This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Alexander NTOKO Head, E-Strategy UnitITU Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT)Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D
Regional Seminar on E-Commerce for CEE, CIS and the Baltic States
Bucharest, Romania 14-17 May 2002
o Legal Issues• Privacy • Data protection• Liabilities of Service Providers• Intellectual property rights, copyright • Digital signatures • Electronic contracts• Consumer protection• Jurisdiction for Cross-border
transactions
o Financial Issues• Customs• Taxation• Revenue implication for
o Cultural issues• Content• Multilingualism • Cultural diversity• Censorship
o Governance issues• International coordination of the
Internet• Domain Names and • Address Management• Payment of international links
• Certification Authorities• Root certification, • Hierarchy of CAs• International coordination
o Trade issues• WTO Agreements• Duty-free entry of goods in
electronic form• Free Trade Zones
“Near consensus”: paperless
o Paperless transactions: Law has traditionally presumed the presence of paper records “in writing”. Near consensus that governments need to make amendments to laws in order to bring media-neutrality of statutes, evidence rules for electronic records (note: email evidence was used in Clinton and Microsoft legal battles), recognition of electronic signatures combined with a reliable certification authority.
“No consensus” proposals
o Privacy• only self-regulation ??
o Encryptiono Jurisdiction (consensus ??)o Role of private sector, government and
international organizationso Contento Internet governance and domain nameso Liability of intermediaries
“No consensus”: Privacy
Bad practices:o Keep track of user browsing and choices
without his/her consento Sell user data (e.g., e-mail addresses)o Use spending profile for advertisemento Pull user data from “cookies” stored in
the user’s computer
“No consensus”: Encryption
o Recommended key lengths• public key systems: 1024 bits keys• symmetric systems: 128 bits keys
o Export Restrictions and Usage for encryption with long keys (e.g. more than 512 bits for RSA and 40-56 bits for symmetric)
Encryption: key length problem
o US Data Encryption Standard (DES) 56-bit keys is becoming inadequate
o Triple-DES is one “improvement”: encrypting the output of DES twice using three keys
o Long term (20 years): 90-bits symmetric keys are adequate
o 128-bit keys: “impossible” to breako Must distinguish “authentication and integrity
services” from “confidentiality services”
Encryption: key length problem
o RSA RC5 56-bit key crack challenge, early 1997o Bovine RC5 Effort: tens of thousands computers
linked over Internet, more than 4,000 teamso 72 quatrillion (72,057,594,037,927,936) possible
keys to testo 268 million key blocks distributed to teamso Peak rate of processing: 7 billion keys/secondo Oct 22, 1997: RSA announces successful cracko Conclusion: 56-bit key not sufficiento Remember Moore’s law: computing power
doubles every 18 months (no longer valid)
Cost and time of brute force attacks
o Assumption: 3 years equipment life and continual useo Authors: Blaze, Diffie,Rivest, Schneier, Shinomura,Thompson
“No consensus”: Encryption
o Should citizen’s rights to privacy take precedence over law enforcement concerns?
o “… not possible to prevent criminals from using encryption … little point in preventing legal users from protecting themselves” (Bangemann, European Commission)
“No consensus”: Encryption
o Key escrow: copy of any secret key is deposited with Trusted Third Party (TTP)
o National law might require that TTP hands over secret key on certain situations
o Key recovery: encryption system allows authorized organizations to rebuild key on request (“back door” access to private key)
o Both schemes allow access to encrypted data
“No consensus”: Encryption
o Some European companies are concerned about using US-based Trusted Third Parties (TTPs), since they may contravene their own country’s data protection laws
o A number of countries are becoming concerned about maintaining national root TTPs, to prevent dominance of their national economies by foreign brands
Certification Authority Issues
o Issuing certificates is easyo Managing effectively and securely is
difficult: CAs must maintain a Certification Revocation List (CRL), must not store private keys (risk of “identity theft”), ...
o Trust depends on integrity and security of CA’s practices and procedures
o Users will have many certificates (e.g., one for Intranet, one for Extranet, one at home)
o Interoperability: need for standard
Hierarchy of Certification Authorities
Source: BYTE Magazine
Role of Governments, International Organizations and Private sector
o Some E-Commerce “frameworks” ignore the role of governments & international organizations: everything should be private-sector driven
o Jeffrey Ritter, the chairman of the American Bar Association's committee on Internet law, seeks a middle ground between industry and public policy. "The private sector will be mistaken if they believe they can formulate the rules for e-commerce without the input and consultation of governments," he said.
Users and Consumers: Digital, Analogue and cable modem standards for user access to the Internet (V.90 and ISDN standards)
Businesses and Service Providers: Broadband Internet Access for e-business and service providers (DWDM)
Building Global Trust and Security - Standards to establish identities of parties in e-transactions, Digital and Attribute Certificates, Digital Signatures, Certification Authorities and Certificate Distribution Systems
M-Business and Wireless Internet (IMT-2000)Global Standards for high speed 3G digital mobile Fair and equitable access to the radio-frequency spectrum
1. seek a better international understanding on how to achieve a friction free and borderless marketplace while meeting general public interest objectives
2. define the key issues that require strengthened international coordination
3. many organizations are proposing frameworks for global E-commerce coordination
Need for a global framework
The global electronic marketplace requires an appropriate framework covering technical, commercial, and legal aspects. This should foster interoperable technical solutions, competitive business practices and consistent rules. It does not need to consist of detailed and harmonised rules on all relevant aspects.
What is required is a concerted examination of the problems and the priorities, in order to allow the international community to address them in a substantive and coordinated manner.
Need for global framework
o Building trust in electronic commerce by ensuring the security and privacy of transactions and data, and the protection of consumers.
o Establishing ground rules so that commercial laws, tax and customs tariffs, trade policy and market access, and intellectual property measures create a level playing field for electronic transactions.
Need for global framework
o Enhancing the information infrastructure through common interoperable standards, and access to open networks.
o Maximizing the benefits of electronic commerce by developing awareness and skills, encouraging widespread SME adoption, and ensuring participation and use by all countries.
Conclusion
While waiting for all these issues to be addressed, it is important for Governments
to work with the relevant stakeholders (international organizations, public and
private sector and civil society) to promote policies that will enhance the development