1. EUROPEAN IDENTITY STRATEGY 1 NICOLE HARRIS e-Infrastructure Summer Workshops, Federated Identity Technology

2. EU DIRECTIVES / REGULATIONS 2 HELPFUL DISTINCTION: A Directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. A Regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

3. DATA PROTECTION 3 Currently: DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data Moving to: REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).

4. 4

5. “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people….That social norm is just something that has evolved over time.” Mark Zuckerberg, January 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/11/fac ebook-privacy 5

6. http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downl oads/A%20New%20Privacy%20Paradox% 20April%202014.pdf 6

7. “It is clear that the cord connecting technology and democracy has been severed. This is bad for democracy and bad for technology and it will not be easy to stitch the two back together,” Neelie Kroes, European Commission, March 2014. http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/10/need-stronger-data- safeguards-snowdens-wake-call-says-european-commissioner/ 7

8. WHAT IS NEW IN DP REGULATION? 8 A single set of rules on data protection, valid across the EU. Increased responsibility and accountability for those processing personal data. Consent has to be given explicitly, rather than assumed. Easier access to their own data and be able to transfer personal data from one service provider to another more easily (right to data portability). A ‘right to be forgotten’ will help people better manage data protection risks online: people will be able to delete their data if there are no legitimate grounds for retaining it. EU rules must apply if personal data is handled abroad by companies that are active in the EU market and offer their services to EU citizens.

9. IDENTITY 9 Currently: DIRECTIVE 1999/93/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures. Moving to: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal Market.

10. WHAT’S NEW? 10

11. REFEDS Goals Forum for R&E Federations Operators and other parties:  To develop best practise to facilitate inter-federations;  Following the model: do it once, use it multiple times. Hopefully to offer a place for user-communities to put forward their requirements/complaints. 11

12. 31 Production Federations 17 Pilot Federations Last update May 2014 12

13. REFEDS RESOURCES 13 DISCOVERY GUIDE (SEE NEXT SLIDE) FEDERATION POLICY GUIDELINES WITH GEANT FEDERATION OPERATIONAL BEST PRACTICE ENTITY CATEGORIES TO SUPPORT DATA RELEASE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS: METADATA QUERY PROTOCOL SAML ENTITY CATEGORIES SERVICES

14. DISCOVERY.REFEDS.ORG 14

15. HOW?? 15 http://www.terena.org/publications/files/2012 -AAA-Study-report-final.pdf

16. ›GÉANT preparation is on-going: ›Led heavily by NRENs ›Open Calls and Enabling users help support community use-cases ›Horizon 2020 call on AAI: ›Consortium with both NRENs and e-Researchers ›Good opportunity to work together as a team ›Some of the work will take place in REFEDS but funded ›GÉANT preparation is on-going: ›Led heavily by NRENs ›Open Calls and Enabling users help support community use-cases ›Horizon 2020 call on AAI: ›Consortium with both NRENs and e-Researchers ›Good opportunity to work together as a team ›Some of the work will take place in REFEDS but funded ›Horizon 2020 call on AAI: ›Consortium with both NRENs and e-Researchers ›Good opportunity to work together as a team ›Some of the work will take place in REFEDS but funded ›Main topics: ›LoA, Incident response, training and outreach, attribute authorities ›Horizon 2020 call on AAI: ›Consortium with both NRENs and e-Researchers ›Good opportunity to work together as a team ›Some of the work will take place in REFEDS but funded ›Main topics: ›LoA, Incident response, training and outreach, attribute authorities 16 AARC CALL

17. Policy Pilot Services Operational Practises Support for R&E communities REFEDS Best Practises LoA Training on policies EINFRA Call Outreach Proof of Concepts Supporting Tools Guest IdPs Federation Harmonisation Services eduGAIN Moonshot GÉANT Enabling Users Research Work eduroam Identity Harmonisation 17

18. Research use-cases, tools and services 18 NICOLE HARRIS e-Infrastructure Summer Workshops, Federated Identity Technology

19. FIM4R: Federated Identity Management for Researchers 19 Includes photon & neutron facilities, social science & humanities, high energy physics, climate science, life sciences and ESA Aim: define common vision, requirements and best practices Vision and requirements paper published:https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1442597https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1442597 “A common policy and trust framework for Identity Management based on existing structures and federations either presently in use by or available to the communities. This framework must provide researchers with unique electronic identities authenticated in multiple administrative domains and across national boundaries that can be used together with community defined attributes to authorize access to digital resources.”

20. What do Researchers Want? 20 A log-in! Everyone of their researcher partners to have a log-in. Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to be released – where they need it. Attributes from multiple sources. To be able to have a higher level of trust (assurance). Non-web login. Great user interface. Unicorns.

21. Non-web- browser Homeless users Attribute release Credential translation User friendliness Attribute aggregation Levels of Assurance Bridging Communitie s 30+ Research Infrastructures in Europe Countless more “long tail” users

22. Three Collaborative Pilots – User communities and GÉANT “Umbrella is the Federated Identity Solution of the Photon and Neutron Community, enabling user initiated trans- facility access.” “A connected network of people, information, tools, and methodologies for investigating, exploring and supporting work across the broad spectrum of the digital humanities.” “Basic life science information constitutes a testament of human and natural evolution and advancement. As such, this wealth of knowledge should be freely available for all to access, study and process” 22

23. Combination of eduGAIN and community specific DARIAH homeless-IdP and attribute authority DARIAH has been able to meet many requirements Distributed user and privilege administration Policies that allow for integration into DFN- AAI and eduGAIN DARIAH would like to see more entities available in eduGAIN and reasonable attributes available eduGAIN is the best approach to pan European AAI for DARIAH but some time is needed to fulfil all needs 23 DARIAH EXPERIENCE

24. A pan-European approach to LoA would be appreciated/necessary in the future Minimise ELIXIR-specific customisation Next phase of AAI in ELIXIR – blueprint for discussion External IdPs via eduGAIN ELIXIR specific services for authorisation (REMS), non web, homeless users and community management Federated identity cross sector collaboration: REMS to be used by FI-CLARIN & FI- CESSDA 24 ELIXIR EXPERIENCE

25. More opportunities for NREN/Research Infrastructure Collaboration Security analysis discussion at FIM4R Piloting with a wider community has benefits JANET/Diamond Light in UK Moonshot Pilot Confidentiality aspects critical for Umbrella - high competition, especially structural biology Authorisation is delegated to the systems participating in Umbrella 25 UMBRELLA Experience

26. Attributes - Release, consistency, community specific and harmonisation Levels of Assurance A long term issue to be broken down Understanding security and incident response Progress can be slow initially More experience, work faster Many other research communities developing AAI requirements and work Non web – Early pilot not novice user but evolving more 26 WORK TO DO

27. FIM4R /RDA T&I Committee Increased EC/public awareness of security Federations looking to do more Support of GÉANT Code of Conduct Emerging ‘opt-out’ pilots for eduGAIN REFEDs Federation Operator Best Practice Research communities services appearing in national federations and eduGAIN Knowledge gained with these pilots helps support other communities & plan service 27 Opportunities

28. FIM: THE BUSINESS CASE 28 NICOLE HARRIS e-Infrastructure Summer Workshops, Federated Identity Technology

29. WHY? 29 Developing a business case forces a well- considered decision that assesses a range of options. Managing a business case throughout an undertaking supports successful implementation by keeping activities "on course" for the desired outcome.

30. EXAMPLES – UK FEDERATION 30 PILOT FEDERATION: 2003 – 2006. Development programmes with institutions including “early adopter” funding. FULL FEDERATION from 2006. 1997 Entites with the federation. 953 Identity Providers. 1047 Service Providers.

31. 31

32. 32

33. 33

34. 34

35. SECTIONS OF A BUSINESS CASE 35 STRATEGIC FIT OPTIONS APRAISAL AFFORDABILITYACHIEVABILITY

36. 36 STRATEGIC FIT

37. STRATEGIC FIT – THE QUESTIONS 37 Are access management requirements currently being met? Why do we have to change and does it have to be done now? What internal and external strategic drivers are there for change? Does the change fit with institutional strategy? What is our approach to open-source and community-supported technology? To what extent should identity information be controlled within the institution? How many services should be brought together under a single access management infrastructure?

38. (NOT) THE KILLER APP 38

39. STRATEGIC DRIVERS - EXAMPLES 39

40. STRATEGIC DRIVERS – INFLUENCES (1) 40 INTERNAL DRIVERS EXTERNAL DRIVERS

41. STRATEGIC DRIVERS – INFLUENCES (2) 41 INTERNAL DRIVERS EXTERNAL DRIVERS

42. STRATEGIC DRIVERS – INFLUENCES (3) 42 INTERNAL DRIVERS EXTERNAL DRIVERS

43. 43 OPTIONS APPRAISAL

44. OPTIONS APPRAISAL – THE QUESTIONS 44 What options are there? Is the range of options under consideration sufficiently broad? Have innovative options and/or collaboration with others been considered? What are the option criteria? Are all benefits, costs, risks and timescales covered? Are all business needs, requirements and characteristics covered? Would other stakeholders agree with the option criteria? Are criteria weightings necessary? What benefits, costs, risks and timescales are associated with each option? What option has the optimum balance of cost, benefit and risk? What trade-offs need to be made? (eg foregoing some of the benefits to keep costs within budget)

45. STRATEGIC CHOICES 45 DO NOTHING DEPLOY A LIMITED SOLUTION DEPLOY A SINGLE SSO SOLUTION

46. DEPLOYMENT CHOICES 46 OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IN-HOUSE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IN-HOUSE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IN-HOUSE COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE / MANAGED SERVICE DO IT YOURSELF NOT RECOMMENDED! COMMUNITY SUPPORT PAID-FOR SUPPORT COMMERICAL / MANAGED SERVICE SUPPORT

47. 47 Edugate JAGGER Hub and Spoke? Mesh Federation?

48. COST / BENEFITS ANALYSIS: BENEFITS 48

49. COST / BENEFITS ANALYSIS: COST 49 UPFRONT PROJECT COSTS: pre-requisites, development effort, direct costs (hardware etc.), training, legal advice. ONGOING SERVICE COSTS: membership fees?, support costs, administrative costs, hardware replacement, audit and compliance. OPPORTUNITY COSTS: what other projects or initiatives could be undertaken if the budget or staff allocated required for the option could be freed up? WE CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO COST TO DEPLOY, SORRY

50. 50 AFFORDABILITY

51. Affordability 51 Is the required budget available to deliver the whole project? − What budget(s) will be used? − Is this capital or operating expenditure, or both? − It the funding available and secure? − Is there any contingency? If not, can the budget be obtained? − Can the scope be reduced or delivered over a longer period? − Could funding be sought from other sources? What is the cost of not pursuing the preferred cost of action? What other plans and activities are dependent on it?

52. 52 Cost of an IdP

53. 53 ACHIEVABILITY

54. ACHIEVABILITY QUESTIONS (1) 54 Is the organisation ready for the change? − Are the pre-requisites in place and dependencies being managed? − If not, what needs to be done? Can the change be achieved with current capability and capacity? − Are the necessary skills and experience available to assign to the project? − Is the organisation able to manage and achieve a technology-enabled change project? − Is there a successful track record of such projects? − Is there an appetite and organisation culture for the required change? − Is there senior management leadership and commitment for the change? − Is the project sponsor fully committed and are the stakeholders “on board”? − Is there an understanding of and agreement on what will constitute success?

55. ACHIEVABILITY QUESTIONS (2) 55 If no: How can the required capability and capacity be acquired? Can the risks be managed? − Are stakeholders content with the residual risk? − Can another option be implemented if the preferred option fails? Does the scope or timescale need to be changed?

56. 56

57. TITLE 57

58. TITLE 58

59. TITLE 59