Thiruvananthapuram: The report submitted by the expert panel stated that the Chief Minister was unaware of the controversial Sprinklr deal. The contract with the US-based PR and marketing company Sprinklr to handle data compiled from people who are Covid-19 positive and under quarantine, was not prepared or implemented with CM’s nod. Then IT Secretary M Sivasankar implemented the contract.

The report also stated that with the deal Sprinklr obtained control and authority over the public’s data.

IT department had conducted discussions with Sprinklr. The details of the discussions and the minutes of the meetings were handed over to the expert panel after repeated notices, report blamed.

Even the health department was unaware of the deal. Health secretary Rajan Khobragade informed the panel that no discussions was held between the health and IT departments in this regard. He added that it was clearly stated in the file that the health department will be responsible for the Covid data and the IT department will play the role of a facilitator.

Though the server data since March 25, 2020 when information started reaching Sprinklr was asked for cyber security inspection, C-DIT only handed over limited information from April 3 – April 19. Though the Standardisation Testing and Quality Certification (STQC) Directorate under Union Ministry of Electronics and Information found that data was handed over to some private IP addresses, no more details could be found in this regard as the info handed over by C-DIT was limited, the report further stated.

With this no conclusion can be arrived on privacy, confidentiality and data security. Information of around 1.82 lakh people were sent to the Sprinklr account in until first week of April.

The two-member panel, with the former Chief of National Cybersecurity Gulshan Rai and former Civil Aviation Secretary M Madhavan Nambiar as members, found that the executors of the contract did not have the technical and legal expertise, the terms of the contract were likely to be abused and the contract signed without the knowledge of the Chief Minister was against the interests of the state, the capacity and security of the information transfer platform was not checked and legal action against Sprinkler, in case of any retaliation, would be difficult as the company comes in the jurisdiction of a U.S. court.

Though the panel had asked the government to publish the report, this demand was rejected. Following this the general administration department released it on account of an RTI.

  PINARAY, sivasankar