Ministry of Justice

Breach details

What An unencrypted, non-password protected, portable hard drive stored in a prison’s Security Department and used to back up the prisoner intelligence database, was lost. This followed a virtually identical breach in 2011.
How much 16,000 records and 2,935 records.
When October 2011 and 24 May 2013.
Why The hard drive had last been used on 18 May 2013 for the weekly back up, but had not been locked up afterwards in a fireproof safe, as required. Following the previous breach in 2011 remedial action had been taken including the distribution of encrypted hard drives to 75 prisons that had previously been using unencrypted portable hard drives. However it was not realised that the encryption software on these new drives required manual activation. As a result prisoner intelligence information was being held on portable unencrypted devices in 75 prisons for a period of at least 12 months.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £180,000
When 26 August 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the Seventh Data Protection Principle: The Ministry failed to take appropriate technical measures against unauthorised processing and accidental loss of confidential and sensitive personal data, such as taking steps to ensure that the portable hard drives that were used to back up the prisoner intelligence database in 75 prisons had actually been encrypted.
Known or should have known The Ministry was aware that prisons across the entire estate were backing up this information on a weekly basis pending the implementation of a new intelligence system. As a result of a virtually identical security breach in October 2011, the data controller was also aware that the portable hard drives used to back up this intelligence information in 75 prisons were unencrypted. As it was routine to handle sensitive personal data relating to prisoners it should have been obvious that such a contravention would be of a kind likely to cause substantial damage and/or substantial distress to the data subjects
Likely to cause damage or distress This scale of the breach posed a significant risk of causing serious detriment to thousands of prisoners in England and Wales. The data subjects would be likely to suffer from substantial distress knowing that their confidential and sensitive personal data may be accessed by unauthorised third parties, aggravated by the fact that the hard drive has still not been recovered. If the data has in fact been accessed by untrustworthy third parties then it is likely that the contravention would cause further distress and substantial damage.

Kent Police

Breach details

What Highly sensitive and confidential information, including copies of police interview tapes, were left in the basement of a former police station, which had been sold in September 2012. This was discovered after a police officer visited some business premises on an entirely separate matter, and noticed a box of videotapes with the logo and name of Kent Police. The owner confirmed that he had found the videotapes and was intending to view the contents of the videotapes as a possible source of entertainment
How much Numerous records dating as far back as the late 1980s.
When 28 November 2012.
Why In the absence of any specific policies or procedures, it was unclear who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the former police station was vacant at the point of sale. This lack of documented procedures was made worse by a failures in communication between the different departments involved in the extended process of decommissioning the building.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £100,000
When 19 March 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the Seventh Data Protection Principle: Kent Police failed to take appropriate organisational measures against unauthorised processing and accidental loss of confidential and sensitive personal data, such as having specific procedures in place to ensure that the basement of the former police station had been cleared of all items before it was sold to a buyer.
Known or should have known  The data controller was used to dealing with such information and had taken some steps to safeguard the information by carrying out inspections of the former police station, even though the steps taken proved to be inadequate.
Likely to cause damage or distress The failure to take appropriate organisational measures was likely to cause substantial distress to the data subjects even if this is simply by knowing that their confidential and sensitive personal data could have been accessed by the buyer who had no right to see that information. Furthermore there was a risk that the  data may be further disseminated, such as to the media, or used for other purposes by the buyer, with the potential to cause substantial damage to witnesses and informants, such as by putting them at risk of physical harm.

Treasury Solicitor’s Department

Breach details

What Disclosure of personal data.
How much 4 records.
When 06 February 2012, 24 August 2012, 30 August 2012 and 3 January 2013.
Why Three of these breaches involved case files containing un-redacted third party personal information to a claimant’s solicitor and the claimant themself. The fourth breach involved the sending of a case of papers relating to an unfair dismissal claim to an individual, although the papers contained personal information relating to another individual’s claim. All four of these breaches were self-reported. The Solicitor’s Department have some measures in place to safeguard personal data but there are gaps which are preventing further compliance.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle.
When 26 February 2014.
Details The Solicitor’s Department is to implement a clear, documented procedure for the preparation of information for disclosure within six months, as well as creating a structured, formal procedure concerning communication requirements between Junior and Senior lawyers carrying out the disclosure process. Mandatory training about the requirements of the Act is also to be given to all staff.

Department of Justice Northern Ireland

Breach details

What A locked filing cabinet containing sensitive personal data relating to claims arising from terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland was sold at auction.
How much Not specified – four-drawer filing cabinet.
When 12 May 2012
Why In the course of an office move the filing cabinet was sent to auction for disposal. Despite it being locked (and the weight of the cabinet must have indicated that it wasn’t empty) the Data Controller simply ignored the fact that there may have been personal data in the filing cabinet and set it to auction. When the purchaser of the cabinet forced the lock they realised the sensitivity of the information and called the police to take the information away.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 185,000.
When 14 Jan 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the seventh data protection principle. The Commissioner argued that the Data Controller should have had “detailed procedures in place for the removal of cupboards, pedestals and filing cabinets etc. from one office location to another”.
Known or should have known Given the sensitive political nature of the contents of the cabinet, and the fact that the cabinet was kept locked, the Data Controller should have known that the unauthorised release of the information was likely to case “substantial distress”.
Likely to cause damage or distress The Commissioner states that substantial distress was not actually caused in this case, but argues that had the buyer of the cabinet not contacted the police to remove the data, substantial distress would have occurred.

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Breach details

What Personal data disclosed on the council’s intranet in error.
How much 257 records.
When January 2013.
Why A spreadsheet containing details of individuals who had not signed a new employment contract was wrongly appended to a review document for general access on the intranet, rather than being added separately as a restricted item. The ICO investigation revealed that data protection and information security training for those with access to personal data had not been mandatory and that the policies on handling personal data were incomplete.

Regulatory action

ActionUndertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle.

Regulator ICO
When 26 November 2013.
Details The Council will review and revise its data protection policies and ensure existing staff have appropriate training by 31 December 2013. All new staff whose roles involve access to personal data will receive training as soon as they begin their employment at the Council. Compliance with these policies and the training will be regularly monitored and enforced.

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust

Breach details

What Letters containing medical information were sent to the wrong address.
How much 4 records.
When A period of 18 months up to November 2013.
Why Letters were sent out by temporary or bank staff who had not received relevant data protection training as such training was not required for temporary members of staff. Permanent staff were also not obliged to attend training as it was not enforced. In addition to this there were no policies or procedures in place to ensure the accuracy of addresses.

Regulatory action

ActionUndertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle.

Regulator ICO
When 21 November 2013.
Details Temporary or bank staff must be provided with data protection training before working with personal and sensitive personal data and all training is to be monitored and attendance enforced. Processes are also to be put in place to ensure documents are sent to the right address and practical guidance is to be communicated to all staff.

North East Lincolnshire Council

Breach details

What Loss of an unencrypted USB stick containing personal and sensitive data relating to children with special educational needs including names, DOB and reports on mental and physical disabilities.
How much 286 records.
When 01 July 2011.
Why A special educational needs teacher working for the Special Educational Needs Support Service forgot to remove an unencrypted USB stick containing reports on 286 children from a laptop in the Council’s offices on leaving the office at the end of the day on 01 July. When the teacher tried to retrieve the USB stick they discovered it was gone and it has not been recovered to date. The USB stick had been issued in 2005 in order for the teacher to access neccessary data on their visits to schools and community locations that they performed during the majority of their time. An information security policy which had been in draft since 2009 was introduced in March 2011, four months prior to the incident, and specified that removable media such as USB sticks “must be encrypted”. However, unencrypted USB devices were not recalled until immediately after the incident and staff could only encrypt their devices through volunteer initiatives such as a ‘removable media pilot’ and an ‘encryption on request’ service. The member of staff in question had confirmed that they read and understood the new policy in June and had possibly received Data Protection Act e-learning training, but the training was non mandatory and cannot be confirmed.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £80,000.
When 15 October 2013.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the Seventh Data Protection Principle: appropriate measures were not taken to prevent the loss of personal data. In particular there was a lack of training on the importance of using encrypted devices, no technical controls restricting downloads, and no effective policies and controls in place.
Known or should have known Staff were used to dealing with sensitive personal information on a daily basis and had routinely stored this data on unencrypted USB sticks since at least 2005. The risks of using unencrypted USB sticks was identified in 2009 but not forbidden until 2011, and even then the Council continued to allow staff to use unencrypted devices in breach of its own policy. Although there was an encryption service available from this point it was voluntary and efforts to raise awareness were inadequate.
Likely to cause damage or distress The children and families concerned would suffer substantial distress knowing that their sensitive data may have been disclosed to third parties or could be in future, even though it appears that the data has not been disclosed thus far. If the data is accessed by untrustworthy third parties it could expose the children to damage to their health, education and personal relationships.

Ministry of Justice

Breach details

What Emails containing sensitive personal data concerning prison inmates accidentally sent to members of the public. This information included coded offences, addresses, identifying physical characteristics and location within the prison.
How much Three emails containing the details of 1,182 prisoners.
When 04 July, 11 July and 01 August 2011.
Why Each day HMP Cardiff manually transfers prisoner details from their network system Quantum onto a biometrics database in order to facilitate visits and other prisoner movements. The data is copied and pasted through Windows Explorer and thus can remain on the clipboard of Quantum. On 01 August the prisoner details were accidentally attached to an email to a member of the public booking a visit to a family member in HMP Cardiff. The individual reported this incident the next day and it was only at this point that the previous two emails came to light as they had not been reported by their recipients or noticed by the prison. Each email was sent by the same recently appointed booking clerk. Shortly after the breach was reported each recipient confirmed in writing that the data had not been disseminated further and was fully deleted; physical access was allowed to confirm this for two of the recipients and the other had already double-deleted the message and attachment.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £140,000.
When 15 October 2013.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the Seventh Data Protection Principle: there should have been a more secure method of carrying out routine transfers of high volumes of personal data. More effective training and supervision should also have been provided, along with clear written procedures for the data transfers.

The monetary penalty notice has been imposed to promote compliance with the Act and standardisation across the prison service to prevent similar incidents occurring elsewhere.

Known or should have known As the Ministry of Justice routinely handles sensitive personal information and carries out high volume daily data transfers it should have been obvious that a breach could result in substantial distress and that there was a potential for human error in the absence of technical measures, written guidelines and appropriate training.
Likely to cause damage or distress The coded offences were deemed by the Commissioner to be particularly likely to cause damage or disress as almost all of the coded offences are easily recognisable. Fortunately the emails were only sent to one person on each occasion but had the data got into the wrong hands, such as an inmate’s rival, it would have raised the level of distress. The Prison decided not to disclose the breach to the prisoners as those at risk of self-harm might have suffered additional anxiety, confirming that some prisoners would suffer greater distress than others.

Royal Veterinary College

Breach details

What Theft of a camera memory card containing passport images of multiple job applicants.
How much An unknown number.
When December 2012.
Why A memory card containing applicant passport photos was stolen from a camera owned by an employee, and thus fell outside the RVC’s policies and procedures. However, the possiblity of the use of personal devices in the workplace was not accounted for in these policies. Staff data protection training is also inadequate and is not being proactively addressed to prevent similar issues occurring in the future.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle.
When 15 October 2013.
Details The RVC is to implement mandatory induction and annual refresher training to all staff who routinely process personal information by 30 April 2014. This training is to be recorded and monitored, and follow-up procedures are to be implemented to ensure that all staff complete this training. In addition to training, all portable and mobile devices used to transmit personal data are to be encrypted and advice given on the use of personal devices.

Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Breach details

What Cancer referral forms containing sensitive clinical data found in the possession of a local newspaper.
How much Four records.
When Reported on 05 July 2012.
Why The cancer referral forms were prepared for transfer between The Hillingdon Hospital and Mount Vernon Hospital but failed to arrive through the internal mail system. Staff were aware the documents had not arrived but did not escalate the incident. It is unclear at what point the documents left the possession of the Trust and how they were acquired by the newspaper.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle.
When 07 October 2013.
Details The Trust is to implement breach reporting mechanisms and manage an escalation process if personal data does not arrive at its destination. Staff are to be made aware of all procedures and requirements.