DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

UK: Crown Prosecution Service fined £200,000 for breach involving contractor

Posted on November 4, 2015 by Dissent

Back in September, I prefaced a breach post involving the U.K.’s Crown Prosecution Service with the comment, “This is one of those really terrible breaches that are the stuff of nightmares.” 

It appears the Information Commissioner’s Office concurred, as  CPS has been fined £200,000 after laptops containing videos of police interviews were stolen from a private film studio. The interviews were with 43 victims and witnesses. They involved 31 investigations, nearly all of which were ongoing and of a violent or sexual nature. Some of the interviews related to historical allegations about a high-profile individual.

Although the firm responsible for editing the videos was neither named nor fined, previous media coverage referenced on this site disclosed the name of the firm.

In September, I had written:

The computers were recovered and supposedly had not been accessed, but this was an extremely serious breach and raises obvious questions about not only what security protections the firm had in place, but the extent to which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had written security measures into any contract with the firm, and whether CPS monitored the firm for compliance with any security protocols.

Not surprisingly, those issues were the basis for the penalty. The ICO’s investigation, summarized in the monetary penalty notice, revealed that CPS had no provisions in place concerning the security measures to be taken by the firm and did not monitor the firm for security of the sensitive data.

The bottom line is that given the highly sensitive nature of these interviews and the potential for great distress, CPS should have known that the DVDs with interviews should have been delivered or transported in encrypted form. They should have had a contract with the service provider that outlined physical and technical security safeguards at the provider’s location, and they should have monitored for compliance.

As a side note, I find it interesting that the ICO is now using a rationale similar to our FTC when it comes to determining whether a breach is likely to call “substantial” harm or injury. The ICO’s notice explains (in Paragraph 38) that even if the risk to any one individual is less than substantial, the cumulative impact when you consider the number of individuals would be “substantial.”

 

Related posts:

  • UK: Crown Prosecution Service fined £325,000 after losing victim interview videos
  • Is your browser being lied to? Survey says: “Maybe”
  • More details emerge about Chicago Public Schools data breach
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesGovernment SectorNon-U.S.Of NoteTheft

Post navigation

← Fourth arrest in TalkTalk case
MPs launch ‘TalkTalk’ inquiry over security of personal data online →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems
  • 222,000 customer records allegedly from Manhattan Parking Group leaked
  • Breaches have consequences (sometimes) (1)
  • Kansas City Man Pleads Guilty for Hacking a Non-Profit

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach
  • Nestle USA Settles Suit Over Job-Application Medical Questions

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.