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.”

 

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

  • Largest Ever Seizure of Funds Related to Crypto Confidence Scams
  • IMPACT: 170 patients harmed as a result of Qilin’s ransomware attack on NHS vendor Synnovis
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • UBS reports data leak after cyber attack on provider, client data unaffected
  • Scania confirms insurance claim data breach in extortion attempt
  • Cybersecurity takes a big hit in new Trump executive order
  • Episource notifying 5.4 million patients of cyberattack in January
  • Investigation of 2024 Helsinki data breach – Report
  • Major trial underway for data leak that left 72,000 victims in France
  • Anubis: A Closer Look at an Emerging Ransomware with Built-in Wiper

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

  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data
  • DOJ Seeks More Time on Tower Dumps
  • Your household smart products must respect your privacy – including your air fryer
  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe

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.