DataBreaches.Net

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

UK: Gloucestershire Police fined for revealing identities of abuse victims in bcc email gaffe

Posted on June 14, 2018 by Dissent

The Information Commissioner’s Office has really been busy handing out fines. Have you seen any monetary penalties imposed by regulators on police departments here in the U.S.? No, you haven’t, right?

Gloucestershire Police has been fined £80,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) after sending a bulk email that identified victims of non-recent child abuse.

The force was at the time investigating allegations of abuse relating to multiple victims. On 19 December 2016, an officer sent an update on the case to 56 recipients by email but entered their email addresses in the ‘To’ field and did not activate the ‘BCC’ function, which would have prevented their details from being shared with others.

Each recipient of the e-mail – including victims, witnesses, lawyers and journalists – could see the full names and e-mail addresses of all the others. The email also made reference to schools and other organisations being investigated in relation to the abuse allegations.

Of the 56 emails sent, all but one was considered deliverable. Three were confirmed to have been successfully recalled once the force identified the breach two days later, so 56 names and email addresses were visible to up to 52 recipients.

ICO Head of Enforcement Steve Eckersley said:

“This was a serious breach of the data protection laws and one which was likely to cause substantial distress to vulnerable victims of abuse, many of whom were also legally entitled to lifelong anonymity.

“The risks relating to the sending of bulk emails are long established and well known, so there was no excuse for the force to break the law – especially when such sensitive and confidential information was involved.”

The case was dealt with under the provisions and maximum penalties of the Data Protection Act 1998, and not the 2018 Act which has replaced it, because of the date of the breach.

Source: Information Commissioner’s Office

Category: ExposureGovernment SectorNon-U.S.Of Note

Post navigation

← Librarian Sues Equifax Over 2017 Data Breach, Wins $600
San Francisco acupuncturist notifies patients whose records were stolen in burglary →

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

  • Copilot AI Bug Could Leak Sensitive Data via Email Prompts
  • FTC Provides Guidance on Updated Safeguards Rule
  • Sentara Health terminates remote employees after realizing they couldn’t be sure who was doing the work.
  • Hackers Break Into Car Sharing App, 8.4 Million Users Affected
  • Cyberattack pushes German napkin company into insolvency
  • WMATA Train Operators Arrested in Health Care Fraud Scheme
  • Washington Post investigating cyberattack on journalists, WSJ reports
  • Resource: State Data Breach Notification Laws – June 2025
  • WestJet investigates cyberattack disrupting internal systems
  • Plastic surgeons often store nude photos of patients with their identity information. When would we call that “negligent?”

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

  • 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
  • Would you — or wouldn’t you?
  • New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
  • Synthetic Data and the Illusion of Privacy: Legal Risks of Using De-Identified AI Training Sets
  • States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 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.