🏷️ EU Parliament Monitor — Classification & Business Continuity

Systematic Classification Excellence Through Impact Analysis
Open Source Intelligence Platform Classification Framework

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.1 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-02-25 (UTC)
🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-05-25

📚 Architecture Documentation Map

Document	Focus	Description	Documentation Link
Architecture	🏛️ Architecture	C4 model showing current system structure	View Source
Future Architecture	🏛️ Architecture	C4 model showing future system structure	View Source
Mindmaps	🧠 Concept	Current system component relationships	View Source
Future Mindmaps	🧠 Concept	Future capability evolution	View Source
SWOT Analysis	💼 Business	Current strategic assessment	View Source
Future SWOT Analysis	💼 Business	Future strategic opportunities	View Source
Data Model	📊 Data	Current data structures and relationships	View Source
Future Data Model	📊 Data	Enhanced European Parliament data architecture	View Source
Flowcharts	🔄 Process	Current data processing workflows	View Source
Future Flowcharts	🔄 Process	Enhanced AI-driven workflows	View Source
State Diagrams	🔄 Behavior	Current system state transitions	View Source
Future State Diagrams	🔄 Behavior	Enhanced adaptive state transitions	View Source
Security Architecture	🛡️ Security	Current security implementation	View Source
Future Security Architecture	🛡️ Security	Security enhancement roadmap	View Source
Threat Model	🎯 Security	STRIDE threat analysis	View Source
Classification	🏷️ Governance	CIA classification & BCP	View Source
CRA Assessment	🛡️ Compliance	Cyber Resilience Act	View Source
Workflows	⚙️ DevOps	CI/CD documentation	View Source
Future Workflows	🚀 DevOps	Planned CI/CD enhancements	View Source
Business Continuity Plan	🔄 Resilience	Recovery planning	View Source
Financial Security Plan	💰 Financial	Cost & security analysis	View Source
End-of-Life Strategy	📦 Lifecycle	Technology EOL planning	View Source
Unit Test Plan	🧪 Testing	Unit testing strategy	View Source
E2E Test Plan	🔍 Testing	End-to-end testing	View Source
Performance Testing	⚡ Performance	Performance benchmarks	View Source
Security Policy	🔒 Security	Vulnerability reporting & security policy	View Source

🎯 Purpose Statement

EU Parliament Monitor's classification framework demonstrates how systematic impact analysis enables security excellence and informed decision-making for open source intelligence platforms. This comprehensive classification serves as the foundation for threat modeling, risk assessment, and business continuity planning.

This document provides structured classification across confidentiality, integrity, availability, recovery objectives, and business impact dimensions. It establishes the baseline for security control selection and incident response prioritization.

Our transparent classification approach showcases methodical risk assessment aligned with Hack23 ISMS Classification Framework, enabling evidence-based security decision-making.

— James Pether Sörling, CEO/Founder

🏷️ EU Parliament Monitor Classification Framework

This document outlines the classification framework and business impact analysis for EU Parliament Monitor, a static website generator creating multi-language news about European Parliament activities.

📊 Classification Decision Tree

The following decision tree helps determine the appropriate classification level for EU Parliament Monitor data:

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#0D47A1',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
flowchart TD
    START[📊 Data Received/Created] --> EP_CHECK{🏛️ European Parliament<br/>Open Data Source?}
    
    EP_CHECK -->|✅ Yes| PII_CHECK{👤 Contains non-public or<br/>sensitive personal data?}
    EP_CHECK -->|❌ No| REVIEW[🔍 Manual Review Required]
    
    PII_CHECK -->|❌ No| ACCESS_CHECK{🔐 Requires Access<br/>Control?}
    PII_CHECK -->|✅ Yes| HIGH_CONF[🔴 High Confidentiality<br/>(Non-public/sensitive PII)<br/>Not Applicable to EP Monitor]
    
    ACCESS_CHECK -->|❌ No| ACCURACY_CHECK{✅ Accuracy<br/>Critical?}
    ACCESS_CHECK -->|✅ Yes| INTERNAL[🟡 Internal Classification<br/>Not Applicable to EP Monitor]
    
    ACCURACY_CHECK -->|✅ Yes| PUBLIC_MED[🟢 PUBLIC Confidentiality<br/>🟡 MEDIUM Integrity<br/>✅ Current EP Monitor Status]
    ACCURACY_CHECK -->|❌ No| PUBLIC_LOW[🟢 PUBLIC Confidentiality<br/>🟢 LOW Integrity<br/>Not Typical for EP Monitor]
    
    PUBLIC_MED --> AVAIL_CHECK{⏱️ 24-hour Outage<br/>Acceptable?}
    
    AVAIL_CHECK -->|✅ Yes| FINAL[✅ Final Classification:<br/>📊 Confidentiality: PUBLIC<br/>✅ Integrity: MEDIUM<br/>⏱️ Availability: MEDIUM<br/>🚨 RTO: 24 hours<br/>🔄 RPO: 1 day]
    AVAIL_CHECK -->|❌ No| HIGH_AVAIL[⚡ High Availability Required<br/>Not Current EP Monitor Design]
    
    classDef start fill:#2196F3,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef decision fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef success fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef warning fill:#FFC107,stroke:#FFA000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef critical fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef final fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:3px,color:#ffffff
    
    class START start
    class EP_CHECK,PII_CHECK,ACCESS_CHECK,ACCURACY_CHECK,AVAIL_CHECK decision
    class PUBLIC_MED,FINAL success
    class PUBLIC_LOW,INTERNAL warning
    class HIGH_CONF,HIGH_AVAIL critical
    class REVIEW final

Decision Tree Explanation:

European Parliament Data Check: All EP Monitor data originates from official EP open data APIs
PII Check: MEP names and roles are publicly available personal data from official European Parliament open data sources. Processing is limited to transparency and journalistic purposes and relies on GDPR Article 6(1)(f) (legitimate interests) and applicable Article 85 freedom-of-expression/journalistic exemptions; no special category data is processed.
Access Control Check: No authentication or authorization required for public transparency platform
Accuracy Check: News accuracy is critical for democratic transparency and public trust
Availability Check: 24-hour outages acceptable given daily update schedule and non-critical nature

📊 System Classification Summary

EU Parliament Monitor is classified as:

Dimension	Level	Rationale
🔒 Confidentiality	Public (Level 1)	All data from European Parliament open data sources, no private information, publicly accessible content
✅ Integrity	Medium (Level 2)	News accuracy critical for democratic transparency, incorrect information could mislead public opinion
⏱️ Availability	Medium (Level 2)	Daily updates expected, 24-hour outages acceptable, not mission-critical infrastructure
🚨 RTO	24 hours	Manual workflow trigger available, automated recovery via GitHub Actions
🔄 RPO	1 day	Daily generation schedule, previous day's content acceptable loss
🏷️ Privacy	Personal (public-source)	Publicly available personal data of elected representatives (MEP names/roles); no special categories; GDPR applies with reduced risk

Project Type: Static site generator for European Parliament intelligence

💰 Business Impact Analysis Matrix

EU Parliament Monitor Specific Impact Assessment

Impact Category	Financial	Operational	Reputational	Regulatory
🔒 Confidentiality Breach
✅ Integrity Compromise
⏱️ Availability Loss

Classification Rationale

🔒 Confidentiality: Public (Level 1)

Justification:

All source data from European Parliament's public open data APIs
Generated news articles publicly accessible via AWS S3 + Amazon CloudFront
No authentication, authorization, or access controls required
Only publicly available MEP personal data processed (no non-public personal data, no special category data, no end-user tracking data)
Designed for maximum transparency and public accessibility

Impact if Compromised: Negligible - Data already public

✅ Integrity: Medium (Level 2)

Justification:

News accuracy critical for democratic transparency and informed citizenry
Incorrect information could mislead public opinion on parliamentary activities
Content influences understanding of European democratic processes
Manual content validation currently required
Reputation depends on factual accuracy and reliability

Impact if Compromised: Moderate - Public misinformation, trust erosion

⏱️ Availability: Medium (Level 2)

Justification:

Daily content generation expected by users
24-hour outages acceptable (not mission-critical)
Manual workflow trigger available as backup
GitHub Actions provides automated recovery
Static site architecture inherently resilient

Impact if Compromised: Low - Delayed content, limited operational impact

📈 Impact Level Definitions

💸 Financial Impact Levels {#financial-impact-levels}

EU Parliament Monitor Context: Low-cost infrastructure (AWS S3 + CloudFront), volunteer-driven, no revenue generation.

Major revenue impact (>$10K daily) — N/A for volunteer project
Substantial penalties ($5K-10K daily) — N/A for volunteer project
Regulatory fines ($1K-5K daily) — N/A for volunteer project
Incident response costs ($500-1K daily) — Low probability
Minimal impact (<$500 daily) — Current exposure level
No financial consequences — Most scenarios

🏢 Operational Impact Levels {#operational-impact-levels}

EU Parliament Monitor Context: Static site generator, GitHub Actions automation, manual fallback available.

Complete service outage — Low probability (AWS S3 + CloudFront redundancy)
Major service degradation — Low probability (static architecture)
Partial service impact — Possible (workflow failures, content errors)
Minor inconvenience — Current exposure (delayed updates)
No operational impact — Most scenarios

🤝 Reputational Impact Levels {#reputational-impact-levels}

EU Parliament Monitor Context: Transparency-focused intelligence platform, volunteer open source project.

International media coverage — Very low probability
National coverage — Low probability
Industry attention — Possible (content accuracy issues)
Limited visibility — Current exposure (minor errors)
No reputational impact — Most scenarios

📜 Regulatory Impact Levels {#regulatory-impact-levels}

EU Parliament Monitor Context: Public open data, no PII, GDPR compliant by design, transparency-aligned.

Criminal charges — Not applicable (no sensitive data)
Major penalties — Not applicable (no sensitive data)
Significant fines — Not applicable (no sensitive data)
Minor penalties — Very low probability
Warnings — Low probability (transparency concerns)
No regulatory implications — Current status

🔒 Security Classification Framework

🏗️ Data Classification Hierarchy

The following diagram illustrates the four-level information classification hierarchy used across Hack23 projects, with EU Parliament Monitor positioned at the Public level:

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#0D47A1',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
graph TB
    subgraph HIERARCHY["🏗️ Hack23 Information Classification Hierarchy"]
        RESTRICTED[🔴 RESTRICTED<br/>Highest Protection<br/>Zero-trust architecture<br/>HSM, MFA, biometrics]
        CONFIDENTIAL[🟠 CONFIDENTIAL<br/>Strong Protection<br/>Encryption, RBAC, monitoring]
        INTERNAL[🟡 INTERNAL<br/>Standard Protection<br/>Access control, authentication]
        PUBLIC[🟢 PUBLIC<br/>Minimal Protection<br/>TLS in transit only]
    end
    
    RESTRICTED -.->|Lower sensitivity| CONFIDENTIAL
    CONFIDENTIAL -.->|Lower sensitivity| INTERNAL
    INTERNAL -.->|Lower sensitivity| PUBLIC
    
    subgraph EP_MONITOR["🏛️ EU Parliament Monitor"]
        EP_DATA[📊 European Parliament Data<br/>✅ Public open data APIs<br/>✅ Only public-identifiable data (MEP names/roles)<br/>✅ No non-public or special category data]
        EP_NEWS[📰 Generated News Articles<br/>✅ 14 languages<br/>✅ Public AWS S3 + CloudFront<br/>✅ No access control]
    end
    
    PUBLIC -.->|Applied to| EP_MONITOR
    
    classDef critical fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:3px,color:#ffffff
    classDef high fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef medium fill:#FFC107,stroke:#FFA000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef low fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef epmonitor fill:#2196F3,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    
    class RESTRICTED critical
    class CONFIDENTIAL high
    class INTERNAL medium
    class PUBLIC low
    class EP_DATA,EP_NEWS epmonitor

Hierarchy Characteristics:

Level	Protection Controls	EU Parliament Monitor Applicability
🔴 Restricted	HSM, zero-trust, biometric auth, air-gapped systems	❌ Not applicable - no sensitive data
🟠 Confidential	Strong encryption (AES-256), RBAC, SIEM monitoring	❌ Not applicable - transparency platform
🟡 Internal	Standard access control, authentication, basic encryption	❌ Not applicable - public by design
🟢 Public	TLS 1.2+ (TLS 1.3 where supported) in transit, public repository, open source	✅ CURRENT LEVEL - maximum transparency

🛡️ Confidentiality Levels {#confidentiality-levels}

EU Parliament Monitor Classification: Public (Level 1)

Level	Description	EU Parliament Monitor Context
Extreme	National security, quantum encryption	Not applicable
Very High	Zero-trust, advanced threat protection	Not applicable
High	Strong encryption, MFA, monitoring	Not applicable
Moderate	Standard encryption, role-based access	Not applicable
Low	Basic protection, standard auth	Not applicable
Public	No confidentiality requirements	✅ CURRENT LEVEL

Controls Required:

✅ TLS 1.2+ (TLS 1.3 where supported) for data in transit (Amazon CloudFront, API calls)
✅ Public content by design
✅ No authentication/authorization systems needed
✅ Transparent, open source codebase

✅ Integrity Levels {#integrity-levels}

EU Parliament Monitor Classification: Moderate (Level 2)

Level	Description	EU Parliament Monitor Context
Critical	Real-time validation, immutable logs	Future aspiration (Q4 2026)
High	Automated validation, digital signatures	Future phase (Q3 2026)
Moderate	Standard validation, checksums	✅ CURRENT LEVEL
Low	Basic validation, manual verification	Not appropriate
Minimal	Best-effort basis only	Not acceptable

Controls Required:

✅ Git version control (change tracking, audit trail)
✅ Git object integrity via commit hashes (no automated commit signing)
✅ Immutable Git history
✅ Automated testing (unit tests 82%, E2E tests)
✅ Code review via pull requests
⏳ Content validation (manual, future automation planned Q3 2026)
⏳ Fact-checking integration (planned Q4 2026)

⏱️ Availability Levels {#availability-levels}

EU Parliament Monitor Classification: Moderate (Level 2)

Level	Description	EU Parliament Monitor Context
Mission Critical	99.99% uptime, instant failover	Not applicable
High	99.9% uptime, automated failover	Future phase
Moderate	99.5% uptime, manual failover	✅ CURRENT LEVEL
Standard	99% uptime, basic redundancy	Minimum acceptable
Best Effort	No uptime guarantees	Not acceptable

Controls Required:

✅ AWS S3 + Amazon CloudFront infrastructure (99.9% uptime SLA)
✅ Static site architecture (no server-side execution)
✅ Amazon CloudFront global CDN distribution
✅ Manual workflow trigger (backup recovery)
✅ GitHub Actions automated recovery
✅ Multiple repository copies (Git distributed architecture)

🏷️ Privacy & PII Protection Levels {#privacy-levels}

EU Parliament Monitor Classification: Personal (public-source, public-official context)

Level	Description	GDPR Context	EU Parliament Monitor Context
Special Category	Art. 9 data	Explicit consent required	Not applicable
Personal Identifier	Direct identifiers	GDPR Art. 4(1)	Not applicable
Personal	Personal data	GDPR compliance required	✅ CURRENT STATUS — publicly available MEP names/roles from EP open data
Pseudonymized	De-identified with key	GDPR Art. 4(5)	Not applicable
Anonymized	Irreversibly de-identified	Outside GDPR scope	Not applicable
NA (Not Applicable)	Non-personal data	No GDPR obligations	Not applicable

GDPR Compliance Status:

✅ Publicly available personal data of elected representatives only (no special categories, no behavioural profiling)
✅ No cookies, tracking, or analytics
✅ No user accounts or authentication
✅ Public European Parliament data only
✅ GDPR by design (data protection by design and by default)
✅ Data subject rights handled case-by-case subject to applicable freedom-of-expression and public-interest exemptions

⏱️ Recovery Time Classifications

🚨 RTO (Recovery Time Objective) {#rto-classifications}

EU Parliament Monitor Classification: Medium (24 hours)

Level	Time Window	EU Parliament Monitor Context
Instant	< 5 minutes	Not required
Critical	5-60 minutes	Not required
High	1-4 hours	Not required
Medium	4-24 hours	✅ CURRENT TARGET
Low	24-72 hours	Acceptable fallback
Standard	> 72 hours	Not acceptable

Recovery Strategy:

✅ GitHub Actions automated workflow retry
✅ Manual workflow trigger via GitHub UI
✅ Static site resilience (existing content remains available)
✅ AWS S3 + CloudFront redundancy (no single point of failure)
✅ Daily generation schedule provides natural recovery window

Acceptable Downtime: 24 hours (content generation can be delayed without critical impact)

🔄 RPO (Recovery Point Objective) {#rpo-classifications}

EU Parliament Monitor Classification: Daily (24 hours)

Level	Data Loss Window	EU Parliament Monitor Context
Zero Loss	< 1 minute	Not required
Near Real-time	1-15 minutes	Not required
Minimal	15-60 minutes	Not required
Hourly	1-4 hours	Future aspiration
Daily	4-24 hours	✅ CURRENT ACCEPTABLE
Extended	> 24 hours	Not preferred

Data Loss Strategy:

✅ Daily content generation schedule
✅ Git version control (all content versioned)
✅ GitHub repository backup (distributed copies)
✅ Previous day's content acceptable loss
✅ EP API data remains available for regeneration

Acceptable Data Loss: Up to 24 hours of generated content (regenerable from source)

🎯 Project Type Classifications {#project-type-classifications}

EU Parliament Monitor Project Classification

Primary Type:

Static site generator for news intelligence

Secondary Types:

Open source CLI tooling
European Parliament data aggregation

Characteristics:

Zero production dependencies
GitHub Actions automation
Static HTML output
Multi-language support (14 languages)
MCP (Model Context Protocol) integration
LLM-powered content generation

Security Level: Moderate (static architecture, public data, integrity-focused)

📚 EU Parliament Data Classification Examples

Specific Data Type Classifications

The following table provides explicit classifications for various types of European Parliament data processed by EU Parliament Monitor:

Data Type	Source	Confidentiality	Integrity	Availability	Rationale
🏛️ MEP Personal Data (Names, roles, contact)	EP Open Data API	🟢 Public	🟡 Medium	🟡 Medium	Public officials, accuracy matters for democratic transparency
📋 Plenary Session Records	EP Open Data API	🟢 Public	🟡 Medium	🟡 Medium	Official parliamentary proceedings, historical accuracy critical
📊 Committee Documents	EP Open Data API	🟢 Public	🟡 Medium	🟢 Low	Committee work publicly accessible, moderate accuracy needs
🗳️ Voting Records	EP Open Data API	🟢 Public	🔴 High	🟡 Medium	Democratic accountability requires highest integrity
📜 Legislative Documents	EP Open Data API	🟢 Public	🟡 Medium	🟡 Medium	Legal texts require accuracy but publicly available
📰 Generated News Articles (14 languages)	EP Monitor (Generated)	🟢 Public	🟡 Medium	🟢 Low	Transparency content, accuracy important but not mission-critical
📊 Session Summaries	EP Monitor (Processed)	🟢 Public	🟡 Medium	🟢 Low	Aggregated insights, public transparency focus
🌐 Multi-Language Translations	EP Monitor (Generated)	🟢 Public	🟡 Medium	🟢 Low	Linguistic accuracy important for international audience

Data Classification Decision Factors

Why Everything is Public (Level 1) Confidentiality:

✅ All data originates from European Parliament's official open data sources
✅ EU transparency regulations mandate public access to parliamentary proceedings
✅ No authentication, authorization, or access control mechanisms needed
✅ Personal data protection (GDPR) requirements apply, but risk and required controls are reduced because MEP information is public official data from open sources
✅ Designed for maximum democratic transparency and citizen engagement

Why Integrity Varies (Low to High):

🗳️ High Integrity: Voting records require absolute accuracy for democratic accountability
🟡 Medium Integrity: Most content requires accuracy but corrections are acceptable
🟢 Low Integrity: Supplementary content where errors have minimal impact

Why Availability is Medium/Low:

Daily content generation schedule provides natural recovery window
24-hour outages acceptable - not mission-critical democratic infrastructure
Manual workflow triggers available as backup
AWS S3 with CloudFront provides inherent resilience via global CDN distribution

Multi-Language Content Classification {#multi-language-classification}

Language Coverage: 14 languages (en, sv, da, no, fi, de, fr, es, nl, ar, he, ja, ko, zh)

Uniform Classification Across Languages:

Attribute	Classification	Applies to All 14 Languages
🔒 Confidentiality	🟢 Public	✅ Yes - all language variants equally public
✅ Integrity	🟡 Medium	✅ Yes - translation accuracy equally important
⏱️ Availability	🟡 Medium	✅ Yes - same 24-hour RTO applies to all
🚨 RTO	24 hours	✅ Yes - same recovery objective for all
🔄 RPO	1 day	✅ Yes - daily regeneration schedule universal

Language-Specific Considerations:

Translation quality monitored but not cryptographically verified
All languages generated simultaneously in single workflow
No language-based access restrictions or geographic fencing
Cultural context maintained across translations
No special protection for any specific language variant

📋 Data Lifecycle Management

Complete Data Lifecycle for EU Parliament Monitor

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#0D47A1',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
flowchart TB
    subgraph CREATION["📥 Data Creation/Collection"]
        EP_API[🏛️ EP Open Data API Call]
        MCP_FETCH[🔌 MCP Server Data Fetch]
        API_RESPONSE[📊 JSON API Response]
    end
    
    subgraph PROCESSING["⚙️ Data Processing"]
        PARSE[🔍 Parse EP Data]
        TRANSFORM[🔄 Transform to News Format]
        LLM_GEN[🤖 LLM Content Generation]
        TRANSLATE[🌐 14-Language Translation]
    end
    
    subgraph STORAGE["💾 Data Storage"]
        GIT_COMMIT[📝 Git Commit]
        REPO_STORE[📦 GitHub Repository]
        PAGES_DEPLOY[🚀 AWS S3 + CloudFront Deployment]
    end
    
    subgraph PUBLICATION["📢 Publication"]
        HTML_SERVE[🌐 Static HTML Serving]
        CDN_CACHE[⚡ Amazon CloudFront CDN Cache]
        PUBLIC_ACCESS[👥 Public Access]
    end
    
    subgraph ARCHIVING["📚 Archiving"]
        GIT_HISTORY[🕰️ Git Version History]
        IMMUTABLE[🔒 Immutable Git Objects]
        LONG_TERM[📦 Long-Term Preservation]
    end
    
    subgraph DISPOSAL["🗑️ Data Disposal"]
        RETENTION[⏰ Policy-Based Retention]
        AUTO_ARCHIVE[🤖 Automatic Archiving]
        NO_DELETION[❌ No Permanent Deletion<br/>Public record preservation]
    end
    
    EP_API --> MCP_FETCH
    MCP_FETCH --> API_RESPONSE
    API_RESPONSE --> PARSE
    PARSE --> TRANSFORM
    TRANSFORM --> LLM_GEN
    LLM_GEN --> TRANSLATE
    TRANSLATE --> GIT_COMMIT
    GIT_COMMIT --> REPO_STORE
    REPO_STORE --> PAGES_DEPLOY
    PAGES_DEPLOY --> HTML_SERVE
    HTML_SERVE --> CDN_CACHE
    CDN_CACHE --> PUBLIC_ACCESS
    
    REPO_STORE --> GIT_HISTORY
    GIT_HISTORY --> IMMUTABLE
    IMMUTABLE --> LONG_TERM
    
    PUBLIC_ACCESS --> RETENTION
    RETENTION --> AUTO_ARCHIVE
    AUTO_ARCHIVE --> NO_DELETION
    
    classDef creation fill:#2196F3,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef processing fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef storage fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef publication fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef archiving fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef disposal fill:#9E9E9E,stroke:#616161,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    
    class EP_API,MCP_FETCH,API_RESPONSE creation
    class PARSE,TRANSFORM,LLM_GEN,TRANSLATE processing
    class GIT_COMMIT,REPO_STORE,PAGES_DEPLOY storage
    class HTML_SERVE,CDN_CACHE,PUBLIC_ACCESS publication
    class GIT_HISTORY,IMMUTABLE,LONG_TERM archiving
    class RETENTION,AUTO_ARCHIVE,NO_DELETION disposal

Lifecycle Stage Details

📥 Stage 1: Data Creation/Collection

Duration: Daily (automated via GitHub Actions)
Classification Impact: Public data from inception
Controls:

✅ TLS 1.2+ (TLS 1.3 where supported) for API communications
✅ European Parliament MCP Server runs as a local stdio child process (no network exposure; explicit authentication planned for future remote deployment)
✅ API rate limiting and error handling
✅ Automated retry mechanisms

Data Volumes:

~50-100 MEP records per execution
~10-20 plenary sessions per month
~5-10 committee meetings per day
JSON payloads: 10-50 KB per request

⚙️ Stage 2: Data Processing

Duration: 15-30 minutes per execution
Classification Impact: Public input → Public output (no classification change)
Controls:

✅ Input validation and sanitization
✅ Content safety checks (no malicious content generation)
✅ Translation quality validation
✅ Git repository integrity via commit hashes (no automated commit signing)

Processing Steps:

Parse EP API JSON responses
Transform to structured news format
LLM-powered content generation (news articles)
Multi-language translation (14 languages)
HTML template rendering

💾 Stage 3: Storage

Duration: Permanent (Git version control)
Classification Impact: Public storage with integrity controls
Controls:

✅ Git version control (immutable history)
✅ GitHub repository backup (distributed copies)
✅ Git object integrity via commit hashes (no automated commit signing)
✅ Branch protection rules

Storage Characteristics:

Location: GitHub cloud infrastructure
Redundancy: Git distributed architecture (multiple clones)
Backup: GitHub's infrastructure backups + Git clones
Retention: Indefinite (public record preservation)

📢 Stage 4: Publication

Duration: Real-time (CDN caching)
Classification Impact: Public access with availability controls
Controls:

✅ AWS S3 + CloudFront HTTPS (TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported)
✅ Amazon CloudFront (AWS Shield Standard for DDoS protection)
✅ Static site architecture (no server-side vulnerabilities)
✅ No authentication required (public by design)

Availability:

SLA: AWS S3 (Standard) and Amazon CloudFront, each with 99.9% availability SLA
CDN: Global edge caching
RTO: 24 hours (manual workflow trigger)
RPO: 1 day (daily generation acceptable)

📚 Stage 5: Archiving

Duration: Automatic (Git version history)
Classification Impact: Public historical record
Controls:

✅ Immutable Git objects (Git object hashing, SHA-1 by default; SHA-256 if enabled)
✅ Permanent version history
✅ No content deletion (transparency principle)
✅ Historical audit trail

Archive Characteristics:

All content changes tracked via Git commits
Complete historical record of all articles
Tamper-evident via Git cryptographic hashing
No retroactive content modification

🗑️ Stage 6: Data Disposal

Duration: N/A (no permanent deletion)
Classification Impact: Public record preservation
Policy:

❌ No permanent deletion of published content
✅ Content remains in Git history indefinitely
✅ Transparency principle: public record preservation
✅ Compliance: EU transparency regulations

Rationale for No Deletion:

Democratic transparency requires historical preservation
Public officials' parliamentary activities are permanent public record
Git architecture supports immutable history
DSR rights to erasure are subject to applicable exemptions (public record, freedom of expression, journalistic/archival purpose)

🛡️ Information Handling Matrix

Classification-Based Handling Procedures

The following matrix defines specific handling procedures for each classification level across all data operations:

Handling Procedure	🔴 Restricted	🟠 Confidential	🟡 Internal	🟢 Public	EU Parliament Monitor
💾 Storage	HSM, encrypted vaults, air-gapped	AES-256 encryption, encrypted databases	Access-controlled storage, basic encryption	Standard storage, version control	✅ Git (public), GitHub (cloud)
📡 Transmission	Quantum-safe, VPN + TLS 1.3	TLS 1.3, certificate pinning	TLS 1.2+, standard HTTPS	TLS 1.2+ (prefer 1.3)	✅ TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported (CloudFront CDN, EP API)
🤝 Sharing	Need-to-know, zero-trust, MFA	Role-based, MFA, audit logging	Authenticated access, logging	Public access, no restrictions	✅ Public AWS S3 + CloudFront, no auth
🗑️ Disposal	Cryptographic erasure, physical destruction, witnessed	Multi-pass overwrite (DoD 5220.22-M), secure deletion	Standard deletion, recycle bin clearing	Standard deletion or retention	✅ Git history preservation (no deletion)
🔐 Access Control	Biometric + MFA, zero-trust	RBAC + MFA, privileged access management	Username/password + RBAC	No access control required	✅ No access control (public by design)
🔒 Encryption	AES-256 + HSM, quantum-resistant	AES-256, key rotation, KMS	AES-128/256, managed keys	TLS in transit only	✅ TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported (CloudFront)
📋 Labeling	"RESTRICTED - AUTHORIZED ONLY"	"CONFIDENTIAL - INTERNAL USE"	"INTERNAL - STAFF ONLY"	"PUBLIC" or no label	✅ PUBLIC (implied, no labels needed)
📊 Logging	Immutable audit logs, SIEM, real-time alerting	Comprehensive logging, SIEM integration	Standard logging, periodic review	Basic logging or none	✅ Git commits (immutable), GitHub audit
🔄 Backup	Air-gapped, encrypted, off-site vaults	Encrypted backups, off-site replication	Standard backups, encryption	Git version control, cloud backups	✅ Git (distributed), GitHub backups
📱 Mobile Devices	Prohibited or heavily restricted	MDM, encryption, remote wipe	MDM, basic encryption	No restrictions	✅ Public access from any device
☁️ Cloud Storage	Prohibited or private cloud only	Encrypted, dedicated tenants	Encrypted, shared cloud	Public cloud, standard controls	✅ AWS S3 (public cloud), CloudFront (CDN)
🖨️ Printing	Prohibited or secure printers only	Watermarked, secure disposal	Standard printers, secure disposal	Unrestricted	✅ N/A (web-only content)

EU Parliament Monitor Handling Summary

🟢 Public Classification Handling:

✅ Storage:

Public GitHub repository (no encryption required)
Git version control for integrity
Distributed architecture (multiple clones)

✅ Transmission:

TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported (Amazon CloudFront)
European Parliament API calls over HTTPS
No VPN or additional encryption needed

✅ Sharing:

Public AWS S3 + CloudFront (open access)
No authentication, authorization, or access control
Maximum transparency and accessibility

✅ Disposal:

No permanent deletion (public record preservation)
Git history maintained indefinitely
Compliance with transparency principles

✅ Access Control:

None required (public by design)
No user accounts or login
Open source codebase

✅ Encryption:

TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported (in transit only)
No encryption at rest required (public data)
Amazon CloudFront HTTPS enforced

✅ Logging:

Git commit history (immutable)
GitHub Actions workflow logs
No PII logging (no user data)

✅ Backup:

Git distributed architecture (natural backups)
GitHub infrastructure backups
Multiple repository clones

📜 ISMS Policy Alignment

Framework Compliance Mapping

EU Parliament Monitor's classification framework aligns with multiple international standards and best practices:

🔐 ISO 27001:2022 Alignment

ISO 27001 Control	Control Name	EU Parliament Monitor Implementation	Compliance Status
A.5.12	Classification of information	✅ Documented classification framework (this document)	✅ COMPLIANT
A.5.13	Labelling of information	✅ Badges and metadata in all documents	✅ COMPLIANT
A.5.14	Information transfer	✅ TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported for all transmissions, EP API over HTTPS	✅ COMPLIANT
A.8.10	Information deletion	✅ Git history preservation policy (no deletion)	✅ COMPLIANT
A.8.11	Data masking	⚪ N/A (no sensitive data)	⚪ N/A
A.8.12	Data leakage prevention	⚪ N/A (public data by design)	⚪ N/A
A.5.10	Acceptable use of information	✅ Public domain, open source licensing	✅ COMPLIANT

🛡️ NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Alignment

NIST CSF 2.0 Category	Function	EU Parliament Monitor Implementation	Maturity Level
ID.AM-5	Classify data	✅ Complete classification framework (Public/Medium/Medium)	🟢 Level 4 - Adaptive
PR.DS-1	Protect data at rest	✅ Git version control, GitHub backups	🟢 Level 3 - Informed
PR.DS-2	Protect data in transit	✅ TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported (CloudFront CDN, S3, EP API)	🟢 Level 4 - Adaptive
PR.DS-5	Protections against data leaks	⚪ N/A (public data, no leaks possible)	⚪ N/A
PR.DS-6	Integrity checking	✅ Git cryptographic hashing (SHA-1 by default), commit hash verification	🟢 Level 3 - Informed
PR.DS-7	Separate dev/test/prod	✅ GitHub Actions environments, branch protection	🟢 Level 3 - Informed
PR.DS-8	Integrity verification	✅ Automated testing (82% coverage), Git object hashing	🟢 Level 3 - Informed

NIST CSF 2.0 Maturity Levels:

🔴 Level 1 - Partial: Ad hoc, reactive
🟠 Level 2 - Risk-Informed: Aware but not systematic
🟡 Level 3 - Repeatable: Documented and followed
🟢 Level 4 - Adaptive: Continuous improvement

⚡ CIS Controls v8.1 Alignment

CIS Control	Control Name	EU Parliament Monitor Implementation	Implementation Status
3.3	Configure data access control lists	⚪ N/A (public access, no ACLs)	⚪ N/A
3.6	Encrypt data on end-user devices	⚪ N/A (static web content, no user devices)	⚪ N/A
3.11	Encrypt sensitive data at rest	⚪ N/A (public data, no encryption required)	⚪ N/A
3.12	Segment data processing	✅ GitHub Actions isolation, ephemeral runners	✅ IMPLEMENTED
3.14	Log sensitive data access	✅ Git commit logs, GitHub audit logs	✅ IMPLEMENTED
11.4	Maintain isolated backups	✅ Git distributed architecture, GitHub backups	✅ IMPLEMENTED
11.5	Test data recovery	✅ Manual workflow trigger tested, Git clone recovery	✅ IMPLEMENTED

🇪🇺 GDPR Compliance

GDPR Article	Requirement	EU Parliament Monitor Implementation	Compliance Status
Art. 5(1)(a)	Lawfulness, fairness, transparency	✅ Public data, open source, maximum transparency	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 5(1)(b)	Purpose limitation	✅ Democratic transparency only, defined purpose	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 5(1)(c)	Data minimization	✅ European Parliament open data about public functions only; strict data minimization; no special categories	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 5(1)(d)	Accuracy	✅ Git version control, automated testing, integrity focus	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 5(1)(e)	Storage limitation	✅ Indefinite retention justified (public record preservation)	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 5(1)(f)	Integrity and confidentiality	✅ TLS 1.2+, Git integrity, GitHub security	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 25	Data protection by design	✅ Architecture limited to EP open data; no behavioural tracking or unnecessary identifiers	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 32	Security of processing	✅ TLS 1.2+, Git integrity, GitHub Actions security	✅ COMPLIANT

GDPR Summary:

✅ Public-source institutional data only - Processes European Parliament open data about elected representatives and institutional activities; no special categories or behavioural profiling
✅ MEP data is personal data of public officials - Processed under GDPR on the basis of legitimate/public interest with appropriate safeguards and transparency
✅ Data subject rights supported - DSRs (access, rectification, objection, etc.) are handled case-by-case, subject to applicable legal exemptions (e.g. freedom of expression and information, public interest, archival/record-keeping)
✅ No cookies, tracking, or analytics - Privacy by design
✅ Transparency by default - Open source, public repository, public content

🏛️ EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) Alignment

CRA Requirement	EU Parliament Monitor Implementation	Compliance Status
Security by design	✅ Static architecture, no server-side execution, public data	✅ COMPLIANT
Vulnerability handling	✅ Dependabot, SonarCloud SAST, GitHub security advisories	✅ COMPLIANT
Security updates	✅ Automated dependency updates, GitHub Actions CI/CD	✅ COMPLIANT
Incident reporting	✅ GitHub security advisories, public issue tracking	✅ COMPLIANT
Documentation	✅ Complete security architecture documentation	✅ COMPLIANT

🇪🇺 NIS2 Directive Alignment

NIS2 Requirement	EU Parliament Monitor Implementation	Compliance Status
Art. 21 — Security measures	✅ Static architecture, TLS 1.2+ (TLS 1.3 where supported), GitHub security controls	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 21(2)(a) — Incident handling	✅ GitHub Actions alerting, manual recovery procedures	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 21(2)(b) — Business continuity	✅ BCP documented, RTO 24h, RPO 1 day, static resilience	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 21(2)(e) — Supply chain security	✅ SHA-pinned GitHub Actions, Dependabot, SBOM generation	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 21(2)(i) — Vulnerability disclosure	✅ GitHub security advisories, SECURITY.md, public issue tracking	✅ COMPLIANT
Art. 23 — Incident reporting	✅ GitHub security advisories, transparent public reporting	✅ COMPLIANT

Compliance Summary

Framework	Overall Compliance	Key Strengths	Areas for Improvement
ISO 27001:2022	✅ Fully Compliant	Classification framework, TLS 1.2+, Git integrity	Content validation automation (Q3 2026)
NIST CSF 2.0	🟢 Level 3-4 Maturity	Data protection, integrity verification, separation	Real-time monitoring (future phase)
CIS Controls v8.1	✅ Implemented	Backup testing, logging, data segmentation	N/A (public data simplifies many controls)
GDPR	✅ Fully Compliant	Public-source institutional data, minimization, transparency, DSR support with applicable exemptions	N/A (no special categories or behavioural profiling)
NIS2	✅ Compliant	Security measures, BCP, supply chain, vulnerability disclosure	N/A (minimal attack surface simplifies many obligations)
EU CRA	✅ Compliant	Security by design, vulnerability management	Continuous improvement

🔗 Related Documentation

Document	Purpose	Link
🏷️ Classification Framework	This document	Current document
🎯 Threat Model	Risk and threat analysis	THREAT_MODEL.md
🔐 Security Architecture	Current security controls	SECURITY_ARCHITECTURE.md
🚀 Future Security Architecture	Security roadmap	FUTURE_SECURITY_ARCHITECTURE.md
📊 Data Model	Data structures	DATA_MODEL.md
📈 Flowchart	Process flows	FLOWCHART.md
📐 Architecture	System design	ARCHITECTURE.md
🛡️ ISMS Classification Policy	Framework reference	Hack23 ISMS

🔄 Data Handling Procedures Flowchart

Complete Information Lifecycle Workflow

The following flowchart illustrates the complete data handling lifecycle for EU Parliament Monitor, from data receipt to archiving or disposal:

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#0D47A1',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
flowchart TB
    START[📥 RECEIVE<br/>European Parliament Data] --> CLASSIFY[🏷️ CLASSIFY<br/>Determine Classification Level]
    
    CLASSIFY --> CLASSIFY_DECISION{Classification?}
    
    CLASSIFY_DECISION -->|Public| LABEL_PUBLIC[🟢 LABEL<br/>Public Data Badge]
    CLASSIFY_DECISION -->|Internal| LABEL_INTERNAL[🟡 LABEL<br/>Internal Badge<br/>N/A for EP Monitor]
    CLASSIFY_DECISION -->|Confidential| LABEL_CONF[🟠 LABEL<br/>Confidential Badge<br/>N/A for EP Monitor]
    CLASSIFY_DECISION -->|Restricted| LABEL_REST[🔴 LABEL<br/>Restricted Badge<br/>N/A for EP Monitor]
    
    LABEL_PUBLIC --> HANDLE_PUBLIC[🤝 HANDLE<br/>Public Handling Procedures]
    LABEL_INTERNAL --> HANDLE_INTERNAL[🔐 HANDLE<br/>Access Control Required]
    LABEL_CONF --> HANDLE_CONF[🔒 HANDLE<br/>Encryption + RBAC Required]
    LABEL_REST --> HANDLE_REST[🛡️ HANDLE<br/>Maximum Protection Required]
    
    HANDLE_PUBLIC --> PROCESS[⚙️ PROCESS<br/>LLM Content Generation<br/>14-Language Translation]
    HANDLE_INTERNAL --> PROCESS
    HANDLE_CONF --> PROCESS
    HANDLE_REST --> PROCESS
    
    PROCESS --> STORE[💾 STORE<br/>Git Version Control<br/>GitHub Repository]
    
    STORE --> DEPLOY[🚀 DEPLOY<br/>AWS S3<br/>CloudFront CDN]
    
    DEPLOY --> MONITOR[📊 MONITOR<br/>Access Logs<br/>Git Commit History]
    
    MONITOR --> REVIEW[🔍 REVIEW<br/>Quarterly Classification Review<br/>Security Assessment]
    
    REVIEW --> REVIEW_DECISION{Review Result?}
    
    REVIEW_DECISION -->|Reclassify| CLASSIFY
    REVIEW_DECISION -->|Maintain| CONTINUE[✅ CONTINUE<br/>Maintain Current Classification]
    REVIEW_DECISION -->|Archive| ARCHIVE[📚 ARCHIVE<br/>Git History Preservation<br/>Immutable Records]
    REVIEW_DECISION -->|Dispose| DISPOSE[🗑️ DISPOSE<br/>No Deletion for Public Data<br/>Transparency Principle]
    
    CONTINUE --> MONITOR
    ARCHIVE --> LONG_TERM[🕰️ LONG-TERM STORAGE<br/>Permanent Git History]
    DISPOSE --> PRESERVE[🏛️ PRESERVE<br/>Public Record Retention<br/>Democratic Transparency]
    
    classDef start fill:#2196F3,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef classify fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef label fill:#FFC107,stroke:#FFA000,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef handle fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef process fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#4A148C,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef store fill:#1565C0,stroke:#0D47A1,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef decision fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef archive fill:#8D6E63,stroke:#5D4037,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef critical fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#B71C1C,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    classDef success fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2E7D32,stroke-width:2px,color:#ffffff
    
    class START start
    class CLASSIFY,REVIEW classify
    class CLASSIFY_DECISION,REVIEW_DECISION decision
    class LABEL_PUBLIC,LABEL_INTERNAL,LABEL_CONF,LABEL_REST label
    class HANDLE_PUBLIC,HANDLE_INTERNAL,HANDLE_CONF,HANDLE_REST handle
    class PROCESS,DEPLOY,MONITOR process
    class STORE store
    class ARCHIVE,LONG_TERM,PRESERVE archive
    class DISPOSE,CONTINUE success

Handling Procedure Details by Stage

📥 Stage 1: RECEIVE

Duration: Continuous (daily automated execution)
Responsibility: GitHub Actions workflow, European Parliament MCP Server
Actions:

Fetch data from European Parliament Open Data API
Validate API responses (schema validation)
Log data receipt in Git commit metadata

🏷️ Stage 2: CLASSIFY

Duration: Automated (classification rules applied)
Responsibility: Security Architect (policy), automated systems (execution)
Classification Criteria:

✅ Data source: European Parliament Open Data (Public by default)
✅ Content type: Parliamentary proceedings, MEP information (Public)
✅ Accuracy requirements: Democratic transparency (Medium Integrity)
✅ Availability needs: Daily updates (Medium Availability)

Classification Result: 🟢 Public / 🟡 Medium Integrity / 🟡 Medium Availability

🏷️ Stage 3: LABEL

Duration: Automatic (badge generation)
Responsibility: Documentation templates, markdown badges
Labeling Methods:

GitHub shields.io badges in documentation
Classification metadata in file headers
Git commit messages with classification context

EU Parliament Monitor Labeling:

✅ Public badge: [![Public](https://img.shields.io/badge/Confidentiality-Public-lightgrey)]
✅ Medium Integrity: [![Moderate](https://img.shields.io/badge/Integrity-Moderate-yellow)]
✅ Medium Availability: [![Moderate](https://img.shields.io/badge/Availability-Moderate-yellow)]

🤝 Stage 4: HANDLE

Duration: Throughout data lifecycle
Responsibility: Automated systems, security controls
Public Data Handling:

✅ TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported (TLS 1.3 preferred) for all transmissions
✅ No access control required (public by design)
✅ Git version control for integrity
✅ No encryption at rest (public data)
✅ Standard GitHub Actions security

⚙️ Stage 5: PROCESS

Duration: 15-30 minutes per execution
Responsibility: LLM content generation, translation services
Processing Steps:

Parse European Parliament data
Generate news articles (LLM-powered)
Translate to 14 languages
Render HTML templates
Validate output quality

💾 Stage 6: STORE

Duration: Permanent (Git version control)
Responsibility: Git, GitHub repository
Storage Controls:

✅ Git cryptographic hashing (integrity)
✅ Distributed architecture (redundancy)
✅ Git object integrity via commit hashes (no automated commit signing)
✅ Branch protection (change control)

🚀 Stage 7: DEPLOY

Duration: Minutes (AWS S3 + CloudFront deployment)
Responsibility: GitHub Actions, AWS S3, Amazon CloudFront
Deployment Controls:

✅ Automated deployment pipeline
✅ TLS 1.2+, TLS 1.3 where supported (HTTPS only)
✅ CDN caching (availability)
✅ No authentication (public access)

📊 Stage 8: MONITOR

Duration: Continuous
Responsibility: GitHub Actions, Git logs, AWS CloudFront, AWS S3, AWS CloudTrail
Monitoring Methods:

✅ Git commit history (all changes tracked)
✅ GitHub Actions workflow logs
✅ AWS CloudFront access logs / real-time logs
✅ AWS S3 server access logs / CloudTrail S3 data events
✅ Dependabot security alerts

🔍 Stage 9: REVIEW

Duration: Quarterly (every 3 months)
Responsibility: Security Architect, CEO approval
Review Triggers:

Scheduled: Quarterly reviews (every 3 months)
Event-driven: Major feature changes, security incidents
Compliance: Regulatory requirement updates (GDPR, NIS2, EU CRA)

Review Outcomes:

Reclassify: Change classification level (return to Stage 2)
Maintain: Continue with current classification (return to Stage 8)
Archive: Move to long-term preservation (Stage 10)
Dispose: Evaluate for deletion (Stage 11 - N/A for EP Monitor)

📚 Stage 10: ARCHIVE

Duration: Permanent
Responsibility: Git version history, GitHub repository
Archiving Method:

✅ Immutable Git history (Git object hashing, SHA-1 by default; SHA-256 if enabled)
✅ No retroactive content modification
✅ Complete audit trail preservation
✅ Compliance with transparency principles

🗑️ Stage 11: DISPOSE

Duration: N/A (no permanent deletion)
Responsibility: Security Architect policy decision
EU Parliament Monitor Policy:

❌ No permanent deletion of public content
✅ Transparency principle: public record preservation
✅ Democratic accountability: historical record maintained
✅ Git architecture: immutable history by design

📝 Classification Decision Log

Version 1.0 (2026-02-17)

Initial Classification Decisions:

Confidentiality = Public (Level 1)
- Rationale: European Parliament open data, public by design
- Decision maker: Security Architect
- Review date: 2026-05-17
Integrity = Medium (Level 2)
- Rationale: News accuracy critical for democratic transparency
- Decision maker: Security Architect
- Review date: 2026-05-17
- Enhancement plan: Automated fact-checking (Q4 2026)
Availability = Medium (Level 2)
- Rationale: Daily updates expected, 24h outage acceptable
- Decision maker: Security Architect
- Review date: 2026-05-17
RTO = 24 hours
- Rationale: Manual trigger available, not mission-critical
- Decision maker: Security Architect
- Review date: 2026-05-17
RPO = 1 day
- Rationale: Daily generation schedule, regenerable content
- Decision maker: Security Architect
- Review date: 2026-05-17
Privacy = Personal (public-source)
- Rationale: Publicly available MEP personal data from EP open data; GDPR applies with reduced risk due to public-official context; no special categories; DSRs handled with applicable exemptions
- Decision maker: Security Architect & Legal
- Review date: 2026-05-17

🔄 Review and Maintenance

Review Schedule

Quarterly Reviews: Every 3 months
Next Review: 2026-05-17
Triggered Reviews: Upon architecture changes, incidents, or threat landscape shifts

Review Triggers

Major feature additions (e.g., user authentication, API)
Security incidents affecting classification
Regulatory requirement changes (GDPR, NIS2, EU CRA)
Business model changes (e.g., premium features)
Threat landscape evolution

Ownership

Document Owner: CEO (James Pether Sörling)
Classification Authority: Security Architect
Review Approver: CEO
ISMS Alignment: Hack23 ISMS Classification Framework

📊 Classification-Driven Control Matrix

Security Controls by Classification Level

Classification Level	Required Controls	EU Parliament Monitor Implementation
Confidentiality: Public	TLS for transit, public access	✅ AWS S3 + CloudFront HTTPS, open repository
Integrity: Medium	Version control, code review, testing	✅ Git, PR workflow, 82% test coverage
Availability: Medium	Monitoring, manual recovery, CDN	✅ GitHub Actions monitoring, AWS S3 + CloudFront CDN
RTO: 24 hours	Automated recovery, manual backup	✅ Workflow retry, manual trigger
RPO: 1 day	Daily backups, version control	✅ Git commits, GitHub repository
Privacy: Personal (public-source)	GDPR compliance, minimization, DSR handling	✅ Public-source MEP data only, no special categories, DSRs handled with applicable exemptions

📊 ISO 27001:2022 Classification Framework Alignment

This classification scheme aligns with ISO 27001:2022 Annex A information classification controls:

ISO 27001:2022 Control	Classification Requirement	EU Parliament Monitor Implementation	Status
5.12 Classification of information	Define classification levels	C (Public/Internal/Confidential/Restricted) scheme	✅
5.13 Labelling of information	Apply labels to assets	Classification badges in all ISMS documents	✅
5.14 Information transfer	Classification-based transfer rules	HTTPS-only, TLS 1.3 for all transfers	✅
5.9 Inventory of information and other assets	Asset register with classifications	SBOM (technical assets) + documentation inventory	✅
8.12 Data leakage prevention	Prevent unauthorized disclosure	No PII collected, public data only	✅
5.33 Protection of records	Records retention and protection	Git immutable history, GitHub repository	✅

ISO 27001:2022 Classification Compliance: ✅ All 6 applicable controls implemented

🎯 NIST CSF 2.0 Governance & Identification Alignment

Subcategory	Description	Classification Alignment	Status
GV.RM-01	Risk management objectives established	Public C, Moderate I, Standard A drives risk appetite	✅
GV.RM-02	Risk appetite established and communicated	Classification CLASSIFICATION.md public documentation	✅
ID.AM-05	Resources prioritized by sensitivity	Public-only data = lowest priority tier	✅
ID.AM-07	Inventories of data managed	No PII inventory needed (public data only)	✅
ID.RA-02	Threat intelligence received and analyzed	THREAT_MODEL.md cross-referenced with classification	✅
PR.DS-01	Data at rest protected per classification	Public data — Git repository integrity	✅
PR.DS-02	Data in transit protected per classification	TLS 1.3 HTTPS consistent with all classification levels	✅

🛡️ CIS Controls v8.1 Data Protection Alignment

CIS Control	Safeguard	Classification-Based Implementation	IG Level	Status
3.1	Establish data management process	Public data classification = minimal handling requirements	IG1	✅
3.2	Establish data inventory	SBOM + documentation inventory	IG1	✅
3.3	Configure data access control	Public = no access controls; workflow access = least privilege	IG1	✅
3.7	Establish data classification scheme	Confidentiality (C), Integrity (I), Availability (A) triad	IG2	✅
3.12	Segment data processing	EP data processing isolated in GitHub Actions (ephemeral)	IG2	✅

🔗 Hack23 ISMS-PUBLIC Policy Alignment

ISMS-PUBLIC Policy	Classification Relevance	Alignment Evidence
📋 Information Security Policy	Overall security governance framework	Public classification consistent with open-source mandate
🏷️ Classification Policy	Classification scheme definition	CIA triad ratings derived from this policy
🔑 Access Control Policy	Access decisions based on classification	Public content = no authentication; workflow = least privilege
🔒 Cryptography Policy	Encryption requirements by classification	TLS 1.3 minimum consistent with public data classification
📊 Risk Assessment Methodology	Risk scoring tied to classification	RTO/RPO derived from Availability classification
🌐 ISMS Transparency Plan	Public disclosure aligned with C=Public	All ISMS docs public per transparency commitment
📝 Open Source Policy	Open source classification requirements	Apache-2.0 license, public repository, open data
🤖 AI Policy	AI-generated content classification	News content generated by AI scripts = public classification maintained

Classification Status: ✅ COMPLETE
Threat Modeling Status: Ready to proceed (THREAT_MODEL.md)
ISMS Compliance: ✅ Aligned with Hack23 ISMS Classification Framework

This classification framework serves as the foundation for threat modeling, risk assessment, and security control selection. All security decisions must align with these classification levels.

— EU Parliament Monitor Security Team

FilesExpand file tree

CLASSIFICATION.md

Latest commit

History

CLASSIFICATION.md

File metadata and controls

🏷️ EU Parliament Monitor — Classification & Business Continuity

📚 Architecture Documentation Map

🎯 Purpose Statement

🏷️ EU Parliament Monitor Classification Framework

📊 Classification Decision Tree

📊 System Classification Summary

💰 Business Impact Analysis Matrix

EU Parliament Monitor Specific Impact Assessment

Classification Rationale

🔒 Confidentiality: Public (Level 1)

✅ Integrity: Medium (Level 2)

⏱️ Availability: Medium (Level 2)

📈 Impact Level Definitions

💸 Financial Impact Levels {#financial-impact-levels}

🏢 Operational Impact Levels {#operational-impact-levels}

🤝 Reputational Impact Levels {#reputational-impact-levels}

📜 Regulatory Impact Levels {#regulatory-impact-levels}

🔒 Security Classification Framework

🏗️ Data Classification Hierarchy

🛡️ Confidentiality Levels {#confidentiality-levels}

✅ Integrity Levels {#integrity-levels}

⏱️ Availability Levels {#availability-levels}

🏷️ Privacy & PII Protection Levels {#privacy-levels}

⏱️ Recovery Time Classifications

🚨 RTO (Recovery Time Objective) {#rto-classifications}

🔄 RPO (Recovery Point Objective) {#rpo-classifications}

🎯 Project Type Classifications {#project-type-classifications}

EU Parliament Monitor Project Classification

📚 EU Parliament Data Classification Examples

Specific Data Type Classifications

Data Classification Decision Factors

Multi-Language Content Classification {#multi-language-classification}

📋 Data Lifecycle Management

Complete Data Lifecycle for EU Parliament Monitor

Lifecycle Stage Details

📥 Stage 1: Data Creation/Collection

⚙️ Stage 2: Data Processing

💾 Stage 3: Storage

📢 Stage 4: Publication

📚 Stage 5: Archiving

🗑️ Stage 6: Data Disposal

🛡️ Information Handling Matrix

Classification-Based Handling Procedures

EU Parliament Monitor Handling Summary

📜 ISMS Policy Alignment

Framework Compliance Mapping

🔐 ISO 27001:2022 Alignment

🛡️ NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Alignment

⚡ CIS Controls v8.1 Alignment

🇪🇺 GDPR Compliance

🏛️ EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) Alignment

🇪🇺 NIS2 Directive Alignment

Compliance Summary

🔗 Related Documentation

🔄 Data Handling Procedures Flowchart

Complete Information Lifecycle Workflow

Handling Procedure Details by Stage

📥 Stage 1: RECEIVE

🏷️ Stage 2: CLASSIFY

🏷️ Stage 3: LABEL

🤝 Stage 4: HANDLE

⚙️ Stage 5: PROCESS

💾 Stage 6: STORE

🚀 Stage 7: DEPLOY

📊 Stage 8: MONITOR

🔍 Stage 9: REVIEW

📚 Stage 10: ARCHIVE

🗑️ Stage 11: DISPOSE

📝 Classification Decision Log

Version 1.0 (2026-02-17)

🔄 Review and Maintenance

Review Schedule

Review Triggers

Ownership