Search

Brian Pennington

A blog about Cyber Security & Compliance

Tag

Data Protection Act 1998

Office agrees it must do more to protect customer data

The UK Information Commissioner Office (ICO) has warned shoe retailer Office after the personal data of over one million customers was hacking.

The hacker accessed customers’ details and website passwords via an unencrypted database.

Sally-Anne Poole, Group Manager at the Information Commissioner’s Office said:

The breach has highlighted two hugely important areas of data protection: the unnecessary storage of older personal data and the lack of security to protect data.

“All data is vulnerable even when in the process of being deleted, and Office should have had stringent measures in place regardless of the server or system used. The need and purpose for retaining personal data should also be assessed regularly, to ensure the information is not being kept for longer than required.”

“Fortunately, in this case there is no evidence to suggest that the information has been used any further and the company did not store any bank details.”

The data breach also highlights the risks associated with customers using the same password for all their online accounts.

Sally-Anne Poole added:

“This one incident could potentially have given the hacker access to numerous accounts that the clients held with other organisations, as passwords were included on the database in question. It’s important to use a unique, strong password for each separate account; preferably a combination of numbers and letters – not a name or dictionary word.”

Office has agreed to an “undertaking under the Data Protection Act 1998”, the details are here.

I thought I had published this months ago but found it still in my drafts.

2013 was a very busy year for the UK’s Information Commissioners Office (ICO) as he issued record numbers of fines and enforcements.

There are normally three types of punishments administered by the ICO:-

  1. Monetary. The most serious of the actions and one normally reserved for organisational entities.
  2. Undertaking. Typically applied when an organisation has failed to adhere to good business practise and needs the helping guidance of the ICO
  3. Prosecutions. Normally reserved for individuals who have blatantly breached the Act and like 2012 there were not many in 2013.

The complete list of those who fell foul of the Data Protection Act in 2013 is below:-

Monetary penalty notices

A monetary penalty will only be served in the most serious situations. When deciding the size of a monetary penalty, the ICO takes into account the seriousness of the breach and other factors like the size, financial and other resources of an organisation’s data controller. The ICO can impose a penalty of up to £500,000. It is worth noting that monetary penalties are to HM Treasury. The size of the fines might change with the pending revision to the Data Protection Act.

The list has the most recent first.

  • 16 December 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served on First Financial (UK) Limited after the pay day Loans Company sent millions of spam text messages.
  • 29 October 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served on North East Lincolnshire Council after the loss of an unencrypted memory device containing personal data and sensitive personal data relating to 286 children.
  • 22 October 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served on the Ministry of Justice for failing to keep personal data securely, after spreadsheets showing prisoners’ details were emailed to members of the public in error.
  • 26 September 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served on Jala Transport, a small money-lending business, after the theft of an unencrypted portable hard drive containing its customer database.
  • 29 August 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served on Aberdeen City Council after inadequate home working arrangements led to 39 pages of personal data being uploaded onto the internet by a Council employee.
  • 23 August 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served to Islington Borough Council after personal details of over 2,000 residents were released online via the What Do They Know (WDTK) website.
  • 5 August 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served to the Bank of Scotland after customers’ account details were repeatedly faxed to the wrong recipients. The information included payslips, bank statements, account details and mortgage applications, along with customers’ names, addresses and contact details.
  • 12 July 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served on NHS Surrey following the discovery of sensitive personal data belonging to thousands of patients on hard drives sold on an online auction site. Whilst NHS Surrey has now been dissolved outstanding issues are now being dealt with by the Department of Health.
  • 8 July 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served to Tameside Energy Services Ltd after the Manchester based company blighted the public with unwanted marketing calls.
  • 18 June 2013. Monetary penalty notices have been served to Nationwide Energy Services and We Claim You Gain – both companies are part of Save Britain Money Ltd based in Swansea. The penalties were issued after the companies were found to be responsible for over 2,700 complaints to the Telephone Preference Service or reports to the ICO using its online survey, between 26 May 2011 and end of December 2012.
  • 13 June 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served to North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust, after several faxes containing sensitive personal data were sent to a member of the public in error.
  • 7 June 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served to Glasgow City Council, following the loss of two unencrypted laptops, one of which contained the personal information of 20,143 people.
  • 5 June 2013. A monetary penalty notice has been served to Halton Borough Council, in respect of an incident in which the home address of adoptive parents was wrongly disclosed to the birth family.
  • 3 June 2013. A monetary penalty has been served to Stockport Primary Care Trust following the discovery of a large number of patient records at a site formerly owned by the Trust.
  • 20 March 2013. A monetary penalty has been served to DM Design Bedroom Ltd. The company has been the subject of nearly 2,000 complaints to the ICO and the Telephone Preference Service. The company consistently failed to check whether individuals had opted out of receiving marketing calls and responded to just a handful of the complaints received.
  • 15 February 2013. A monetary penalty has been served to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The council lost three DVDs related to a nurse’s misconduct hearing, which contained confidential personal information and evidence from two vulnerable children. An ICO investigation found the information was not encrypted.
  • 24 January 2013. A monetary penalty has been served to the entertainment company Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited following a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. The penalty comes after the Sony PlayStation Network Platform was hacked in April 2011, compromising the personal information of millions of customers, including their names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth and account passwords. Customers’ payment card details were also at risk. Appeal withdrawn.

Undertakings

Undertakings are formal agreements between an organisation and the ICO to undertake certain actions to avoid future breaches of the Data Protection Act, typically this involves, Encryption, Training and Management Procedures.

The list has the most recent first.

  • 20 December 2013. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Luton Borough Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed September 2013.
  • 26 November 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, following an incident in which restricted information about employees was disclosed on its intranet in error.
  • 22 November 2013. An undertaking to comply with the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations has been signed by Better Together. The organisation must neither transmit, nor instigate the transmission of, unsolicited communications for the purposes of direct marketing by means of electronic mail to individual subscribers unless the recipient of the electronic mail has previously notified Better Together that they consent.  A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Foyle Women’s Aid has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed August 2013.
  • 21 November 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust. This follows four incidents involving the accidental disclosure of sensitive personal data.
  • 1 November 2013. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that The Health and Care Professions Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed July 2013.
  • 1 November 2013. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Mansfield District Borough Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed January 2013.
  • 25 October 2013. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that The Burnett Practice has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed in April 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Panasonic UK. This follows the theft of an unencrypted laptop containing personal data relating to people who had attended a hospitality event run by a third party company on Panasonic’s behalf.
  • 15 October 2013. An Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Royal Veterinary College. This follows the loss of a memory card containing personal data. In addition, data protection training is not considered to be adequate and the RVC does not appear to be taking steps to address this proactively. This highlights a potentially serious failing in respect of staff awareness of Information Governance policies. Their investigation revealed that the device was personally owned by the employee and as such fell outside of the policies and procedures in place. However, the RVC does not appear to have accounted for the possibility of employees using their own devices in the workplace.
  • 7 October 2013. An Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
  • 4 October 2013. An Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Cardiff & Vale University Health Board, following the loss of documents containing sensitive personal data by a consultant.
  • 29 August 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Aberdeen City Council after inadequate home working arrangements led to 39 pages of personal data being uploaded onto the internet by a Council employee.
  • 11 September 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Luton Borough Council following several incidents involving inappropriate handling of sensitive personal data. Investigation of these incidents revealed that previous recommendations made by the ICO had not been implemented.
  • 28 August 2013. An undertaking to comply with the sixth data protection principle has been signed by Cardiff City Council. The Council agreed to put measures in place to ensure greater compliance with subject access requests.
  • 22 August 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Local Government Ombudsman. This follows the theft of a bag containing hard copy papers relating to complaints made to the Local Government Ombudsman (the LGO) including some SPD. It is felt that the provision of data protection training was insufficient to ensure staff awareness of policies and procedures relating to the use of personal data.
  • 13 August 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Northern Health & Social Care Trust. This follows a number of security incidents which led to a formal investigation into the Trust’s compliance with the Act. One incident in May 2011, involved confidential service user information being faxed from a ward in Antrim Hospital to a local business in error. The investigation into the Trust revealed that despite the Trust having introduced what should have been mandatory Information Governance training for all staff, the majority of staff involved in these incidents had not received this training. This highlighted a potentially serious failing in respect of staff awareness of Information Governance policies. In particular, the failure to monitor and enforce staff completion of training was a concern.
  • 13 August 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Foyle Women’s Aid. This follows the temporary loss of a folder belonging to a Criminal Justice Support worker employed by Foyle Women’s Aid that was left in a café. The folder contained confidential client information. An apparent lack of effective controls and procedures for taking information out of the office was a contributor to the loss of highly sensitive personal data.
  • 16 July 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Janet Thomas. This follows a report made by a member of the public that approximately 7,435 CV files, containing personal data, were being stored unprotected on the website http://www.janetpage.com.
  • 9 July 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC) after an incident in which papers containing personal data were stolen on a train in 2011.
  • 12 June 2013. (issued 10 September 2012) An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Bedford Borough Council relating to the removal of legacy data from a social care database.
  • 12 June 2013 (issued 18 September 2012). An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Central Bedfordshire Council relating to the removal of legacy data from a social care database and in relation to the preparation of planning application documentation for publication.
  • 31 May 2013. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Leeds City Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed November 2012.
  • Prospect. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Prospect has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed January 2013.
  • 21 May 2013 (issued 9 November 2011). An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by News Group Newspapers, following an attack on the website of The Sun newspaper in 2011.
  • 26 April 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by The Burnett Practice. This follows an investigation whereby an email account used by the practice had been subject to a third party attack. The email account subject to the attack was used to provide test results to patients and included a list of names and email addresses.
  • 4 April 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, following incidents last year in which personal data was inappropriately disclosed.
  • 25 January 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Managing Director of Mansfield District Council. This follows a number of incidents where personal data of housing benefit claimants was disclosed to the wrong landlord.
  • 16 January 2013. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the union Prospect. This follows an incident in which two files containing personal details of approximately 19,000 members of the union had been sent to an unknown third party email address in error.

Prosecutions

The list has the most recent first.

  • 3 December 2013. A former manager who oversaw the finances of a GP’s practice in Maidstone has been prosecuted by the ICO after unlawfully accessing the medical records of approximately 1,940 patients registered with the surgery. Steven Tennison was prosecuted under section 55 of the Data Protection Act at Maidstone Magistrates Court.
  • 8 October 2013. A pay day loans company based in London and its director have been prosecuted after failing to register that the business was processing personal information. Hamed Shabani, the sole director of First Financial, was convicted under section 61 of the Data Protection Act at City of London Magistrates Court.
  • 25 September 2013. A former Barclays Bank employee has been fined after illegally accessing the details of a customer’s account. In one case the employee, Jennifer Addo, found out the number of children the customer had and passed the details to the customer’s then partner, who was a friend of Ms Addo.
  • 15 August 2013. A probation officer who revealed a domestic abuse victim’s new address to the alleged perpetrator has been fined £150 following a prosecution bought by the ICO.

Find the 2012 list here.

IT Security Still Not Protecting the Right Assets Despite Increased Spending

Most IT security resources in today’s enterprise are allocated to protecting network assets, even though the majority of enterprises believe a database security breach would be the greatest risk to their business, according to a report issued by CSO Custom Solutions Group and sponsored by Oracle.

In the survey with 110 companies from industries including Financial Services, Government, High Tech, more than two thirds of IT security resources remain allocated to protecting the network layer, while less than one third of the staff and budget resources were allocated to protecting core infrastructure such as databases and applications.

Key findings from the report

  • When comparing the potential damage caused by breaches, most enterprises believed that a database breach would be the most severe as they contain the most vital and valuable information intellectual property as well as sensitive customer, employee, and corporate financial data.
  • An un-balanced and fragmented approach to security has left many organizations’ applications and data vulnerable to attacks both internally and externally.
  • Today’s findings underscore the relevance of Oracle’s “security inside-out” approach which means focusing attention on the organizations most strategic assets which include databases, applications and users.
  • Nearly 66% of respondents said they apply a security inside out strategy, where as 35% base their strategy on end point protection.
  • Even with this fundamental belief in strategy, spending does not truly align as more than 67% of IT security resources including budget and staff time remain allocated to protecting the network layer and less than 23% of resources were allocated to protecting core systems like servers, applications and databases.
  • 44% believed that databases were safe because they were installed deep inside the perimeter.
  • 90% report the same or higher, level of spend compared to 12 months prior. The survey shows that 59% of participants plan to increase security spending in the next year.
  • In 35% of organizations, security spend was influenced by sensational informational sources rather than real organizational risks.
  • 40% of respondents believed that implementing fragmented point solutions created gaps in their security and 42% believe that they have more difficulty preventing new attacks than in the past.

IT Security has to focus attention on the most strategic assets. Organizations cannot continue to spend on the wrong risks and secure themselves out of business. When attackers do break through the perimeter, they can take advantage of weak security controls against the core systems by exploiting privileged user access, vulnerable applications, and accounts with excessive access,” said Mary Ann

Davidson, Chief Security Officer at Oracle. “Organizations have to get the fundamentals right which are database security, application security and identity management.”

“The results of the survey show that the gap between the threat of severe damage to a database attack versus the resources allocated to protecting the database layer is significant, highlighting the disconnect in how organizations are securing their IT infrastructures,” said Tom Schmidt, Managing Editor, CSO Custom Solutions Group.

The full report can be found here.

SMEs are putting larger customers at risk of security breaches

According to Shred-it’s third annual Security Tracker survey SMEs in the UK are putting their own businesses at risk and could also be damaging larger firms they supply services to by not taking enough preventative measures of confidential data.

It’s good business sense for larger companies to ask whether their suppliers have a data protection partner and an information security system in place – not only to prevent sensitive information being lost by a third party but also because the financial and reputational damage of a breach could put that supplier out of business and cause havoc in the supply chain,” warns Robert Guice, Vice President Shred-it EMEA.

The survey reveals SMEs are 10 times less likely to have an information security system set up than is the case with larger businesses.

SMEs continue to hugely underestimate the potential cost of a data breach to them. In terms of financial loss, the Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK can fine companies up to half a million pounds, enough to send many companies into insolvency”, Mr Guice said. “We believe that smaller companies maybe over-estimating the costs involved in making sure confidential information is kept safe

Whilst larger companies may be able to absorb this cost, SMEs risk a huge hit to their bottom line and a tarnished reputation which can impact relationships with customers and other business partners” Mr Guice continued.

There is a worrying gap between the protocols in place between smaller and larger businesses. Whilst companies with revenue over £1m are eight times more likely to use a professional shredding company to dispose of their sensitive documents, 37 per cent of small businesses in the UK have no information security management system in place. Moreover, three in ten (28 per cent) small business owners have never provided any information security training to their employees.

Key findings include

  • 2 in every 5 large businesses suffering a data breach have incurred losses of more than £500,000
  • The average fine is approximately £150,000 – large enough for 30% of companies to have to lay off staff as a result.
  • 77% of larger businesses have an employee directly responsible for managing information security issues at management level (66%) or board level (11%)
  • 48% of SMEs have a nominated person
  • 95% of large businesses have an employee devoted to data protection compared with only 53% of small business owners, suggesting that larger businesses better understand the potential threat of data breaches and have put control systems in place accordingly.
  • 33% of senior business executives and only 4% of small business owners use a professional shredding service
  • 88% of large businesses are more than twice as likely to be aware of the EU Data Protection Directive reforms as small businesses (43%).
  • Although the gap is closer, large businesses are still more likely to be aware of the UK Data Protection Act (92%) than small business owners (72%).
  • With more information being stored in electronic form, it is equally worrying that less than one quarter of large (23%) and small businesses (25%) crush their electronic media – which means the vast majority of UK businesses are inadvertently putting themselves and their customers at risk.
  • Businesses could be giving away private information to fraudsters by not properly disposing of or destroying hard drives. 66% of large business and 49% of small business owners wrongly think that degaussing or wiping a hard drive will remove confidential information kept on them.

.

Top Tips from the ICO for when you are moving premises – do not forget to check the cabinets being one

After another NHS body * decides to ignore simple Data Protection guidelines the UK Information Commissioner has repeated his Top 5 Tips to help organisations improve their approach to Data Protection, especially those moving premises:

  1. Personal information is at particular risk when moving premises – make sure its security is a priority. All but one of our monetary penalties issued under the Data Protection Act in 2012/13 were for failing to keep information secure.
  2. Don’t assume anything. This breach happened because two departments each assumed that the other was conducting a final check that all records had been removed or transferred as required. Make sure it is clear who is responsible for what.
  3. Ensure records and equipment containing personal information are moved securely. Where personal information is being moved to other premises, make sure there is a secure means of moving the information and check that it has all been received safely.
  4. Dispose with care. If moving premises requires the disposal of files or computer hardware, make sure that this is done in a secure manner. Remember you are still responsible for what happens to personal data even after it has left through the back door.
  5. Learn from your mistakes. Stockport Primary Care Trust had suffered two similar incidents before this breach, but senior management hadn’t been informed. Put a policy in place to make sure that security incidents are reported and acted upon so that you learn from your mistakes.

* The NHS Commissioning Board was been fined £100,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) after the dissolved Stockport Primary Care Trust left around 1,000 documents including work diaries, letters, referral forms and patient records containing personal information. Some of the documents contained particularly sensitive data relating to 200 patients, including details of miscarriages, child protection issues and, in one case, a police report relating to the death of a child.

The size of the fine reflects the serious nature of the breach and the fact it was not the first time the organisation had “lost information”.

David Smith, Deputy Commissioner and Director of Data Protection, said about the Stockport fine:

It’s crucial that organisations don’t take their eye off the ball when moving premises. This NHS trust’s efforts to keep its patients’ confidential records secure were completely undermined by its failure to properly decommission the premises it was leaving.

The highly sensitive nature of the documents left behind makes this mistake inexcusable, and there can be no doubt that the penalty we’ve served is both necessary and appropriate.

In the last year we have served two six figure penalties on organisations that have left large volumes of personal information behind when leaving a site. These penalties highlight the need for organisations to have effective decommissioning procedures in place and to make absolutely sure that these procedures are followed in practice

Finally a prosecution of a former employee stealing confidential information

Thousands of people everyday must copy, save or forward information for innocent or mischievous purposes but now there is a quotable case that can be used to deter such risky activities.

A former manager of a health service based at a council run leisure centre in Southampton has been prosecuted by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for unlawfully obtaining sensitive medical information relating to over 2,000 people.

Paul Hedges took the information hoping to use the data for a new fitness company he was setting up. He was prosecuted under section 55 of the Data Protection Act at West Hampshire Magistrates Court yesterday and fined £3,000 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £1,376 prosecution costs.

Mr Hedges, who previously worked as a Community Health Promotions Manager based at Bitterne Leisure Centre, sent the information to his personal email account on 28 April 2011 after being told that he was being made redundant. The 42 year-old had previously been responsible for managing the council’s Active Options GP referral service, where patients would be referred by their GP or other health professional to attend fitness sessions, for a range of conditions including obesity, diabetes, arthritis, and cardiac and mild mental health issues.

The information included sensitive medical details relating to 2,471 patients. The council became aware of their former employee’s actions when they received complaints about patients being approached by Mr Hedges; who had since set up a similar service using the Active Options name and branding.

Christopher Graham the UK Information Commissioner was quoted as saying:

People have a right to privacy and the ICO works to maintain that right

Nobody expects that their health records will be taken and used in this way. Mr Hedges had been told by Southampton Council about the need to keep patients’ details confidential, but he decided to break the law.

This case shows why there is a need for tough penalties to enforce the Data Protection Act. At very least, behaviour of this kind should be recognised as a ‘recordable offence’ which it isn’t now. For the most serious cases the current ‘fine only’ regime will not deter and other options including the threat of prison should be available. The necessary legislation for this is already on the statue book but needs to be activated.

The government must ensure that criminals do not see committing data theft as a victimless crime and worth the risk.

Receptionist prosecuted for breaching the Data Protection Act

Another nosy parker faces the results of their snooping after she decided to spy on her ex-husband’s new wife.

The GP receptionist at a Southampton surgery was prosecuted by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for unlawfully obtaining sensitive medical records.

The ICO reported on the 12th March 2013 that Marcia Phillips was prosecuted under section 55 of the Data Protection Act and fined £750 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £400 prosecution costs.

Ms Phillips was found to have accessed the information on 15 separate occasions over a 16-month period while working as a receptionist at the Bath Lodge Practice. The breach became apparent after Phillips left her job and sent a text message to her ex-husband’s partner referring to highly sensitive medical information taken from her medical record.

Deputy Commissioner and Director of Data Protection, David Smith, said:

This case clearly shows the distress that can be caused when an individual uses a position of responsibility to illegally access sensitive personal information. Ms Phillips knew she was breaking the law, but continued to do so in order to cause harm to her ex-husband’s new wife.

“The nature of her job meant that she will have been in no doubt as to the importance of patient confidentiality. Despite this she repeatedly accessed the victim’s file without a valid reason

Unlawfully obtaining or accessing personal data is a criminal offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The offence is punishable by way of a fine of up to £5,000 in a Magistrates Court or an unlimited fine in a Crown Court. The ICO continues to call for more effective deterrent sentences, including the threat of prison, to be available to the courts to stop the unlawful use of personal information.

David Smith added:

We continue to urge the Government to press ahead with the introduction of tougher penalties to enforce the Data Protection Act. Without these unscrupulous individuals will continue to break the law. Action to replace the section 55 ‘fine only’ regime with an effective deterrent is long overdue. This change is not directed at the media and should not be held while Lord Justice Leveson‘s recommendations on data protection and the media are considered

.

An update on the progress of the European Data Protection Act

At last week’s Information Commissioners Data Protection Officers Conference in Manchester I had the privilege of being updated on the progress, or lack of progress, of the revised European Data Protection Act.

With the existing directive dating back over 17 years an upgrade is well over due but there is significant pressure from businesses to water down any revisions to the directive.

A watered down directive does not serve anyone, the privacy campaigners or those with commerce in mind, because breaches are happening far too often and breaches affect consumer confidence.

This means the larger retailers should be supporting stronger Data Protection controls so the smaller, less funded or less skilled businesses have the detailed controls and the incentives to put privacy and security first.

In the main hall and in the breakout room there was constant reference to the thinking about the issues before systems and processes are put in place. The two terms used were:-

  1. Privacy by Design
  2. Security by Design

Both Privacy by Design and Security by Design are essential for consumer confidence because they are demonstrable actions organisations can refer to when dealing with the users of their data.

Françoise Le Bail of the EU Commission stated that “23% of users feel they do not have complete control of their data when shopping online”. In other words almost a quarter of those who buy on line are suspicious of the people who want to take money from them. If those statistics were applied to bricks and mortar retailers the high street would look a lot worse than it does now and it already looks pretty bad.

Françoise Le Bail also stated that the EC’s priorities for the Act are: –

  • The architecture of the framework
  • Key provisions to include all personal data and consent
  • A more risk based approach – proportionality
  • Data Protection Offices are needed
  • A consistent European wide level of governance
  • Support for authorities by providing training and not just fines

David Smith the UK Deputy Information Commissioner stated the UK was not 100% in favour of the current draft proposals but the UK was largely supportive.

David Smith had a list of items that were favoured including:-

  • Improved consistency across Europe
  • Enhanced Individual rights
  • Code of conduct and certification

However, the UK is looking for additional items to be added and a clarification on others, for example:-

  • The UK wants a more “risk” based approach to personal data
  • Individual compensation should not be restricted to monetary loss. It should also take into account aggravation and heartache.
  • Data Protection training needs to be added to the school curriculum
  • There are two proposals in place by the EU and the UK doesn’t want any more than that. The two proposals are Law Enforcement and everyone else.

Other items of note

  • The date for the Act to be passed is likely to be June 2014 with enforcement two years later in 2016
  • The 24 hour mandatory breach notification is likely to slip to 72 hours
  • The maximum 2% of global turnover is likely to be approved but some members of the commission are pushing for it to be 10%
  • Right to be forgotten is a big problem due to the nature of what can be forgotten and what should never be forgotten
  • Data Portability is both a target for Europe and a problem and negotiations are on-going with the US and other nations on cross border data sharing.
  • MiData now has 26 signed up companies and the drive for more is growing

Other blog posts on the subject are below:-

EU Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of the Data Protection rules

This week the European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform of the EU’s 1995 data protection rules to strengthen online privacy rights and to boost Europe’s digital economy.

The press release states:

Technological progress and globalisation have profoundly changed the way our data is collected, accessed and used. In addition, the 27 EU Member States have implemented the 1995 rules differently, resulting in divergences in enforcement. A single law will do away with the current fragmentation and costly administrative burdens, leading to savings for businesses of around €2.3 billion a year. The initiative will help reinforce consumer confidence in online services, providing a much needed boost to growth, jobs and innovation in Europe.

“17 years ago less than 1% of Europeans used the internet. Today, vast amounts of personal data are transferred and exchanged, across continents and around the globe in fractions of seconds,” said EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, the Commission’s Vice-President. “The protection of personal data is a fundamental right for all Europeans, but citizens do not always feel in full control of their personal data. My proposals will help build trust in online services because people will be better informed about their rights and in more control of their information. The reform will accomplish this while making life easier and less costly for businesses. A strong, clear and uniform legal framework at EU level will help to unleash the potential of the Digital Single Market and foster economic growth, innovation and job creation.”

The Commission’s proposals update and modernise the principles enshrined in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to guarantee privacy rights in the future. They include a policy Communication setting out the Commission’s objectives and two legislative proposals: a Regulation setting out a general EU framework for data protection and a Directive on protecting personal data processed for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences and related judicial activities.

Key changes in the reform include:

  • A single set of rules on data protection, valid across the EU. Unnecessary administrative requirements, such as notification requirements for companies, will be removed. This will save businesses around €2.3 billion a year.
  • Instead of the current obligation of all companies to notify all data protection activities to data protection supervisors – a requirement that has led to unnecessary paperwork and costs businesses €130 million per year, the Regulation provides for increased responsibility and accountability for those processing personal data.
  • For example, companies and organisations must notify the national supervisory authority of serious data breaches as soon as possible (if feasible within 24 hours).
  • Organisations will only have to deal with a single national data protection authority in the EU country where they have their main establishment. Likewise, people can refer to the data protection authority in their country, even when their data is processed by a company based outside the EU. Wherever consent is required for data to be processed, it is clarified that it has to be given explicitly, rather than assumed.
  • People will have 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). This will improve competition among services.
  • 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.
  • Independent national data protection authorities will be strengthened so they can better enforce the EU rules at home. They will be empowered to fine companies that violate EU data protection rules. This can lead to penalties of up to €1 million or up to 2% of the global annual turnover of a company.
  • A new Directive will apply general data protection principles and rules for police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The rules will apply to both domestic and cross-border transfers of data.

The Commission’s proposals will now be passed on to the European Parliament and EU Member States (meeting in the Council of Ministers) for discussion. They will take effect two years after they have been adopted.

The official press release was a short summary of what will be debated by the politicians. For a more detailed summary, based upon the January 2012 release and other research read my May 2012 post “Proposed European wide Data Protection Act – a review“.

As for the politicians debating the Act before passing it to law it is worth while reading the post “The Information Commissioner provides an update on the European Data Protection Act“.

It is disappointing that the delays will see the revised Act and the improvements in Data Protection and Privacy not being enforced until 2015.

.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: