Yuan.http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/hspd-7.html ( Last visit 2008/6/27 )

Most read
[　X Close　]
Copyright © 2016 STLI,III. All Rights Reserved.
TOP