DataBreaches.Net

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

UK’s ICO fines Uber £385,000 over data protection failings

Posted on November 27, 2018 by Dissent

The monetary penalties levied against ride-sharing giant Uber for covering up a 2016 breach continue to mount. From the ICO’s office:

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined ride sharing company Uber £385,000 for failing to protect customers’ personal information during a cyber attack.

A series of avoidable data security flaws allowed the personal details of around 2.7 million UK customers to be accessed and downloaded by attackers from a cloud-based storage system operated by Uber’s US parent company. This included full names, email addresses and phone numbers.

The records of almost 82,000 drivers based in the UK – which included details of journeys made and how much they were paid – were also taken during the incident in October and November 2016.

The ICO investigation found ‘credential stuffing’, a process by which compromised username and password pairs are injected into websites until they are matched to an existing account, was used to gain access to Uber’s data storage.

However, the customers and drivers affected were not told about the incident for more than a year. Instead, Uber paid the attackers responsible $100,000 to destroy the data they had downloaded.

ICO Director of Investigations Steve Eckersley said:

“This was not only a serious failure of data security on Uber’s part, but a complete disregard for the customers and drivers whose personal information was stolen. At the time, no steps were taken to inform anyone affected by the breach, or to offer help and support. That left them vulnerable.”

The incident, a serious breach of principle seven of the Data Protection Act 1998, had the potential to expose the customers and drivers affected to increased risk of fraud. It came to light when an announcement, made by the company itself, was reported by the media in November 2017.

Mr Eckersley added:

“Paying the attackers and then keeping quiet about it afterwards was not, in our view, an appropriate response to the cyber attack.

“Although there was no legal duty to report data breaches under the old legislation, Uber’s poor data protection practices and subsequent decisions and conduct were likely to have compounded the distress of those affected.”

The data protection authority for the Netherlands, the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, has also issued a fine to Uber today under its own pre-GDPR legislation. The Dutch regulator was the lead member of an international task force which included the ICO and which co-operated in investigating the effects of the incident in their respective jurisdictions.

Source: Information Commissioner’s Office

So the UK has fined Uber 385,000 pounds ($490,760),  the Dutch Data Protection Authority  imposed a 600,000 euro ($678,780) fine, and let’s not forget that Uber recently settled with 50 U.S. state attorneys general and the District of Columbia to the tune of $148 million. Uber’s decision to pay extortion and not to disclose the breach was a costly decision, it seems.

Category: Business SectorHackNon-U.S.Of Note

Post navigation

← Mercy Medical Center – North Iowa notifies 1,900 patients after insider wrong-doing discovered
Private data of users of PratenOnline.nl stolen and held for ransom? →

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

  • New evidence links long-running hacking group to Indian government
  • Zaporizhzhia Cyber ​​Police Exposes Hacker Who Caused Millions in Losses to Victims by Mining Cryptocurrency
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Google: Hackers target Salesforce accounts in data extortion attacks
  • The US Grid Attack Looming on the Horizon
  • US govt login portal could be one cyberattack away from collapse, say auditors
  • Two Men Sentenced to Prison for Aggravated Identity Theft and Computer Hacking Crimes
  • 100,000 UK taxpayer accounts hit in £47m phishing attack on HMRC
  • CISA Alert: Updated Guidance on Play Ransomware
  • Almost one year later, U.S. Dermatology Partners is still not being very transparent about their 2024 breach

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 the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Malaysia enacts data sharing rules for public sector
  • U.S. Enacts Take It Down Act
  • 23andMe Bankruptcy Judge Ponders Trump Bill’s Injunction Impact
  • Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant
  • US State Dept. says silence or anonymity on social media is suspicious

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.