Leeds City Council

Breach details

What Personal and sensitive (health) personal data.
How much An unknown number of records contained in seven Excel spreadsheets, including name, address, date of birth and disability details.
When Not specified.
Why During migration of the Leeds Initiative website from one server to another, a private area was accessible to members of the public because a data processor failed to configure the new server identically to the old server. The site was then not sufficiently tested to identify the problem.

BW Comments

If there’s public and non-public information on any web server there’s always an increased risk of data loss, so any changes to internet-facing infrastructure should always be fully tested. Organisations that know the locations and classification of their data are less likely to suffer this type of breach.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle
When 30 November 2012
Details The data controller is to ensure that clear contractual arrangements are in place with a data processor; that data processors are monitored for compliance with the seventh principle; that technically proficient staff are included at all stages of procurement; and that appropriate security measures are in place to protect personal data.

BW Observations

It looks like Leeds Council are following what appears to be a trend in reporting a breach, and also reporting sensible remedial action at the same time. It is interesting that the same council was also subject to a recent monetary penalty.

Mansfield District Council

Breach details

What Personal data of housing benefit claimants was disclosed to the wrong housing association.
How much An undisclosed number of records.
When August 2009 to November 2012
Why Correspondence containing personal data was sent in error by the council’s Revenues and Benefits service to a Mansfield housing association over an extended period.

BW Comments

What is interesting about this breach is that it was reported to the ICO by the housing authority that received the data in error, and not Mansfield Council. I suspect that the housing association will first have contacted the Council and after that had no effect on the incorrectly addressed correspondence (the breach continued for three years), alerted the Commissioner. The Council’s real failing was to not fix the problem when told about it.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle
When 25 January 2013
Details Employees and any other staff with access to personal data must be made aware of, and trained in, the policy for storage and use of personal data. Training must be provided to contractors as well as staff, and records of training to be maintained.

BW Observations

The breach was almost certainly due to administrative human error; however our view is that the enforcement action was taken as a result of the council not fixing the problem when it was initially alerted. The core problem was that the council didn’t have a sufficiently robust plan to identify and rectify a data breach when it was first reported. The undertaking should have also included a requirement for the Council to develop and test a breach response plan, which identified data breaches and ensured they were rectified.

Isle of Anglesey County Council

Breach details

What Loss of personal data and in one case loss of sensitive personal data.
How much Unknown
When Several incidents in early 2012
Why Documents containing personal data were inappropriately disclosed or disposed of, or put at risk of unauthorised access. The council had an out of date data protection policy, and provided insufficient data protection training.

BW Comments

The undertaking is very vague, and doesn’t provide specific details of what happened to cause the data losses, or why.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle
When 20 December 2012
Details The data conroller is to ensure that all policies and procedures are up to date and in place to support staff who handle personal data and that these will be communicated to all relevant staff along with information governance training.

BW Observations

It is almost as if the council, as part of its self-reporting, suggested the necessary remedial action.

Leeds City Council

Breach details

What Loss of sensitive personal data (child protection).
How much Personal data relating to 4 data subjects.
When 28 July 2011
Why A support assistant, following council policy and re-using an old envelope for internal mail, failed to cross out the original address and later mistakenly put the envelope in the external post tray. As a result, the document was received by an unauthorised individual.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 95,000
When 16 November 2012

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the seventh principle: the council failed to take appropriate organisational measures against unauthorised processing of personal data, for example using different styles of envelope for internal and external mail, having a peer checking process and providing appropriate training.
Known or should have known The ICO was satisfied that the Council should have known that that there was a risk that the contravention would occur and accordingly should have had controls in place to minimise the possibility of a beach of confidentiality caused by human error.
Likely to cause damage or distress The contravention was likely to cause substantial distress to at least one of the data subjects, a vulnerable young person, due to the nature of the data involved.

Devon County Council

Breach details

What Loss of sensitive personal data
How much Personal data relating to approximately 22 data subjects.
When 12 May 2011
Why A social worker prepared an adoption panel report using another family’s report as template. The service users forgot to take the report with them after a meeting and requested it be posted. The report used as a template was posted by mistake.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 90,000
When 10 December 2012

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the seventh principle: the council failed to take appropriate organisational measures against unauthorised processing of personal data, such as having a peer checking process for envelopes containing confidential and sensitive personal data and providing appropriate staff training.
Known or should have known Staff working in the People Services department were used to dealing with such cases and the data controller would have been aware of the confidential and sensitive nature of the personal data they were dealing with on a daily basis.
Likely to cause damage or distress The data subjects would suffer from substantial distress knowing that their confidential and sensitive personal data has been disclosed to unauthorised third parties and that their data may have been further disseminated and possibly misused, even if those concerns do not actually materialise. Many of the affected individuals were considered to be vulnerable.

London Borough of Lewisham

Breach details

What Loss of sensitive personal data (child protection).
How much Personal data relating to an undisclosed number of data subjects.
When 16 March 2012
Why Case papers relating to a child protection matter were taken out of the office in a plastic bag and were mistakenly left on a train.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 70,000
When 12 December 2012

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the seventh principle: the council had failed to take appropriate measures against the accidental loss of personal data such as having robust policies/ guidelines in place; training for staff who need to take paper files containing sensitive personal data out of the office; providing security locks for bags and using encrypted USBs.
Known or should have known The council recognised that social workers had a business need to take paper files containing confidential and sensitive personal data out of the office and should have put reasonable measures in place to prevent data loss.
Likely to cause damage or distress The data loss would potentially cause substantial distress to individuals including vulnerable children who may know or suspect that their confidential and highly sensitive personal data has been disclosed; and the contravention could have prejudiced the court hearing of the child protection case.

Plymouth City Council

Breach details

What Loss of sensitive personal data (child protection).
How much 2 records.
When 23 November 2011
Why As a result of a printing problem, two seperate reports were taken from a printer by a social worker, treated as single document and passed to a service user.

BW Comments

A control that required a user to enter a code to collect their printout would have stopped this problem happening. Given the sensitive nature of the information printed in a social work environment it is not unreasonable – given the widespread availability and relative low cost of this type of system – to now expect this. Other organisations that frequently print such sensitive information should conduct a risk assessment and look at implementing a manual control (such as peer-review of documents) until an upgrade to their printer software can be deployed.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 60,000
When 19 November 2012

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the seventh principle: the council failed to take appropriate technical and organisational measures against unauthorised processing of personal data, in particular a failure to provide a more secure way of providing access to printout, given the sensitive nature of the information provided.
Known or should have known The ICO’s view was that the Council should have known that any disclosure of such sensitive information would have the potential to be extremely damaging and accordingly should have had controls in place to minimise the possibility of a beach of confidentiality caused by human error.
Likely to cause damage or distress The information concerned child protection and could have have resulted in “physical harm or blackmail”.

BW Observations

It could be argued that the ICO’s argument for the ‘known or should have known’ test has the benefit of hindsight, however the breach occurred because there were no controls in place and not because a in-place control failed.

Department of Education

Breach details

What Loss of personal information.
How much An unknown number of records.
When 28/29 June 2012
Why The Register reported that Email addresses, unencrypted passwords and individual’s answers to questions posed in a consultation were accesable due to a security flaw in the Department for Education’s website.

BW Comments

Judging by the description in The Register the vulnerability looked like a session management problem. Something that should have been caught be the most rudimentary penetration test.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action None taken. The Register reported that it had got in touch with the ICO which, while acknowledging that the Department had breached the seventh principle, stated “As the personal information compromised was not sensitive and any distress caused is likely to have been minimal, we have decided that no further enforcement action is required at this time.”

BW Observations

Just because an organisation breaks the DPA the ICO isn’t bound to take action, however BW would have expected the ICO to have sought an undertaking from the Department that it would properly test any web site that collected personal data.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Breach details

What Loss of sensitive personal information.
How much 11 records.
When 14 December 2011
Why 11 unencrypted emails relating to a child protection case were sent to the wrong email address by mistake.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 120,000
Enforcement notice issued to ensure that a training program to make staff aware of data protection security procedure is arranged within 35 days.
When 25 October 2012

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Failure to take appropriate technical and organisational measures against unauthorised processing of personal data, in particular a failure to train employees appropriately and provide a secure means of sending email.
Known or should have known Staff were used to handling confidential and sensitive personal data and the danger of sending unencrypted email, which the data controller was aware was occuring, should have been self evident.
Likely to cause damage or distress Data was confidential and highly sensitive and related to an ongoing legal case.

Greater Manchester Police

Breach details

What Loss of sensitive personal data relating to criminal activities.
How much 1,075 records
When 17 July 2011
Why Theft of an unencrypted memory stick from an officer’s home.

BW Comments

It is really hard to stop the use of unencrypted media unless its use is blocked by an endpoint protection software and encrypted USB drives are issued to everyone that needs them. Having a written policy that is not enforced is useless.
This is most clearly illustrated by paragraph 8 of the Monetary Penalty Notice: after the security breach the police force had an ‘unencrypted USB memory drive amnesty’ and recovered 1,100 such USB drives – despite having a policy stating that such drives should not be used.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £150,000.
When 13 September 2012

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act A number of officers across the force regularly used unencrypted memory sticks, which may also have been used to copy data from police computers to access away from the office.
Known or should have known Despite a similar security breach in September 2010, the force had not put restrictions on downloading information, and staff were not sufficiently trained in data protection.
Likely to cause damage or distress The memory stick contained highly sensitive personal data relating to people with links to serious crime investigations.

BW Observations

Given the apparent endemic use of unencrypted media by the force the fine appears to be on the low side of what the commissioner could have levied. The ICO reported the MPN when it was paid, as the original date of issue coincided with the loss of two of the force’s police officers.