The largest police force in the UK, the London Metropolitan Police (also known as the London Met), has fallen victim to a substantial data breach. Approximately 47,000 members of the police staff have been informed about the potential compromise of their personal data. This includes details such as photos, names, and ranks. The breach occurred when criminals targeted the IT systems of a contractor responsible for producing staff identification cards.
While this breach has raised concerns about the security of sensitive information, it is important to note that details like identification numbers and clearance levels might have been exposed as well. However, it has been confirmed that the breached data did not include home addresses of the affected Met police personnel. There are fears that organised crime groups or even terrorist entities could be responsible for this breach of security and personal data.
Furthermore, the breach has amplified security apprehensions for London Met police officers from Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic backgrounds. Former London Met Police Chief Superintendent Dal Babu explained that individuals with less common names might face a heightened risk. Criminal networks could potentially locate and target them more easily online, compared to those with common names. This concern is particularly relevant for officers in specialised roles like counter-terrorism or undercover operations.
Reacting to this situation, former Met commander John O’Connor expressed outrage, highlighting concerns about the adequacy of the cyber security measures put in place by the contracted IT security company, given the highly sensitive nature of the information at stake.
This incident presents a significant challenge to the UK Home Office, and it is likely that the government will be compelled to swiftly review and bolster security protocols. This step is necessary to ensure that the personal data of security service personnel is safeguarded with the utmost levels of privacy and data security. Both the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and The National Crime Agency have initiated investigations.
This follows the data breach of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) where, in response to a Freedom of Information request, the PSNI mistakenly divulged information on every police officer and member of police staff. Over in England, Norfolk and Suffolk Police also recently announced it had mistakenly released information about more than 1,200 people, including victims and witnesses of crime, also following an FOI request. Last week, South Yorkshire Police referred itself to the information commissioner after “a significant and unexplained reduction” in data such as bodycam footage stored on its systems, a loss which it said could affect some 69 cases.
These incidents underscore the urgency of maintaining robust data protection measures and raising awareness about potential risks, especially within law enforcement agencies. It also requires Data Controllers to ensure that they have processes in place to comply with the requirements of GDPR (Article 28) when it comes to appointing Data Processors.
Last week, the names and details of individuals adopted over the past century were found to be accessible on the genealogy website, Scotland’s People. The exposure of these records, alongside other recent data breaches, has ignited a discourse on privacy and security.
Upon being alerted by a concerned mother, who discovered her adopted child’s details on the website, the NRS acted promptly, removing the information within 36 hours. The mother detailed her experience in an interview with BBC Scotland News. She highlighted the potential risk of the website inadvertently enabling individuals to discern the adopted child’s new surname. This revelation is alarming, especially as many adoptive parents opt to retain the first names of their children.
Diving deeper into the website’s database, it was revealed that the platform had information on adoptions dating as far back as 1909, with the most recent entries from 2022. Nick Hobbs, the acting Children’s Commissioner in Scotland, said that the exposed data could be in violation of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which enshrine the right to privacy.
While the NRS responded by temporarily removing the records from the site, they highlighted their statutory responsibility to maintain open and searchable registers. They also stressed that this incident didn’t classify as a personal data breach. Nonetheless, as a precautionary measure, they informed the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the concerns raised.
The ICO, in its statement, underscored the importance of sensitive personal data being managed in congruence with data protection laws. They clarified that while the NRS did notify them, they hadn’t received a formal breach report.
This incident serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities of balancing transparency and privacy in the digital age. As the debate around personal data continues to evolve, it underscores the need for stringent measures and vigilance in the handling of sensitive information, especially when it pertains to vulnerable demographics. It is paramount that organisations ensure robust data governance practices to prevent potential breaches and safeguard individual rights.
Today, Ibrahim Hasan gave an interview to BBC Radio Ulster about the the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s (PSNI) recent data breach. In response to an FOI request, PSNI shared names of all officers and staff, where they were based and their roles. Listen below.More about the PSNI and the Electoral Commission data breaches here.
Yesterday two major data breaches were reported in the public sector. Both have major implications for individuals’ privacy. They are also a test for the Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) approach to the use of its enforcement power.
In the morning,the Electoral Commission revealed, in a public notice issued under Article 33 and 34 of the UK GDPR, that it has been the victim of a “complex cyber-attack” potentially affecting millions of voters. It onlydiscovered in October last year that unspecified “hostile actors” had managed to gain access to copies of the electoral registers, from August 2021. Hackers also broke into its emails and “control systems”.
The Commission said the information it held at the time of the attack included the names and addresses of people in the UK who registered to vote between 2014 and 2022.This includes those who opted to keep their details off the open register, which is not accessible to the public but can be purchased. The data accessed also included the names, but not the addresses, of overseas voters.
The Commission said it is difficult to predict exactly how many people could be affected, but it estimates the register for each year contains the details of around 40 million people. It has warned people to watch out for unauthorised use of their data. The ICO has issued a statement saying it is currently making enquiries into the incident.
And then late last night, and perhaps even more worrying for those involved, the Police Service of Northern Ireland apologised for a data breach affecting thousands of officers. In response to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request, the PSNI mistakenly divulged information on “every police officer and member of police staff”, a senior officer said. The FoI request, via the What Do They Know.Com website, had asked the PSNI for a breakdown of all staff rank and grades. But as well as publishing a table containing the number of people holding positions such as constable, a spreadsheet was included. This contained the surnames of more than 10,000 individuals, their initials and other data, but did not include any private addresses. The information was published on the WDTK website for more than two hours.
The ICO has just issued a statement Cabinet Office the PSNI data breach. A few years ago such data breaches would attract large fines. In 2021 the Cabinet Office was fined £500,000 (later reduced to £50,000) for publishing postal addresses of the 2020 New Year Honours recipients online. In June 2022 John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, announced a new approach towards the public sector with the aim to reduce the impact of fines on the sector. This centred around issuing reprimands rather than fines for the public sector. Since then no public sector organisation has been fined despite some very serious data breaches. In May 2023, Thames Valley Police (TVP) were issued with a reprimand after an ICO investigation found that TVP had inappropriately disclosed contextual information that led to suspected criminals learning the address of a witness (the data subject). As a result of this incident, the data subject moved address and the impact and risk to the data subject remains high. Many data protection experts have expressed concern about the public sector’s special treatment. In relation to yesterday’s data breaches, anything other than serious enforcement action will lead to further questions for the ICO.
The scale of the PSNI data breach is huge. The release of the names exposes individuals who are regularly targeted by terrorist groups. Had the breach included addresses, it would have been even more serious. Both these breaches are going to test the ICO’s public sector enforcement policy.
Ibrahim Hasan has given an interview to BBC Radio Ulster about the PSNI data breach. Listen here.
On 26 September 2022, TikTok was issued with a Notice of Intent under the GDPR by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The video-sharing platform faces a £27 million fine after an ICO investigation found that the company may have breached UK data protection law.
The notice sets out the ICO’s provisional view that TikTok breached UK data protection law between May 2018 and July 2020. It found the company may have:
processed the data of children under the age of 13 without appropriate parental consent,
failed to provide proper information to its users in a concise, transparent and easily understood way, and
processed special category data, without legal grounds to do so.
The Information Commissioner, John Edwards said:
“We all want children to be able to learn and experience the digital world, but with proper data privacy protections. Companies providing digital services have a legal duty to put those protections in place, but our provisional view is that TikTok fell short of meeting that requirement.
“I’ve been clear that our work to better protect children online involves working with organisations but will also involve enforcement action where necessary. In addition to this, we are currently looking into how over 50 different online services are conforming with the Children’s code and have six ongoing investigations looking into companies providing digital services who haven’t, in our initial view, taken their responsibilities around child safety seriously enough.”
Rolled out in September last year, the Children’s Code puts in place new data protection standards for online services likely to be accessed by children.
It will be interesting to see if and when this notice becomes an actual fine. If it does it will be the largest fine issued by the ICO. It is also the first potential fine to look at transparency and consent and will provide valuable guidance to Data Controllers especially if it is appealed to the Tribunal.
It is important to note that this is not a fine but ‘notice of intent’ – a legal document that precedes a potential fine. The notice sets out the ICO’s provisional view which may of course change after TikTok makes representations.
Remember we have been here before. In July 2018 British Airways was issued with a Notice of Intent in the sum of £183 Million but the actual fine was for £20 million issued in July 2020. In November 2020Marriott International Inc was fined £18.4 million, much lower than the £99 million set out in the original notice.
This is not the first time TikTok has found itself in hot water of over its data handling practices. In 2019, the company was given a record $5.7m fine by the Federal Trade Commission, for mishandling children’s data. It has also been fined in South Korea for similar reasons.
Cyber security breaches are on the rise. Virtually every day there is a news story about a high profile organisation being hacked and personal data being lost or stolen. Last week the BBC reported that thousands, if not millions, of people could have lost money in the second largest crypto hack in history. Ronin Network, a key platform powering the popular mobile game Axie Infinity, has had $615m (£467m) stolen. More recently UK retailer, The Works has been forced to shut shops temporarily and suspend new stock deliveries after a cyber-attack.
And it’s not just the private sector. In January we learnt that Gloucester City Council’s website was hacked affecting online revenue and benefits, planning and customer services. The work of Russian hackers(allegedly) could take up to six months to resolve and affected servers and systems may need to be rebuilt.
Data Protection Officers need to be aware of the latest incidents and advice when it comes to cyber security breaches. The recently published DCMS Cyber Security Breaches Survey is important reading for all DPOs. It explores the policies, processes, and approaches to cyber security for businesses, charities, and educational institutions. It also considers the different forms of cyber-attack these organisations face, as well as how they are impacted and their response.
The survey results show that in the last 12 months, 39% of UK businesses identified a cyber-attack. Of these, the most common threat vector was phishing attempts (83%). Of the 39%, around one in five (21%) identified a more sophisticated attack type such as a denial of service, malware, or ransomware attack. Despite its low prevalence, organisations cited ransomware as a major threat, with 56% of businesses having a policy not to pay ransoms. Note recently the GDPR fine issued to a firm of solicitors who suffered such an attack. Interestingly they too chose not to pay the hackers.
Frequency and Impact
Within the group of organisations reporting cyber-attacks, 31% of businesses and 26% of charities estimate they were attacked at least once a week. One in five businesses (20%) and charities (19%) say they experienced a negative outcome as a direct consequence of a cyber-attack, while one third of businesses (35%) and almost four in ten charities (38%) experienced at least one negative impact. It is interesting that the survey focussed on charities too. July 2021 saw the first GDPR fine to a charity. The transgender charity Mermaids was fined £25,000 after the ICO found that it had failed to implement an appropriate level of security to its internal email systems, which resulted in documents or emails containing personal data being searchable and viewable online by third parties through internet search engine results.
Cost of Attacks
The survey found the average estimated cost of all cyber attacks in the last 12 months was £4,200. Considering only medium and large businesses; the figure rises to £19,400. Of course such incidents also mean a loss of reputation and customer trust. In October 2020, the ICO fined British Airways £20million for a cyber security breach which saw the personal and financial details of more than 400,000 customers being accessed by hackers. British Airways also had to settle legal claims for compensation from affected customers.
The government guidance ‘10 Steps to Cyber Security’ breaks down the task of protecting an organisation into 10 key components. The survey finds 49% of businesses and 40% of charities have acted in at least five of these 10 areas. In particular, access management surveyed most favourably, while supply chain security was the least favourable.
Around four in five (82%) of boards or senior management within UK businesses rate cyber security as a ‘very high’ or ‘fairly high’ priority, an increase on 77% in 2021. 72% in charities rate cyber security as a ‘very high’ or ‘fairly high’ priority. Additionally, 50% of businesses and 42% of charities say they update the board on cyber security matters at least quarterly. Our new webinar “GDPR and the Charity Sector Webinar” is ideal for raising awareness amongst charity trustees.
Larger organisations are correlated throughout the survey with enhanced cyber security, likely as a consequence of increased funding and expertise. For large businesses’ cyber security; 80% update the board at least quarterly, 63% conducted a risk assessment, and 61% carried out staff training; compared with 50%, 33% and 17% respectively for all businesses. Our GDPR Essentials e learning course contains a specific module on keeping data safe which warns of the most common cyber hacking/phishing tactics.
Just over half of businesses surveyed (54%) have acted in the past 12 months to identify cyber security risks, including a range of actions, where security monitoring tools (35%) were the most common. Qualitative interviews however found that limited board understanding meant the risk was often passed on to; outsourced cyber providers, insurance companies, or an internal cyber colleague.
Outsourcing and Supply Chain
Small, medium, and large businesses outsource their IT and cyber security to an external supplier 58%, 55%, and 60% of the time respectively, with organisations citing access to greater expertise, resources, and standard for cyber security. Consequently, only 13% of businesses assessed the risks posed by their immediate suppliers, with organisations saying that cyber security was not an important factor in the procurement process.
Incident management policy is limited with only 19% of businesses having a formal incident response plan, while 39% have assigned roles should an incident occur. In contrast, businesses show a clear reactive approach when breaches occur, with 84% of businesses saying they would inform the board, while 73% would make an assessment of the attack.
Outside of working with external cyber security providers, organisations most keenly engage with insurers, where 43% of businesses have an insurance policy that cover cyber risks. On the other hand, only 6% of businesses have the Cyber Essentials certification and 1% have Cyber Essentials plus, which is largely due to relatively low awareness. The importance of this was highlighted in the recent GDPR fine issued to Tuckers solicitors.
The DCMS Cyber Security Breaches Survey is important reading for all Data Protection Officers and IT staff. Aligning with the National Cyber Strategy, it is used to inform government policy on cyber security. It should also be used to stay abreast of cyber security developments and formulate your own organisation’s cyber security strategy.
Our Managing Personal Data Breaches workshop will examine the law and best practice in this area, drawing on real-life case studies, to identify how organisations can position themselves to deal appropriately with data security incidents and data breaches, in order to minimise the impact on customers and service users and mitigate reputational damage.
On 10th March the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced that it had fined Tuckers Solicitors LLP £98,000 for a breach of GDPR.
The fine follows a ransomware attack on the firm’s IT systems in August 2020. The attacker had encrypted 972,191 files, of which 24,712 related to court bundles. 60 of those were exfiltrated by the attacker and released on the dark web. Some of the files included Special Category Data. Clearly this was a personal data breach, not just for the fact that data was released on the dark web, but because of the unavailability of personal data (though encryption by the attacker) which is also cover by the definition in Article 4 GDPR. Tuckers reported the breach to the ICO as well as affected individuals through various means including social media.
The ICO found that between 25th May 2018 (the date the GDPR came into force) and 25th August 2020 (the date on which the Tuckers reported the personal data breach), Tuckers had contravened Article 5(1)(f) of the GDPR (the sixth Data Protection Principle, Security) as it failed to process personal data in a manner that ensured appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures. The ICO found its starting point for calculating the breach to be 3.25 per cent of Tuckers’ turnover for 30 June 2020. It could have been worse; the maximum for a breach of the Data Protection Principles is 4% of gross annual turnover.
In reaching its conclusions, the Commissioner gave consideration to Article 32 GDPR, which requires a Data Controller, when implementing appropriate security measures, to consider:
“…the state of the art, the costs of implementation and the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing as well as the risk of varying likelihood and severity for the rights and freedoms of natural persons”.
What does “state of the art” mean? In this case the ICO considered, in the context of “state of the art”, relevant industry standards of good practice including the ISO27000 series, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), the various guidance from the ICO itself, the National Cyber Security Centre (“NCSC”), the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, Lexcel and NCSC Cyber Essentials.
The ICO concluded that there are a number of areas in which Tuckers had failed to comply with, and to demonstrate that it complied, with the Security Principle. Their technical and organisational measures were, over the relevant period, inadequate in the following respects:
Lack of Multi-Factor Authentication (“MFA”)
MFA is an authentication method that requires the user to provide two or more verification factors to gain access to an online resource. Rather than just asking for a username and password, MFA requires one or more additional verification factors, which decreases the likelihood of a successful cyber-attack e.g. a code from a fob or text message. Tuckers had not used MFA on its remote access solution despite its own GDPR policy requiring it to be used where available.
Tuckers told the ICO that part of the reason for the attack was the late application of a software patch to fix a vulnerability. In January 2020 this patch was rated as “critical” by the NCSC and others. However Tuckers only installed it 4 months later.
Failure to Encrypt Personal data
The personal data stored on the archive server, that was subject to this attack, had not been encrypted. The ICO accepted that encryption may not have prevented the ransomware attack. However, it would have mitigated some of the risks the attack posed to the affected data subjects especially given the sensitive nature of the data.
Ransomware is on the rise. Organisations need to strengthen their defences and have plans in place; not just to prevent a cyber-attack but what to do when it does takes place:
Conduct a cyber security risk assessment and consider an external accreditation through Cyber Essentials. The ICO noted that in October 2019, Tuckers was assessed against the Cyber Essentials criteria and found to have failed to meet crucial aspects. The fact that some 10 months later it had still not resolved this issue was, in the Commissioner’s view, sufficient to constitute a negligent approach to data security obligations.
Making sure everyone in your organisation knows the risks of malware/ransomware and follows good security practice. Our GDPR Essentials e learning solution contains a module on keeping data safe.
The Honours List file contained the details of 1097 people, including the singer Sir Elton John, cricketer Ben Stokes, the politician Iain Duncan Smith and the TV cook Nadiya Hussain. More than a dozen MoD employees and senior counter-terrorism officers as well as holocaust survivors were also on the list which was published online at 10.30pm on Friday 26th December 2019. After becoming aware of the data breach, the Cabinet Office removed the weblink to the file. However, the file was still cached and accessible online to people who had the exact webpage address.
The personal data was available online for a period of two hours and 21 minutes and it was accessed 3,872 times. The vast majority of people on the list had their house numbers, street names and postcodes published with their name. One of the lessons here is, always have a second person check the data before pressing “publish”.
This is the first ever GDPR fine issued by the ICO to a public sector organisation. A stark contrast to the ICO’s fines under the DPA 1998 where they started with a local authority. Article 82(1) sets out the right to compensation:
“Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered.”
It will be interesting to see how many of the affected individuals pursue a civil claim.
(See also our blog post from the time the breach was reported.)
Last week, the UK Supreme Court handed down its much anticipated judgement in the case of Lloyd v Google LLC  UKSC 50. It is a significant case because it answers two important questions (1) whether US style class action lawsuits can be brought for data protection claims and (2) whether damages can be claimed for mere “loss of control” of personal data where no actual damage has been suffered by data subjects. If the Supreme Court had decided that the answer to either of these questions was “yes”, it would have resulted in Data Controllers being targeted with much more costly data breach litigation.
The present case was brought by Richard Lloyd, a former director of consumer rights group Which?, who alleged that between 2011 and 2012, Google cookies collected data on health, race, ethnicity, sexuality and finance through Apple’s Safari web browser, even when users had chosen a “do not track” privacy setting on their phone. Mr Lloyd sought compensation, under section 13 of the old Data Protection Act 1998.
Mr Lloyd sought to bring a claim in a representative capacity on behalf of 4 million consumers; a US style “class action”. In the UK, such claims currently need consumers to opt-in, which can be a lengthy process (and costly). Mr Lloyd attempted to set a precedent for opt-out cases, meaning one representative could bring an action on behalf of millions without the latter’s consent. He sought to use Rule 19.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules which allows an individual to such bring a claim where all members of the class have the “same interest” in the claim. Because Google is a US company, Mr Lloyd needed the permission of the English court to pursue his claim. Google won in the High Court only for the decision to be overturned by the Court of Appeal. If Mr Lloyd had succeeded in the Supreme Court on appeal, it could have opened the floodgates to many more mass actions against tech firms (and other data controllers) for data breaches.
The Supreme Court found class actions impermissible in principle in the present case. It said that, in order to advance such an action on behalf of each member of the proposed represented class, Mr Lloyd had to prove that each one of those individuals had both suffered a breach of their rights and suffered actual damage as a result of that breach. Mr. Lloyd had argued that a uniform sum of damages could be awarded to each member of the represented class without having to prove any facts particular to that individual. In particular, he had argued that compensation could be awarded under the DPA 1998 for “loss of control” of personal data constituted by any non–trivial infringement by a data controller of any of the requirements of the DPA 1998.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments for two principal reasons. Firstly, the claim was based only on section 13 of the DPA 1998, which states that “an individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage”. The court ruled that “damage” here means material damage, such as financial loss or mental distress, as caused by unlawful processing of personal data in contravention of the DPA 1998 (i.e. simply infringing the DPA 1998 does not in itself constitute “damage”). Secondly, in order to recover compensation under section 13 of the DPA 1998, it is necessary to prove what unlawful processing (by Google) of personal data relating to each individual actuallyoccurred. A representative claim could have been brought to establish whether Google was in breach of the DPA 1998 as a basis for pursuing individual claims for compensation but not here where Mr Lloyd was claiming the same amount of damages (£750) for each of the 4 million iPhone users.
This case was decided under the DPA 1998. Article 82(1) of the UK GDPR sets out the right to compensation now; “Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered”. The similar wording to the DPA 1998 means that the outcome would be the same if Mr Lloyd had commenced his action post GDPR.
The Lloyd-Google judgment means that those seeking to bring class-action data protection infringement compensation cases have their work cut out. However, claims under Art 82 can still be brought on an individual basis – in fact the judgment seems to indicate that individual cases can have good prospects of success. There is more to come in this area. TikTok is facing a similar case, brought by former Children’s Commissioner Anne Longfield, which alleges that the video-sharing app used children’s data without informed consent.
A Scottish charity has been issued with a £10,000 monetary penalty notice following the inadvertent disclosure of personal data by email.
On 18th October, HIV Scotland was found to have breached the security provisions of the UK GDPR, namely Articles 5(1)(f) and 32, when it sent an email to 105 people which included patient advocates representing people living with HIV. All the email addresses were visible to all recipients, and 65 of the addresses identified people by name. From the personal data disclosed, an assumption could be made about individuals’ HIV status or risk.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is urging organisations to revisit their bulk email practices after its investigation found shortcomings in HIV Scotland’s email procedures. These included inadequate staff training, incorrect methods of sending bulk emails by blind carbon copy (bcc) and an inadequate data protection policy. It also found that despite HIV Scotland’s own recognition of the risks in its email distribution and the procurement of a system which enables bulk messages to be sent more securely, it was continuing to use the less secure bcc method seven months after the incident.
On the point of training, HIV Scotland confirmed to the ICO that employees are expected to complete the “EU GDPR Awareness for All” on an annual basis. The ICO recommended that staff should receive induction training “prior to accessing personal data and within one month of their start date.” Act Now’s e learning course, GDPR Essentials, is designed to teach employees about the key provisions of GDPR and how to keep personal data safe. The course is interactive with a quiz at the end and can be completed in just over 30 minutes. Click here to watch a preview.
This is an interesting case and one which will not give reassurance tothe Labour Relations Agency in Northern Ireland which had to apologise last week for sharing the email addresses and, in some cases ,the names of more than 200 service users. The agency deals confidentially with sensitive labour disputes between employees and employers. It said it had issued an apology to recipients and was currently taking advice from the ICO.
Interestingly the ICO also referenced in its ruling, the fact that HIV Scotland made a point of commenting on a similar error by another organisation 8 months prior. In June 2019, NHS Highland disclosed the email addresses of 37 people who were HIV positive. It is understood the patients in the Highlands were able to see their own and other people’s addresses in an email from NHS Highland inviting them to a support group run by a sexual health clinic. At the time HIV Scotland described the breach as “unacceptable”.
The HIV Scotland fine is the second one the ICO has issued to a charity in the space of 4 months. On 8th July 2021, the transgender charity Mermaids was fined £25,000 for failing to keep the personal data of its users secure. The ICO found that Mermaids failed to implement an appropriate level of security to its internal email systems, which resulted in documents or emails containing personal data being searchable and viewable online by third parties through internet search engine results.
Charities need to consider these ICO fines very carefully and ensure that they have polices, procedures and training in place to avoid enforcement action by the ICO.