Search

Brian Pennington

A blog about Cyber Security & Compliance

Tag

ico

ICO: Warning to SMEs as firm hit by cyber attack fined £60,000

Small and medium sized businesses are being warned to take note as a company which suffered a cyber attack is fined £60,000 by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office.

An investigation by the ICO found Berkshire-based Boomerang Video Ltd failed to take basic steps to stop its website being attacked.

Sally Anne Poole, ICO enforcement manager, said:

“Regardless of your size, if you are a business that handles personal information then data protection laws apply to you.

“If a company is subject to a cyber attack and we find they haven’t taken steps to protect people’s personal information in line with the law, they could face a fine from the ICO. And under the new General Data Protection Legislation (GDPR) coming into force next year, those fines could be a lot higher.”

She added:

“Boomerang Video failed to take basic steps to protect its customers’ information from cyber attackers. Had it done so, it could have prevented this attack and protected the personal details of more than 26,000 of its customers.”

The video game rental firm’s website was subject to a cyber attack in 2014 in which 26,331 customer details could be accessed. The attacker used a common technique known as SQL injection to access the data.

The ICO’s investigation found:

  • Boomerang Video failed to carry out regular penetration testing on its website that should have detected errors
  • The firm failed to ensure the password for the account on the WordPress section of its website was sufficiently complex
  • Boomerang Video had some information stored unencrypted and that which was encrypted could be accessed because it failed to keep the decryption key secure
  • Encrypted cardholder details and CVV numbers were held on the web server for longer than necessary

Ms Poole said:

“For no good reason Boomerang Video appears to have overlooked the need to ensure it had robust measures in place to prevent this from happening.

“I hope businesses learn from today’s fine and check that they are doing all they can to look after the customer information in their care.”

Advertisements

Will GDPR Change the World?

Rob Luke’s keynote speech ‘Will GDPR Change the World?’.

Introduction

Thank you.

Let me take a moment to thank TechUK for putting together this event and for offering me the platform to speak with you this morning.

Our Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has been clear that the ICO’s vision – of increasing data trust and confidence among the UK public – can only be achieved by working in partnership with the private, public and third sectors.

An important part of that is developing key relationships with representative or umbrella organisations as multipliers and amplifiers for our engagement with different constituencies. Helping us reach new or hard-to-reach audiences.

Our strong relationship with Tech UK is a great example of that partnership approach.

We appreciate the role you play in bringing together representatives from across the sector and your ongoing constructive dialogue with us around issues of importance to your members and the sector as a whole.

I’m glad to have the opportunity to continue that dialogue this morning.

Will GDPR change the world?

Will the General Data Protection Regulation change the world?

Wow, what a question. On the face of it, even the most ardent data protection advocate would struggle to make a case that a blandly titled piece of European legislation deserves that billing.

So despite my professional obligation to emphasise the importance of data protection in the digital age, I am not going to make the argument for the world revolving around GDPR.

What I will try to do is highlight some of the opportunities and challenges GDPR brings for organisations.

Ultimately, of course, GDPR is an indicator of change as much as it is an instigator. And no sector is more relevant to that rapidly changing landscape than yours.

GDPR is part of the response to the challenge of upholding information rights in the digital age. Of protecting the rights and interests of the individual in the context of an explosion in the quantity and use of data and in an environment of extremely rapid technological change.

So I feel it is particularly relevant to mark One Year To Go in dialogue with the tech sector in particular.

I should be clear early on that this is not a speech about Brexit or an exploration of the UK’s possible post-Brexit data protection framework.

In a pre-election period, and with the need to adhere to the guidance on purdah, I hope you will understand that I am not in a position to speculate about the post-Brexit environment, nor indeed to comment on proposals in political party manifestos.

I apologise in advance if there are questions, or elements of the panel discussion, where I am limited by the caution that purdah requires.

What we can safely say however, is that one way or another, GDPR is going to be an important part of the global data protection landscape over the years ahead, with great relevance to UK organisations, the public and their data.

Fit for the digital age

The moment at which GDPR takes effect in the UK on 25 May 2018 will of course mark a change. In delivering legislation fit for the digital age GDPR confers new rights and responsibilities and organisations need to be working now to prepare for them.

I assume that this audience has a familiarity with the core features of GDPR and the key requirements it places on organisations. I hope you have already deployed our ’12 steps to take now’ guidance and our ‘Overview to GDPR’ and that you are drawing on our wider resources.

One consistent feature of our outreach with organisations is a high demand for granular guidance – often people will say to us: “tell us what we need to do”.

We are working at pace to produce detailed guidance, both at national level but also European level guidance produced by the Article 29 EU Working Party to which we are making a major contribution.

I will flag up some particular pieces of guidance in a minute, and the pipeline of guidance will continue to flow.

But I urge you not to wait, nor to take a reactive approach to your GDPR preparations, motivated solely by a mindset of compliance or risk management.

Those organisations which thrive under GDPR will be those who recognise that the key feature of GDPR is to put the individual at the heart of data protection law.

Thinking first about how people want their data handled and then using those principles to underpin how you go about preparing for GDPR means you won’t go far wrong.

Transparency and accountability

It can be boiled down to two words: “transparency” and “accountability”.

Being clear with individuals how their personal data is being used.

And placing the highest standards of data protection at the heart of how you do business.

An issue for the boardroom

That means this is an issue for board level, whatever the size of your business.

Not least because under GDPR the regulator wields a bigger stick. For the most serious violations of the law, the ICO will have the power to fine companies up to twenty million Euros or four per cent of a company’s total annual worldwide turnover for the preceding year.

And as we’ve seen in well-publicised examples the cost to business of poor practice in this area goes above and beyond any fine we can impose. Losing your consumers’ trust could be terminal for your reputation and for your organisation.

We would all prefer a win-win outcome. A model where organisations take an approach to data protection which earns the trust of consumers in a more systematic way. And where that trust translates into competitive advantage for those who lead the charge.

Nowhere does that feel more relevant than for your sector.

GDPR and the tech sector

The UK tech industry is at the forefront of our vibrant digital economy, changing how we live our lives and offering huge potential for positive change and wide social benefit.

Data is the fuel that powers that economy and tech companies are involved at every level.

GDPR is a response to this evolving landscape, building on previous legislation but bringing a 21st century approach and delivering stronger rights in response to the heightened risks.

The right of an individual to be informed about use of their data; their right to access their information and move that information around; the right of rectification and erasure of data where appropriate; the right to remove consent; and the right to enable automated decisions to be challenged.

Good practice tools that the ICO has championed for a long time – such as privacy impact assessments and ensuring privacy by design – are now legally required in certain circumstances.

The ICO covers privacy impact assessments in its existing Privacy by Design guidance and the European Article 29 Working Party has also issued draft guidelines.

Being transparent and providing accessible information to individuals about how you will use their personal data is another key element of the new law and our privacy notices code of practice is GDPR-ready.

Increased responsibilities for data processors are another feature. Data processors, companies using personal data on behalf of others, will have specific legal obligations to maintain records of personal data and processing activities.

Data breach reporting will also change under the GDPR. You’ll be obliged to notify the ICO, within 72 hours, of a breach where it is likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals.

The widespread availability of personal data on the internet and advances in technology, coupled with the capabilities of big data analytics mean that profiling is becoming a much wider issue.

People have legitimate concerns about surveillance, discrimination and the use of their data without consent.

Data protection can be challenging in a big data context and some types of big data analytics, such as profiling, can be intrusive.

We explore many of these issues in detail in our recently updated paper on big data, artificial intelligence, machine learning and data protection.

We’ve also recently published a consultation paper on profiling under GDPR to which TechUK has responded. We’ll be using this to feed into the European Article 29 Working Party guidelines.

Harnessing the benefits of big data, AI and machine learning, as it relates to healthcare for example, will be sustained by upholding the key data protection principles and safeguards set out in GDPR.

Whilst the means by which personal data is processed are changing, the underlying issues remain the same. Are people being treated fairly? Are decisions accurate and free from bias? Is there a legal basis for the processing? These will remain key questions for us as a regulator under GDPR as they have been under the DPA.

The GDPR is a principles based law well equipped to take on the challenges of 21st century technology.

It aims to be flexible – protecting individuals from harm while enabling you to innovate and develop services that consumers and businesses want.

Data analytics

As data becomes the fuel powering the modern economy, so it becomes a key element of many of the debates in modern society.

Take the announcement last week by Elizabeth Denham of her opening of a formal investigation into the use of data analytics for political purposes.

Given the big data revolution I have mentioned it is understandable that political campaigns are exploring the potential of advanced data analysis tools to help win votes. The public have the right to expect that this takes place in accordance with the law as it relates to data protection and electronic marketing.

This is a complex and rapidly evolving area of activity and the level of awareness among the public about how data analytics works, and how their personal data is collected, shared and used through such tools, is low.

What is clear is that these tools have a significant potential impact on individuals’ privacy. It is important that there is greater and genuine transparency about the use of such techniques to ensure that people have control over their own data and the law is upheld.

We will provide an update on that investigation later in the year.

Rising to the challenge

I’ve talked about some of the challenges and opportunities GDPR brings for organisations. Likewise it is a moment for us at the ICO to reflect on how we do our work.

Clearly there are practical aspects such as preparing for a higher volume of activity given enhanced breach notification requirements.

But we are thinking more widely than that.

One example, again with particular relevance for the tech sector, is how we might be able to engage more deeply with companies as they seek to implement privacy by design.

How we can contribute to a “safe space” where companies can test their ideas. How we can better recognise the circular rather than linear nature of the design process.

Separate but related we need to become more comfortable about recognising good practice and drawing on exemplars.

We should be able to find ways to give credit where credit is due without that translating into a free pass for an individual organisation or practice. GDPR explicitly foresees wider use of tools such as codes of conduct and certification schemes, which potentially have an important role to play.

To deliver on the above and more broadly we also need to build our own tech know-how and capability. We are working on a new Technology Strategy which will outline our means of adapting to rapid technological change as it impacts information rights.

We are also committed to exploring innovative and technologically agile ways of protecting privacy.

And of course we need to exercise global reach and influence. Effective protection of the UK public’s personal information becomes increasingly complex as data flows across borders.

The ICO will continue to develop and deepen effective relationships with our international partners, reacting to changes in the global regulatory environment.

These goals among others feature in our new Information Rights Strategic Plan, being launched today by Elizabeth Denham, which sets out the ICO’s plan for the coming four years.

The tech sector will be a priority for our engagement as we look to seize these opportunities set out in the strategy.

Conclusion

With 12 months to go until GDPR takes effect in the UK, I hope I have offered a brief insight into some of the implications and impacts of GDPR on UK businesses.

I hope I have also signposted key actions you should be taking and key tools on which you can draw to rise to the challenge.

GDPR brings big changes, important changes. But GDPR is an evolution of the existing rules, not a revolution.

And as I said at the outset it is also a mirror of the changes in the practices and environment it seeks to regulate.

It is not GDPR which is pushing data protection up the public, political and media agenda. It is the changing nature of the world in which we live, and the ubiquity of data, which is causing society to reflect on the consequences for our personal information and for privacy itself.

You are at the heart of that change. Your response to the challenges and opportunities of GDPR will set a marker for other sectors.

You have a major stake in the enterprise of increasing data trust and confidence among the UK public. By putting the individual in genuine control of their own data you can help achieve that goal, delivering benefits for your consumers, your business and society as a whole.

Thank you.

ICO statement on recent cyber attacks on the NHS

The ICO has released the following statement concerning the recent cyber attacks on the NHS:

“All organisations are required under the Data Protection Act to keep people’s personal data safe and secure.

“Following the news on Friday afternoon that many organisations had been the subject of a cyber attack, the ICO made contact with both NHS Digital and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

“Our enquiries will continue this week and we note that NHS England have said they have no evidence that patient data has been accessed.

“Any appropriate next steps for the ICO will decided once these initial enquiries are complete.

“The ICO has published a useful blog on how to prevent ransomware attacks.”

Elizabeth Denham’s speech at the Data Protection Practitioners’ Conference 2017

6th march Manchester, UK.

Good morning, and welcome to Manchester. It’s cold and it’s grey, but for those of us who live around here, we kind of like it, and we’re proud it’s where the biggest data protection conference of the year takes place.

We’ve got a busy schedule today. Lots on GDPR, of course. Trevor Hughes from IAPP talking about the role of the data protection officer internationally. Practical workshops on everything from breach notification to consent. And a very engaging information market – the speakers’ corner looks sure to be a conversation starter, and don’t miss our experts talking about the law enforcement directive too.

So lots to engage you. Let’s get started by getting your grey matter warmed up: a quick general knowledge quiz. One question:

What links the following:

  • the Labour Party;
  • international weightlifting;
  • the music you heard when I entered the room; and
  • the ICO?

The answer is right before your eyes: all have performed right here at this venue. I’m not sure which of the four had the rowdiest audience…!

Manchester Central has been the home of the Data Protection Practitioners Conference for the best part of a decade, and I’m sure you’ll agree it’s an excellent venue. It was converted from a railway station built more than 125 years ago by Sir John Fowler, the architect famed for his work on the Forth Railway Bridge.

Sir John once said: “Engineers are not mere technicians and should not approve or lend their name to any project that does not promise to be beneficent to man and the advancement of civilization.”

DPOs in the mainstream

I think there’s something in that comment for us here today. About not merely being technicians. About looking to see how the projects we contribute to can be beneficial to citizens. How we can put the customer first.

I don’t think that’s too grand an aim. This is an exciting time to be in data protection. Like many of you, I’ve worked in this sector a long time. I remember when we were a back office function. When we often were seen as “mere technicians”. That seems a very long time ago.

My colleague Rob Luke, who you’ll hear from shortly, is speaking before an advertising conference later this week. Fifteen years ago, which advertiser would have invited the data protection regulator to their annual event? Who thought data protection when they booked a slot in the ad break during Coronation Street? But today, data protection is central to their work. Making the most of customer data. Combining big data sets. Finding new ways to better understand what consumers want, to track how they act or predict what they will do next.

Last week, we opened an inquiry into privacy risks arising from the use of data analytics for political purposes following public reports about the role of private firms in the Brexit referendum. We often find ourselves at the heart of many debates of modern society.

It’s an exciting time to work in data protection, whatever your sector, with real opportunities. We’ll talk a lot today about the practical aspects, from how GDPR will change things at your organisations, to the steps you can take to use the coming change in the law as an opportunity to inform your practices.

But let’s not lose sight of what good data protection can achieve. We have an opportunity to set out a culture of data confidence in the UK. We just need to keep in mind that when we lend our name to projects, we should think about how they can be of benefit to citizens.

Review of last 12 months

I think it’s fair to say that a recap of the files we’ve been involved in over the past twelve months can be characterised by organisations failing to put customers first.

Our work with WhatsApp and Facebook springs to mind. We all rely on digital services for important parts of our lives. But my office felt these apps were not taking enough responsibility for data protection. Companies have legal responsibilities to treat people’s data with proper care and transparency – to give them persistent control and choice.

Similarly the record fine we issued to TalkTalk. You could write an essay discussing the technical detail of the cyber-attack itself, but fundamentally, not enough respect – not enough care – was being given to the type of protection consumers would have expected of their personal information.

And without rehearsing the conversations we’ve had with parts of charity sector, there’s a similar theme: insufficient thought about the level of transparency donors would want, expect, or support.

They’re examples of organisations getting it wrong under the current Data Protection Act. GDPR is going to put even more of an onus on organisations to understand and respect the personal privacy rights of consumers.

GDPR

Because while the General Data Protection Regulation builds on the previous legislation, it provides more protections for consumers, and more privacy considerations for organisations. It brings a more 21st century approach to the processing of personal data.

The GDPR gives specific new obligations for organisations, for example around reporting data breaches and transferring data across borders.

But the real change for organisations is understanding the new rights for consumers.

Consumers and citizens will have stronger rights to be informed about how organisations use their personal data. They’ll have the right to request that personal data be deleted or removed if there’s no compelling reason for an organisation to carry on processing it, and new rights around data portability and how they give consent.

On that subject, do take a look at the guidance on consent that is now out for consultation, and will be discussed at our workshop later today.

Accountability and breadth

At the centre of the GDPR is the concept of broader and deeper accountability for an organisation’s handling of personal data. The GDPR brings into UK law a trend that we’ve seen in other parts of the world – a demand that organisations understand, and mitigate – the risks that they create for others in exchange for using a person’s data. It’s about a framework that should be used to build a culture of privacy that pervades an entire organisation. It goes back to that idea of doing more than being a technician, and seeing the broader responsibility and impact of your work in your organisation on society.

Making it matter to the boardroom

I’ve already spoken to some of you this morning, and I hear what you’re saying. You understand why having your organisation accept more accountability for data protection matters. You want to change the culture of your organisation. But in many cases, you need to convince your senior management first. So, what can I give you today to help you make that case when you go back to your offices tomorrow?

The fines are the obvious headline. The GDPR gives regulators greater enforcement powers. If an organisation can’t demonstrate that good data protection is a cornerstone of their business policy and practices, they’re leaving themselves open to enforcement action that can damage their public reputation and possibly their bank balance. That makes data protection a boardroom issue.

But there’s a carrot here as well as a stick, and as regulators we actually prefer the carrot. Get data protection right, and you can see a real business benefit.

Accepting broad accountability for data protection encourages an upfront investment in privacy fundamentals, but it offers a payoff down the line, not just in better legal compliance, but a competitive edge. Whether that means attracting more customers or more efficiently meeting pressing public policy needs, I believe there is a real opportunity for organisations to present themselves on the basis of how they respect the privacy of individuals. Over time this can play a real role in consumer choice.

What the ICO is doing

Gandhi said the future depends on what we do in the present. So let me talk a little about what my office is doing now, to help you prepare for the future.

I’ve worked as a regulator in this field for more than twelve years and my focus has always been on making sure the regulator is relevant. On making sure we’re taking on that challenge of not being mere technicians but instead are making a difference to the organisations we regulate through education. Making a difference to the public, through giving them an avenue to file a complaint and by sanctioning the bad actors.

Each of us in the information rights field, on a daily basis, tries to make a difference to the public. Collectively, we do a good job: I think people have never been more aware of their rights, of what they can expect of the businesses and organisations they trust with their data. But consumer trust hasn’t followed that. An ICO survey last year showed only one in four UK adults trust businesses with their personal data. And I don’t believe the figure would be much higher for the public sector. As a regulator, it’s one of my jobs to give you the tools and the support to turn that around.

I want to see comprehensive data protection programs as the norm, organisations better protecting the data of citizens and consumers, and a change of culture that makes broader and deeper data protection accountability a focus for organisations across the UK. I think that’s achievable.

We’ll be shortly announcing work we’ll be doing to contribute to that. We want to support independent research that helps people better navigate the digital world. Our research and grants programme will dedicate funds over the next five years to engaging the research community in finding ways to help consumers. More details in due course.

Post Brexit

And of course we need to be looking to the horizon, to what might exist beyond GDPR.

Fourteen months ago I was writing a speech for a different audience, in a different role. My appearance was at the Canadian annual privacy and security conference, as information and privacy commissioner for British Columbia. I was talking about the challenges of a digital economy that required data to flow across borders, where different legal systems and cultural norms about privacy make this a complicated undertaking. More specifically, I spoke about how changes within the EU affect those outside of it, particularly around adequacy.

How familiar does that sound today? The UK EU referendum decision means we’re facing the same challenges. The UK’s digital economy needs data to flow across borders: how do we make sure that can happen? How can we foster economic growth while still respecting citizen’s rights?

When the government comes to answer those questions beyond the implementation of GDPR in 2018, we expect to be at the centre of many conversations, speaking up for continued protection and rights for consumers, and clear laws for organisations. And addressing the strong data protection laws we’d need if we want to keep the UK’s approach at an equivalent standard to the EU.

Conclusion

Which brings us back to today. The GDPR is a strong data protection law. It gives consumers more control over their data. And it includes new obligations for organisations.

Today is about learning more about those obligations, more about data protection best practice, more about how to get it right.

Today is about helping you make the best use of tomorrow.

More fines next year for nuisance call companies

Companies making nuisance calls have been warned to expect more fines in 2016.

The ICO imposed more than a million pounds worth of penalties for nuisance calls and text messages in 2015, with the same amount in the pipeline for early 2016.

The fines included:

  • £295,000 of fines for companies offering call blocking or nuisance call prevention services
  • A £80,000 fine to a PPI claims firm that sent 1.3million text messages
  • A £200,000 fine to a solar panels company that made six million nuisance calls
  • A £130,000 fine to a pharmacy company that was selling customer details to postal marketing companies

Total fines related to nuisance marketing in 2015:

  • £400,000 fines for nuisance texts (Help Direct UK Ltd; Oxygen Ltd; UKMS Money Solutions Ltd)
  • £575,000 fines for nuisance calls (Direct Assist Ltd; Point One Marketing Ltd; Cold Call Elimination Ltd; Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd (HELM); Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd;  Nuisance Call Blocker Ltd; Telecom Protection Service Ltd)
  • £130,000 fine for selling customer records for marketing (Pharmacy 2U Ltd)
  • £30,000 fine for sending marketing email (Telegraph Media Group Ltd)

Total: £1,135,000. 

Andy Curry, ICO Enforcement Group Manager, said:

Nuisance marketing calls frustrate people. The law is clear around what is allowed, and we’ve been clear that we will fine companies who don’t follow the law. That will continue in 2016. We’ve got 90 ongoing investigations, and a million pounds worth of fines in the pipeline

The ICO received around 170,000 concerns in 2015 from people who’ve received nuisance calls and texts, a similar number to the previous year (2014: 175,330). PPI claims prompted the most complaints, followed by accident claims. Areas identified as emerging sectors for nuisance calls and texts included call blocking services, oven cleaning services and industrial hearing injury claims.

The following are examples of complaints showed the level of distress that calls can cause:

Telecom Protection Service:

“I was recovering from major surgery at the time and the call caused me distress. The caller was very smooth talking and did not make it clear that he was selling a commercial service that was nothing to do with the TPS. The call was frankly misleading.”

HELM:

“I am receiving daily updates regarding a friend in hospital, and am expecting the worst. When these calls come in I expect it to be from the hospital.”

Cold Call Elimination:

“This company has ‘conned’ my mother out of £84.99 for an unnecessary service … my parents are 87 and 86 respectively; my father is suffering from dementia.”

“I am looking after my elderly mother who has terminal cancer. She initially answered and I could see I needed to intervene as I could hear the sales guy not giving up. I took the phone and asked him who he was and what he wanted. He got quite annoyed that I had intervened and I told him we were not interested.”

Point One Marketing:

“Very upset and angry that my mum, who has dementia, was talked into giving credit card details when it would have been obvious to the caller that she had dementia. This caused my mum distress because I had to explain why her debit card had to be cancelled and what she had done. This has caused both of us great distress. Had I not checked her call log and … the number that had called her I would not have known it had happened at all.”

ICO response to ECJ ruling on personal data to US Safe Harbor

The ICO has issued a statement in response to the European Court of Justice ruling about the legal basis for the transfer of personal data to businesses that are members of the US Safe Harbor

Deputy Commissioner David Smith said:

“Today’s ruling is clearly significant and it is important that regulators and legislators provide a considered and clear response. This ruling is about the legal basis for the transfer of personal data to businesses that are members of the US Safe Harbor. It does not mean that there is an increase in the threat to people’s personal data, but it does make clear the important obligation on organisations to protect people’s data when it leaves the UK.

“The judgment means that businesses that use Safe Harbor will need to review how they ensure that data transferred to the US is transferred in line with the law. We recognise that it will take them some time for them to do this.

“It is important to bear in mind that the Safe Harbor is not the only basis on which transfers of personal data to the US can be made. Many transfers already take place based on different provisions. The ICO has previously published guidance on the full range of options available to businesses to ensure that they are complying with the law related to international transfers. We will now be considering the judgment in detail, working with our counterpart data protection authorities in the other EU member states and issuing further guidance for businesses on the options open to them. Businesses should check the ICO website for details over the coming weeks.

“Concerns about the Safe Harbor are not new. That is why negotiations have been taking place for some time between the European Commission and US authorities with a view to introducing a new, more privacy protective arrangement to replace the existing Safe Harbor agreement. We understand that these negotiations are well advanced.”

Personal data in leaked datasets is still personal data – ICO

By Simon Rice, Group Manager for Technology at the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

Personal data in leaked datasets is still personal dataThey say ‘no publicity is bad publicity’, but after spending most of the week trending on Twitter, I wonder if the users of the Ashley Madison site might disagree.

Having already prompted a flurry of news stories when the online attack of the Ashley Madison servers was first revealed, this week we’ve seen another wave of coverage as the personal data was published online.

Wherever your sympathies might lie in relation to the people identified in the published data set, the fact remains that such details are personal information, with certain protections in law.

Like many online attacks, the data protection response is international. In this case, we’re liaising with our counterparts in Canada, where the company is based.

But with cases like this, there is still a domestic aspect to consider.

Anyone in the UK who might download, collect or otherwise process the leaked data needs to be aware they could be taking on data protection responsibilities defined in the UK’s Data Protection Act.

Similarly, seeking to identify an individual from a leaked dataset will be an intrusion into their private life and could also lead to a breach of the DPA.

Individuals will have a range of personal reasons for having created an account with particular online services (or even had an account created without their knowledge) and any publication of further personal data without their consent can cause them significant damage or distress.

It’s worth noting too that any individual or organisation seeking to rely on the journalism exemption should be reminded that this is not a blanket exemption to the DPA and be encouraged to read our detailed guide on how the DPA applies to journalism.

This is not the first time an online service has suffered such an attack and unfortunately it’s unlikely to be the last. But it’s important people don’t assume that the law and the protections it affords to UK individuals don’t apply online.

Have your details been published in a dataset?

If you find your personal data being published online then you have a right to go to that publisher and request that the information is removed. This applies equally to information being shared on social media. If the publisher is based in the UK and fails to remove your information you can complain to the ICO.

ICO, Michael McIntyre and the Data Protection Act

ICO response to police force tweeting Michael McIntyre’s picture:

Police forces like all other organisations must comply with the Data Protection Act. The police especially must ensure that they have legitimate grounds for processing personal data and disclosing images of this nature without a justifiable policing purpose could potentially breach the Data Protection Act. We will follow this up with the Force concerned

I have often wondered about the sharing of images and how in certain circumstances it could lead to the wrong person or a known person being identified e.g. a photo-fit image created by a Police Artist often looks like everyone’s next door neighbour.

Equally if a person in the public spot light cannot have their image shared by a public body then how can a media outlet, who is also governed by the Data Protection Act, show images that people do not want sharing.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be and if Michael McIntyre complains.

ICO publishes it’s annual report

The Information Commissioner has released its annual report.

Christopher Graham points to the strengthening of his regulatory powers to show how the legislation continues to develop. In the past year, the ICO was given powers to compulsorily audit NHS bodies for their data handling, while forcing a potential employee to make a subject access request for, for example, their spent criminal record was also made an offence. A law change also made it easier to issue fines to companies behind nuisance calls and texts.

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said:
“It’s thirty years since this office was established in Wilmslow. We’ve seen real developments in the laws we regulate during that time, particularly over the past year. Just look at the EU Court of Justice ruling on Google search results, a case that could never have been envisaged when the data protection law was established.

“Our role throughout has been to be the responsible regulator of these laws. More than that, we work to demystify some of this legislation, making clear that data protection isn’t to be seen as a hassle or a duck-out, but a fundamental right.

“A good example of that is our role in the new data protection package being developed in Brussels. We’ve been asked for our advice, based on our experience regulating the existing law, while we’ve also provided a sensible commentary on proceedings for interested observers.

“That role will continue this year, in what promises to be a crucial twelve months. The reform is overdue, but it is vital that we get the detail right on a piece of legislation that needs to work in practice and to last.”

“It is striking to see how decisions that were so hard fought in the early years have resulted in routine publication of information. Publication of safety standards of different models of cars, for example; or hygiene standards in pubs and restaurants; and surgical performance records of hospital consultants. Publication is now expected and unexceptionable.

“It’s been the ICO’s job to help public authorities to comply with requests,” Mr Graham will say. “The ICO’s role has led to information being released that time and time again has delivered real benefits for the UK.”

“Our Annual Report is our claim to be listened to in the debates around information rights. It shows the ICO knows what it is talking about.”

The ICO annual report reflects on the financial year 2014/15. Key stats include:

  • 14,268 – data protection concerns received
  • £1,078,500 – total CMPs issued, £386,000 of which were for companies behind nuisance calls or texts
  • 195,431 – helpline calls answered
  • 11.4% – rise in number of concerns raised about nuisance calls and texts (to 180,188)
  • 41 – audits conducted of data controllers (as well as 58 advisory visits to SMEs)
  • 1,177 – Information requests responded to
  • 4.9 million – number of visits to our website

The full report can be found here.

.

A review of websites and apps targeted at children is underway

The UK Information Commissioners Office (ICO), the enforcer of the Data Protection Act, has begun a review of websites and apps used by children as part of an international project to consider privacy concerns around the type of personal information services collect.

The ICO will look at 50 websites and apps, looking particularly at

  • what information they collect from children
  • how that is explained
  • what parental permission is sought

The websites and apps will include those specifically targeted at children, as well as those frequently used by children.

The same approach will be taken by 28 other privacy enforcement authorities from around the world, with a view to publishing a combined report in the autumn. The ICO will also consider action against any website or app that it finds to be breaking the Data Protection Act.

Steve Eckersley, ICO Head of Enforcement, said:

Anyone with children knows how many websites and apps are now targeted at them, and how popular they are with children. That’s true from Canada to Columbia, and the same concerns exist around what information the companies behind these services are gathering.

In the UK, we’re clear that apps and websites should not gather more personal data than they require, and operators should be upfront about how and why they collect information and how they use it. . These principles are true whatever the audience, but they are especially true where children are concerned. This research should give us a valuable insight into whether companies in the UK are operating compliantly, as well as how that fits with what is happening around the world

The work is coordinated by the Global Privacy Enforcement Network, and follows previous reports on website privacy policies, and how apps collect personal data. This year’s focus was chosen after privacy enforcement authorities identified a growing number of websites and mobile apps targeted at, or popular among, children.

Information Commissioner launches Corporate Plan setting out priorities for 2015-18

The Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, says companies must do more to inform consumers about the way their information is being shared.

The Commissioner’s comments come as new figures show that 85% of people are concerned about how their personal information is passed or sold to other organisations.

The survey also shows 77% of people are concerned about organisations not keeping their personal details secure.

The UK Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said:

Providing people with enough information to understand how their details will be used is a basic principle of data protection. While the vast majority of companies are meeting the letter of the law, figures released today show that most people remain concerned about how their information is being shared. This situation is not good for consumers, or for businesses.

We are set for a new data protection framework in the next three years, but there are still basic things that organisations can be doing today, not only to comply with the current legislation, but also to prepare for the future regulatory landscape.

Businesses should take the results of our survey as a prompt to address consumers’ concerns and provide clearer information to explain when people’s details will be shared and with whom. Getting these basics right today will not only improve consumer trust but also help a business along the road to future compliance

Mr Graham’s comments come as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published its corporate plan. The plan sets out the ICO’s priorities for 2015-18.

These priorities include:

  • preparing for a period of substantial change with the implementation of a new EU data protection framework and the outcome of the Ministry of Justice’s Triennial Review;
  • developing and promoting an ICO privacy seal scheme as a means of demonstrating a commitment to good data protection practices; and
  • engaging with transparency and Open Data initiatives to ensure a balanced information rights perspective.

The ICO’s Annual Track survey was undertaken by ComRes on behalf of the ICO. The survey involved carrying out online interviews with1,575 individuals for their views on data protection matters.

The survey also involved asking 1,422 people for their thoughts on freedom of information issues. The key findings from this section of the survey were:

  • 75% of respondents think it’s important that private companies acting on behalf of public authorities should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
  • 79% of people think it’s important that the regulator is independent of government.

The ICO has to find the right balance of the public interest – between openness to the outside and necessary frankness inside organisations. These decisions are not straightforward and are sometimes controversial, but as guardians of the public interest we are properly accountable to Parliament and the courts

Who breached the Data Protection Act in 2014? Find the complete list here.

2014 was another busy year for the Information Commissioners Office with yet more breaches of the Data Protection Act.

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.
  4. Enforcements. A requirement on an organisation or individual to desist from specific activities.

Below is a summary of the ICO’s activity in 2014 across all three “punishment” areas.

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.

  • 22 August 2014 a monetary penalty of £90,000 was issued to Kwik Fix Plumbers Ltd for continually making nuisance calls targeting vulnerable victims. In several cases, the calls resulted in elderly people being tricked into paying for boiler insurance they didn’t need.
  • 5 December 2014 a monetary penalty of £70,000 was issued to Manchester Ltd after sending unsolicited text messages and appeared on the recipients’ mobile phone to have been sent by “Mum”.
  • 05 November 2014 a monetary penalty of £7,500 was issued to Worldview Limited following a serious data breach where a vulnerability on the company’s site allowed attackers to access the full payment card details of 3,814 customers
  • 01 October 2014 a monetary penalty of £70,000 was issued to fine to EMC Advisory Services Limited for making hundreds of nuisance calls. The company was responsible for 630 complaints to the ICO and the TPS between 1 March 2013 and 28 February 2014. They failed to make sure that those registered with the TPS, or who’d previously asked not to be contacted, weren’t being called.
  • 26 August 2014 a monetary penalty of £180,000 to the Ministry of Justice over serious failings in the way prisons in England and Wales have been handling people’s information
  • 28 July 2014 a monetary penalty of £50,000 fine to Reactiv Media Limited after an investigation discovered they had made unsolicited calls to hundreds of people who had registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS).
  • 23 July 2014 a monetary penalty of £150,000 to Think W3 Limited after a serious breach of the Data Protection Act revealed thousands of people’s details to a malicious hacker.
  • 03 April 2014 a monetary penalty of £50,000 Amber UPVC Fabrications Ltd (T/A Amber Windows) after an investigation discovered they had made unsolicited marketing calls to people who had registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS).
  • 19 March 2014 a monetary penalty of £100,000 to Kent Police after highly sensitive and confidential information, including copies of police interview tapes, were left in a basement at the former site of a police station.
  • 07 March 2014 a monetary penalty of £200,000 to the British Pregnancy Advice Service. Hacker threatened to publish thousands of names of people who sought advice on abortion, pregnancy and contraception.
  • 11 January 2014 a monetary penalty of £185,000 to Department of Justice Northern Ireland after a filing cabinet containing details of a terrorist incident was sold at auction.

ICO statement on Monetary Penalties

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.

  • 19 December 2014 Treasury Solicitors Department. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that the Treasury Solicitors Department has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed February 2014.
  • 19 December 2014 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed April 2014.
  • 19 December 2014 Caerphilly County Borough Council. A council that ordered covert surveillance on a sick employee must review its approach after an Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigation. The ICO found the Council breached the Data Protection Act when it ordered the surveillance of an employee suspected of fraudulently claiming to be sick.
  • 15 December 2014 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed June 2014.
  • 01 December 2014 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed April 2014.
  • 28 November 2014 Oxfordshire County Council. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Oxfordshire County Council as appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed June 2014.
  • 28 November 2014 Aspers (Milton Keynes) Limited. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Aspers (Milton Keynes) Limited has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed June 2014.
  • 26 November 2014 Department of Justice Northern Ireland. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that the Department of Justice Northern Ireland has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed May 2014.
  • 17 November 2014 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that London borough of Barking and Dagenham has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed April 2014.
  • 05 November 2014 Student Loans Company. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Student Loans Company has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed April 2014.
  • 05 November 2014 Royal Veterinary College. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that The Royal Veterinary College has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed October 2013.
  • 24 October 2014 Gwynedd Council. An Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Gwynedd Council following two breaches of the Data Protection Act.
  • 24 October 2014 Disclosure and Barring Service. An undertaking to comply with the first data protection principle has been signed by the Disclosure and Barring Service.
  • 08 October 2014 South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust. An undertaking to comply with the first, third and seventh data protection principles has been signed by South Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust. This includes the completion of a Privacy Impact Assessment in respect of data sharing. This follows an investigation whereby patient data related to 45, 431 data subjects was shared with a Clinical Commissioning Group (‘CCG’) without a legal basis to do so. There were also security concerns surrounding the manner in which the data was stored on discs when being distributed to the CCG.
  • 08 October 2014 Weathersby Limited. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Weathersby Limited after the company failed to secure an internal server properly, resulting in personal data relating to clients being made available on the internet.
  • 07 October 2014 Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. This follows an investigation into two reported incidents involving disclosures of personal data to third parties in error.
  • 25 September 2014 Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust. An undertaking to comply with the first, third and seventh data protection principle has been signed by Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust. This follows an investigation involving the inadvertent sharing of data with a referral management centre.
  • 22 September 2014 Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust.  This follows an investigation into two separate incidents involving disclosures of personal data.
  • 09 September 2014 Isle of Scilly Council. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Council of the Isle of Scilly. This follows an investigation into two separate incidents. The first relating to confidential information which was part of a disciplinary hearing being sent unredacted to third parties.
  • 28 August 2014 Racing Post. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Racing Post. This follows an investigation whereby the Racing Post website was subject to an internet based SQL injection attack which gave access to a customer database. The data included customer registration details relating to 677,335 data subjects.
  • 13 August 2014 Wokingham Borough Council. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Wokingham Borough Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed April 2014.
  • 11 August 2014 Thamesview Estate Agents Ltd. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Thamesview Estate Agents Ltd after the company continued to leave papers containing personal information on the street despite a previous warning. The papers were stored in transparent bags and the information was clearly visible to anyone who walked past.
  • 18 July 2014 The Moray Council. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that The Moray Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed May 2014.
  • 09 July 2014 Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board after sensitive information was sent to the wrong address.
  • 27 June 2014 Oxfordshire County Council. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Oxfordshire County Council. This follows an investigation whereby a solicitor had removed a number of documents from the office but had dropped these in a street near their home. The sensitive personal data related to three child protection cases concerning 22 data subjects.
  • 23 June 2014 Aspers (Milton Keynes) Limited. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Aspers (Milton Keynes) Limited, following an email which was sent in error to an recipient outside of the organisation.
  • 19 June 2014 Department of Justice Northern Ireland. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Department of Justice Northern Ireland. This follows the sale of a filing cabinet that contained documents originating from within the Northern Ireland Prison service. The documents contained personal data, as defined by section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act), which was sensitive in nature.
  • 17 June 2014 Aberdeenshire Council. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Aberdeenshire Council after a paper file was lost by an employee of the Adult Mental Health section of the council’s Social Work service. The employee had placed the file on the roof of his car before driving off.
  • 16 June 2014 Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Cardiff and Vale University Health Board has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed October 2013.
  • 09 June 2014 Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust. This follows an investigation whereby the local press were handed a patient handover sheet containing details of 18 patients.
  • 02 June 2014 Jephson Homes Housing Association Ltd. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Jephson Homes Housing Association Ltd. This follows an investigation into the disclosure in error of several documents containing third party personal data when providing documents to an individual as part of a litigation process.
  • 30 May 2014 Panasonic UK. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Panasonic UK has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed October 2013.
  • 30 May 2014 St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council after child’s foster placement address was disclosed in error.  Investigations identified that Council had selected the correct recipient and had redacted the majority of documents disclosed however the address was missed on one document.
  • 30 May 2014 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. An undertaking to respond in a quicker and more effective manner to losses of personal data has been signed by London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. This follows an investigation into the loss of a file containing medical data relating to eleven children, which discovered that although the council knew where the file was, it had still not been retrieved five months later.
  • 27 May 2014 Student Loans Company. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Student Loans Company Limited following an investigation by the ICO into three separate incidents involving the disclosure of documents to the incorrect recipients.  The investigation identified that whilst checking procedures were in place documents containing sensitive personal data were subject to fewer checks than those containing less sensitive data.
  • 16 May 2014 Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed November 2013.
  • 12 May 2014 The Moray Council. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by The Moray Council. This follows an investigation into the loss of a file containing adoption meeting papers at a café in the local area.
  • 25 April 2014 Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. This follows an investigation whereby a social worker had left a case file containing sensitive personal data at a client’s home. The case file outlined child welfare concerns and disclosed the identity of the source.
  • 15 April 2014 Wirral Borough Council. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Wirral Borough Council after social services records containing sensitive personal information were sent to the wrong addresses on two occasions. The information, which was disclosed in February and April 2013, included sensitive personal details relating to two families living in the borough and in one case included details of a criminal offence committed by one of the family members.
  • 15 April 2014 Wokingham Borough Council. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Wokingham Borough Council, after sensitive social services records relating to the care of a young child were lost. The information, which had been requested by a family member, was lost after the delivery driver left the documents outside the requester’s home in August 2013.
  • 11 April 2014 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed September 2013.
  • 28 March 2014 Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. This follows an investigation by the ICO into a series of fax related incidents which revealed that the Trust had a very low attendance rate for Information Governance training.
  • 20 March 2014 Disclosure and Barring Service. An undertaking to comply with the first data protection principle has been signed by the Disclosure and Barring Service.
  • 14 March 2014 Cardiff City Council. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Cardiff City Council has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed August 2013.
  • 13 March 2014 Neath Care. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by Neath Care. This follows the disclosure of ten client care service delivery plans which were found by a member of the public in the street. The care service delivery plans related to elderly people and contained confidential client information on matters such as personal care, medication and key safe numbers.
  • 26 February 2014 Treasury Solicitor’s Department. An undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle has been signed by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department. The data controller agreed to put measures in place to ensure the security of the personal data it handles.
  • 24 January 2014 Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed September 2013.
  • 10 January 2014 Northern Health and Social Care Trust. A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Northern Health and

Prosecution

  • 13 November 2014 Harkanwarjit Dhanju. A former pharmacist working for West Sussex Primary Care Trust has been prosecuted for unlawfully accessing the medical records of family members, work colleagues and local health professionals. Harkanwarjit Dhanju was fined £1000, ordered to pay a £100 victim surcharge and £608.30 prosecution costs.
  • 11 November 2014 Matthew Devlin. Company director Matthew Devlin has been fined after illegally accessing one of Everything Everywhere’s (EE) customer databases. Devlin used details of when customers were due a mobile phone upgrade to target them with services offered by his own telecoms companies.
  • 22 August 2014 Dalvinder Singh. A Birmingham banker has been fined after he admitted reading his colleagues bank accounts. He worked in Santander UK’s suspicious activity reporting unit at their Leicester office. His role investigating allegations of money laundering meant he was able to view customer accounts. But he used his access to look at eleven colleagues’ accounts, to learn how much their salaries and bonuses were.
  • 06 August 2014 A Plus Recruitment Limited. A recruitment company has been prosecuted today at Doncaster Magistrates Court for failing to notify with the ICO. A Plus Recruitment Limited pleaded guilty and was fined £300 and ordered to pay costs of £489.95 and a victim surcharge of £30.
  • 05 August 2014 1st Choice Properties (SRAL). A property lettings and management company has been prosecuted for failing to notify with the ICO at Uxbridge Magistrates Court today. 1st Choice Properties (SRAL) was convicted in the defendant’s absence and fined £500, ordered to pay costs of £815.08 and a victim surcharge of £50.
  • 15 July 2014 Jayesh Shah. The owner of a marketing company trading as Vintels has been prosecuted for failing to notify the ICO of changes to his notification at Willesden Magistrates Court today. Jayesh Shah was fined £4000, ordered to pay costs of £2703 and a £400 victim surcharge.
  • 14 July 2014 Hayden Nash Consultants. A recruitment company has been prosecuted for failing to notify with the ICO at Reading Magistrates Court today. Hayden Nash Consultants entered a guilty plea and was fined £200, ordered to pay costs of £489.85 and a £20 victim surcharge.
  • 10 July 2014 Stephen Siddell. A former branch manager for Enterprise Rent-A-Car has been prosecuted for unlawfully stealing the records of almost two thousand customers before selling them to a claims management company. Stephen Siddell was fined £500, ordered to pay a £50 victim surcharge and £264.08 in prosecution costs.
  • 09 July 2014 Global Immigration Consultants Limited. A legal advice company has been prosecuted for failing to notify with the ICO at Manchester Magistrates Court today. Global Immigration Consultants Limited entered a guilty plea and was fined £300, ordered to pay costs of £260.18 and a £30 victim surcharge.
  • 06 June 2014 Darren Anthony Bott. The director of a pensions review company has been prosecuted for failing to notify with the ICO. Darren Anthony Bott of Allied Union Ltd entered a guilty plea and was fined £400, ordered to pay costs of £218.82 and a £40 victim surcharge.
  • 05 June 2014 API Telecom. A telecoms company has been prosecuted by the ICO for failing to comply with an information notice in Westminster Magistrates’ Court yesterday. The company, API Telecom, entered a guilty plea and was fined £200, ordered to pay full costs of £489.85 and the victim surcharge was imposed.
  • 13 May 2014 QR Lettings. A property company has been prosecuted by the ICO for failing to notify under section 17 of the Data Protection Act. QR Lettings pleaded guilty at a hearing on 13 May 2014 at Birkenhead Magistrates Court. The company was fined £250, ordered to pay costs of £260 and a £30 victim surcharge.
  • 25 April 2014 Barry Spencer. A man who ran a company that tricked organisations into revealing personal details about customers has been ordered to pay a total of £20,000 in fines and prosecution costs, as well as a confiscation order of over £69,000 at a hearing at Isleworth Crown Court.
  • 25 April 2014 Allied Union Limited. A pension review company has been prosecuted by the ICO for failing to notify under section 17 of the Data Protection Act.  Allied Union Limited pleaded guilty at a hearing on 25 April 2014 at Swansea Magistrates Court. The company was fined £400, ordered to pay costs of £338.11 and a victim surcharge of £40.
  • 25 March 2014 Help Direct UK Limited. A financial advisors has been prosecuted by the ICO for failing to notify under section 17 of the Data Protection Act. Help Direct UK Limited pleaded guilty at a hearing on 25 March 2014 at Swansea Magistrates Court. The company was fined £250, ordered to pay costs of £248.83 and a victim surcharge of £25.
  • 12 March 2014 Boilershield Limited. A plumbing company and its director have been prosecuted by the ICO for failing to notify under section 17 of the Data Protection Act. Boilershield Limited and its director, Mohammod Ali, pleaded guilty at a hearing on 12 March 2014 at Bromley Magistrates. They were both fined £1,200, ordered to pay costs of £196.87 and a victim surcharge of £120.
  • 11 March 2014 Becoming Green (UK) Ltd. A Cardiff-based green energy deal company, Becoming Green (UK) Ltd, has been prosecuted by the Information Commissioner’s Office after failing to notify the ICO that it handled customers’ personal data. The offence was uncovered when the company was being monitored following concerns about compliance.
  • 24 January 2014 ICU Investigations Limited. Six men who were part of a company that tricked organisations into revealing personal

Enforcements

  • 19 November 2014 Grampian Health Board (NHS Grampian). The Information Commissioner’s Office has ordered NHS Grampian to take action to make sure patients’ information is better protected.
  • 12 November 2014 Hot House Roof Company. The ICO has issued an enforcement notice against Hot House Roof Company ordering them to stop making nuisance marketing calls. The company had failed to honour suppression requests and repeatedly made calls to a number of individuals despite their being TPS registered.
  • 21 October 2014 Abdul Tayub. The Information Commissioner’s Office has served Abdul Tayub with an enforcement notice after he was found to be sending unsolicited marketing mail by electronic means without providing information as to his identity and without prior consent.
  • 12 September 2014 All Claims Marketing Limited. The Information Commissioner’s Office has served All Claims Marketing Limited with an enforcement notice after the company was found to be sending unsolicited marketing mail by electronic means without providing information as to its identity.
  • 03 September 2014 Winchester and Deakin Limited. The Information Commissioner’s Office has served Carmarthen-based direct marketing company Winchester and Deakin Limited (also trading as Rapid Legal and Scarlet Reclaim) with an enforcement notice ordering them to stop making nuisance calls. The move comes after an investigation discovered they had made unsolicited marketing calls to people who had registered with the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) or who had asked not to be contacted.
  • 16 June 2014 DC Marketing Limited. The ICO has issued an enforcement notice against DC Marketing Limited after the company made hundreds of nuisance calls to try and get people to purchase solar panels partly financed by the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund. An ICO investigation found the company also frequently gave a false name to avoid detection.
  • 29 May 2014 Wolverhampton City Council. The ICO has issued an enforcement notice against Wolverhampton City Council, following an investigation into a data breach at the council that occurred in January 2012. The breach was caused when a social worker, who had not received data protection training, sent out a report to a former service user detailing their time in care. However, the social worker failed to remove highly sensitive information about the recipient’s sister that should not have been included.
  • 03 April 2014 Amber UPVC Fabrications Ltd (T/A Amber Windows). The ICO has issued an enforcement notice against Amber Windows ordering them not to call subscribers who have previously told them not to ring or subscribers who have not consented to them calling and have registered the number with the TPS for at least the required 28 days.
  • 10 March 2014 Isisbyte Limited. The ICO has served an enforcement notice on Isisbyte Limited after the company was found to be making unsolicited marketing calls without providing information as to their identity.
  • 10 March 2014 SLM Connect Limited. The ICO has served an enforcement notice on SLM Connect Limited after the company was found to be making unsolicited marketing calls without providing information as to their identity.

Who has breached the Data Protection Act in 2012? Find the complete list here.

Who breached the Data Protection Act in 2013? Find the complete list here.

85% of mobile apps fail to provide basic privacy information

A survey of over 1,200 mobile apps by 26 privacy regulators from across the world has shown that a high number of apps are accessing large amounts of personal information without adequately explaining how people’s information is being used.

The survey by the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) examined the privacy information provided by 1,211 mobile apps. As a member of GPEN, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office examined 50 of the top apps released by UK developers.

Today GPEN has published the results of its research. The key findings are:

85% of the apps surveyed failed to clearly explain how they were collecting, using and disclosing personal information.

More than half (59%) of the apps left users struggling to find basic privacy information.

Almost 1 in 3 apps appeared to request an excessive number of permissions to access additional personal information.

43% of the apps failed to tailor privacy communications to the small screen, either by providing information in a too small print, or by hiding the information in lengthy privacy policies that required scrolling or clicking through multiple pages. .

The research did find examples of good practice, with some apps providing a basic explanation of how personal information is being used, including links to more detailed information if the individual wants to know more. The regulators were also impressed by the use of just-in-time notifications on certain apps that informed users of the potential collection, or use, of personal data as it was about to happen. These approaches make it easier for people to understand how their information is being used and when.

ICO Group Manager for Technology, Simon Rice, said:

“Apps are becoming central to our lives, so it is important we understand how they work and what they are doing with our information. Today’s results show that many app developers are still failing to provide this information in a way that is clear and understandable to the average consumer.

 

“The ICO and the other GPEN members will be writing out to those developers where there is clear room for improvement. We will also be publishing guidance to explain the steps people can take to help protect their information when using mobile apps.”

The ICO has published ‘Privacy in Mobile Apps’ guidance to help app developers in the UK handle people’s information correctly and meet their requirements under the UK Data Protection Act. The guidance includes advice on informing people how their information will be used. Research carried out last year to support the guidance’s launch showed that 49% of app users have decided not to download an app due to privacy concerns.

From the UK Information Commissioners post which is here.

Information Commissioners Office provides data protection advice to the legal profession

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is warning barristers and solicitors to keep personal information secure, especially paper files. This follows a number of data breaches reported to the ICO involving the legal profession.

The ICO can serve a monetary penalty of up to £500,000 for a serious breach of the Data Protection Act provided the incident had the potential to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to affected individuals.

In most cases these penalties are issued to companies or public authorities, but barristers and solicitors are generally classed as data controllers in their own right and are therefore legally responsible for the personal information they process.

In the last three months, 15 incidents involving members of the legal profession have been reported to the ICO. The information handled by barristers and solicitors is often very sensitive. This means that the damage caused by a data breach could meet the statutory threshold for issuing a financial penalty. Legal professionals will also often carry around large quantities of information in folders or files when taking them to or from court, and may store them at home. This can increase the risk of a data breach.

Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, said:

The number of breaches reported by barristers and solicitors may not seem that high, but given the sensitive information they handle, and the fact that it is often held in paper files rather than secured by any sort of encryption, that number is troubling. It is important that we sound the alarm at an early stage to make sure this problem is addressed before a barrister or solicitor is left counting the financial and reputational damage of a serious data breach.

“We have published some top tips to help barristers and solicitors look after the personal information they handle. These measures will set them on the road to compliance and help them get the basics right

The ICO has published the following top tips to help barristers and solicitors keep the personal information they handle secure

  • Keep paper records secure. Do not leave files in your car overnight and do lock information away when it is not in use.
  • Consider data minimisation techniques in order to ensure that you are only carrying information that is essential to the task in hand.
  • Where possible, store personal information on an encrypted memory stick or portable device. If the information is properly encrypted it will be virtually impossible to access it, even if the device is lost or stolen.
  • When sending personal information by email consider whether the information needs to be encrypted or password protected. Avoid the pitfalls of auto-complete by double checking to make sure the email address you are sending the information to is correct.
  • Only keep information for as long as is necessary. You must delete or dispose of information securely if you no longer need it.
  • If you are disposing of an old computer, or other device, make sure all of the information held on the device is permanently deleted before disposal.

The ICO is currently working with The Bar Council to update the Information Security Guidance provided to Barristers in England and Wales.

The original ICO post is here.

Travel company fined £150,000 after losing 1,163,996 Credit and Debit Card records

An online travel services company called Think W3 Limited, has been fined £150,000 after it breached the Data Protection Act.

Think W3 Limited was hacked in December 2012 after using insecure coding on the website of a subsidiary business, Essential Travel Ltd.

A hacker extracted a total of 1,163,996 Credit and Debit Card records. Of these records 430,599 were identified as current and 733,397 as expired.

Cardholder details had not been deleted since 2006 and there had been no security checks or reviews since the system had been installed.

Stephen Eckersley, The ICO’s Head of Enforcement, said:

This was a staggering lapse that left more than a million holiday makers’ personal details exposed to a malicious hacker.

“Data security should be a top priority for any business that operates online. Think W3 Limited accepted liability for failing to keep their customers’ personal data secure; failing to test their security and failing to delete out-of-date information.

“The public’s awareness of the importance of data protection is rising all the time. Ignorance from data controllers is no excuse. They must take active steps to ensure the personal data they are responsible for is kept safe or face enforcement action and the resulting reputational damage

The Information Commissioner’s fine will be in addition to the costs levied by the Credit Card schemes under PCI and the banks.

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.

8 areas of computer security that have arisen during Data Breach investigations

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has identified eight important areas of computer security that have frequently arisen during their investigations of data breaches.

The eight areas are:-

  1. Software updates
  2. SQL injection (65% of organisations have been breached by a SQL Injection attack)
  3. Unnecessary services
  4. Decommissioning of software or services
  5. Password storage
  6. Configuration of SSL and TLS
  7. Inappropriate locations for processing data
  8. Default credentials

The ICO has provided advice for all eight areas. The report can be found here.

ICO response to European Union Court of Justice ruling on online search results

The United Kingdom Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued the following statement in response to this week’s ruling by the European Union Court of Justice on the need for Google to amend its search results following a request by a member of the public. 

ICO spokesperson said:

This is an important judgement. We welcome the extent to which it upholds the data protection rights of individuals and confirms the powers of data protection authorities to enforce these. We will be studying the judgement in detail and considering its practical implications for individuals, businesses and ourselves. When we have done so we will comment further

When the revised European Data Protection Act finally arrives I hope they further clarify the “right” of being forgotten and how it will be enforced.

Health sector needs to improve its data protection

The Information Commissioner’s Office report on how organisations providing secondary health care are complying with the Data Protection Act and highlights areas that need improvement.

The report summarises the results of 19 audits, mostly against NHS Trusts.

The audits looked at how personal data is handled by the organisation, and fit alongside NHS information governance guidelines. The organisations voluntarily agreed to work with the ICO to identify good practice and, where necessary, improve procedures relating to the handling of personal data.

The Audits found:

  • All the organisations had data protection policies and procedures in place, though compliance with the policies wasn’t always effectively monitored, for instance through spot checks.
  • All the organisations had a system in place to track health records, though some did not conduct audits for missing files. The physical security of records also varied, with concern raised particularly around unlocked trollies used for moving files.
  • There was also a lack of simple password controls, notably forcing regular password changes.
  • Some organisations had little in the way of fire or flood protection in place for paper records.
  • All organisations had appropriate information governance related risk registers and risk assessments that were regularly reviewed.
  • Concern was raised around the use of fax machines for sending personal information, given the human error associated with using a fax machine.

Before three of the audits, staff were surveyed about their awareness of data protection policies

  • 88% of staff had read and understood the policy in place within their organisation
  • 94% had completed data protection training within the previous year

Claire Chadwick, ICO Team Manager in the Good Practice team, said:

Information about a person’s health tends to be one of the most sensitive types of personal data, and it is clear it must be properly handled.

“Our experiences in these audits suggested that tended to be the case. Only one of the audits suggested a substantial risk of non-compliance with the law, while more than half gave reasonable assurance the law was being complied with.

“By paying attention to this report, more organisations in this sector can ensure they are handling personal information properly. This report is an opportunity to review and improve practices and procedures based on our experiences

The audits followed a letter from the Information Commissioner and the Chief Executive of the NHS Sir David Nicholson to chief executives and finance directors within the NHS.

The full report can be found here.

European Union: Data Protection and the dangers of the web

It’s something we all worry about: 76% of Europeans are concerned that their personal data is not safe in the hands of private companies demonstrates the extent of the fear.

The Infograph was published as part of “Data Protection Day: the challenge of keeping your personal information safe – Citizens’ rights − 28-01-2014”

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: