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.”

 

No related posts.

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

  • Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Disclose Unlawfully Classified National Defense Information
  • UK police arrest four in connection with M&S, Co-op and Harrods cyberattacks (1)
  • At U.S. request, France jails Russian basketball player Daniil Kasatkin on suspicion of ransomware conspiracy
  • Avantic Medical Lab hacked; patient data leaked by Everest Group
  • Integrated Oncology Network victim of phishing attack; multiple locations affected (2)
  • HHS’ Office for Civil Rights Settles HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule Investigation with Deer Oaks Behavioral Health for $225k and a Corrective Action Plan
  • HB1127 Explained: North Dakota’s New InfoSec Requirements for Financial Corporations
  • Credit reports among personal data of 190,000 breached, put for sale on Dark Web; IT vendor fined
  • Five youths arrested on suspicion of phishing
  • Russia Jailed Hacker Who Worked for Ukrainian Intelligence to Launch Cyberattacks on Critical Infrastructure

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

  • How to Build on Washington’s “My Health, My Data” Act
  • Department of Justice Subpoenas Doctors and Clinics Involved in Performing Transgender Medical Procedures on Children
  • Google Settles Privacy Class Action Over Period Tracking App
  • ICE Is Searching a Massive Insurance and Medical Bill Database to Find Deportation Targets
  • Franklin, Tennessee Resident Sentenced to 30 Months in Federal Prison on Multiple Cyber Stalking Charges
  • On July 7, Gemini AI will access your WhatsApp and more. Learn how to disable it on Android.
  • German court awards Facebook user €5,000 for data protection violations

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.