Tag: Data Breach

£6m Potential Fine for NHS IT Supplier

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has announced today that it has issued a GDPR Notice of Intent to an NHS IT supplier, Advanced Computer Software Group Ltd (Advanced), following a significant data breach in 2022.

The ICO’s preliminary decision is to impose a £6.09 million fine on Advanced.
This comes after its findings that the company failed to adequately protect the personal data of 82,946 individuals in breach of Article 32 of the UK GDPR.
As a key IT and software provider for the NHS and other healthcare organisations across the country, Advanced often holds role of Data Processor for many of its clients.

The breach in question occurred during a ransomware attack in August 2022.
Hackers exploited a vulnerability through a customer account that lacked multi-factor authentication, gaining access to multiple health and care systems operated by Advanced. The compromised data included phone numbers, medical records, and even details on how to access the homes of 890 individuals receiving at-home care.

The cyber-attack caused widespread disruption, with NHS 111 services impacted and some GPs resorting to pen and paper as electronic systems went offline. At the time, doctors warned that it could take months to clear the backlog of paperwork created by the incident.

This Notice of Intent serves as a reminder that Data Processors, like Advanced, have a duty to implement robust technical and organisational measures to safeguard personal data. This includes regularly assessing risks, applying multi-factor authentication, and keeping systems updated with the latest security patches. Data Processors cannot shift the responsibility to Data Controllers; their GDPR security obligations are independent of those of the Data Controller.

It is important to note that a Notice of Intent is not a fine — yet. It is a legal precursor, outlining the ICO’s provisional stance. Advanced now has the opportunity to make representations that could influence the final decision. This process is not without precedent: in 2018, British Airways faced a Notice of Intent for a £183 million fine due to a cybersecurity breach, but the actual fine  issued in 2020 was reduced to £20 million. Similarly, Marriott International Inc.’s fine dropped from £99 million to £18.4 million after a Notice of Intent in 2020.

It will be interesting to see how the ICO’s final decision on Advanced compares with its approach in other cases, such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) incident. The PSNI was issued a Notice of Intent for £750,000 earlier this year after mistakenly releasing sensitive information about every police officer and staff member in response to a Freedom of Information request.

The Act Now Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice is designed for experienced Data Protection Officers seeking to develop their skills and confidence to tackle the most challenging data protection projects within their organisation.

Please subscribe to this blog and help us to get to 10,000 subscribers. 

Electoral Commission Reprimanded for Data Breach Affecting 40 Million People

Last week the Information Commissioner’s Office(ICO) issue a GDPR reprimand to the Electoral Commission.

In August 2023 the Electoral Commission revealed, in a public notice issued under Article 33 and 34 of the UK GDPR, that it had been the victim of a “complex cyber-attack” potentially affecting millions of voters. It had discovered in October 2022 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 included 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 further explained that it was difficult to predict exactly how many people could be affected, but it estimated the register for each year contains the details of around 40 million people. 

The ICO reprimand reveals that the Commission did not take basic security steps to ensure the protection of personal data. The ICO said:

“If the Electoral Commission had taken basic steps to protect its systems, such as effective security patching and password management, it is highly likely that this data breach would not have happened.”

Many have criticised the ICO for issuing a “slap on the wrist” rather than a fine for an entirely preventable cyberattack that exposed the personal data of 40 million UK voters. But the reprimand is in line with the ICO’s approach to public sector enforcement which has been the subject of a two year trial since June 2022. 
Explaining the approach at the time, the Information Commissioner wrote:

“I am not convinced large fines on their own are as effective a deterrent within the public sector. They do not impact shareholders or individual directors in the same way as they do in the private sector but come directly from the budget for the provision of services. The impact of a public sector fine is also often visited upon the victims of the breach, in the form of reduced budgets for vital services, not the perpetrators. In effect, people affected by a breach get punished twice.”

In June the ICO announced that it will now review the two-year trial before making a decision on the public sector approach in the Autumn.

The Act Now Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice is designed for experienced Data Protection Officers seeking to develop their skills and confidence to tackle the most challenging data protection projects within their organisation.

Please subscribe to this blog and help us to get to 10,000 subscribers. 

Is the CrowdStrike Outage a Personal Data Breach under GDPR?

Friday’s global IT outage, caused by the CrowdStrike software update, is likely to continue to have an impact on critical systems this week. NHS England says that health service IT systems are back online but has warned that there may still be disruption, particularly with GP services who may need time to rebook appointments.

The question now for Data Protection Officers, in the UK and EU, is whether the CrowdStrike outage is a personal data breach under the UK and EU GDPR (hereinafter referred to as GDPR, since the law is effectively the same).  If it is, it may need to be reported to the data protection regulator (in the UK, the Information Commissioner’s Office(ICO)) and even to the individuals whose services have been affected e.g. patients, customers and service users.

Before making this decision, DPOs need to go back to first principles. The law on reporting data breaches is set out in Article 33 and 34 of the GDPR. Article 33 states:

“In the case of a personal data breach, the controller shall without undue delay and, where feasible, not later than 72 hours after having become aware of it, notify the personal data breach to the Commissioner , unless the personal data breach is unlikely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. Where the notification under this paragraph is not made within 72 hours, it shall be accompanied by reasons for the delay.”

The term “personal data breach” has a very specific meaning which is set out by Article 4:

“a breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed.”

So to even start to consider whether an incident needs to be reported, a DPO needs to consider whether it is “a breach of security” and, if it is, whether this breach has led to the consequences set out in Article 4 above i.e. accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data.

In deciding this question, many have jumped straight to focussing on the consequences of the incident; because it led to many organisations unable to access critical data which had a considerable impact on individuals; for example, GPs being unable to access patient medical records. They say it is a personal data breach due to lack of availability of data. They rely on the ICO guidance which states:

“A personal data breach can be broadly defined as a security incident that has affected the confidentiality, integrity or availability of personal data. In short, there will be a personal data breach whenever any personal data is accidentally lost, destroyed, corrupted or disclosed; if someone accesses the data or passes it on without proper authorisation; or if the data is made unavailable and this unavailability has a significant negative effect on individuals.”

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) guidance also classes lack of availability of personal data as a key factor. In footnote 18 on page 8, it states that:

“It is well established that “access” is fundamentally part of “availability”. See, for example, NIST SP80053rev4, which defines “availability” as: “Ensuring timely and reliable access to and use of information,” … CNSSI-4009 also refers to: “Timely, reliable access to data and information services for authorized users”. …   ISO/IEC 27000:2016 also defines “availability” as “Property of being accessible and usable upon demand by an authorized entity”

For an alternative view on the meaning of “loss” in Article 4, it is worth reading Jon Baines personal blog.

Few have considered the first aspect of the definition of a personal data breach, set out in Article 4 i.e. Is the CrowdStrike incident a “breach of security”? The cause of the incident has been identified as an update CrowdStrike made to its cloud-based software product called Falcon. When CrowdStrike pushed the update, which interacts with other parts of computer systems and software like Microsoft’s Windows products, it caused a malfunction that disabled those systems and their widely used pieces of software the world over. In short the outage was caused by a planned software update which went wrong; ironically the software intended to protect against crashes and disruptions in vital computer systems ended up crashing them!

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Geroge Kurtz, president and CEO of CrowdStrike said:

“ This is not a security incident or cyberattack.The issue has been identified, isolated and a fix has been deployed.”

Some would say, “he would say that wouldn’t he!” Our point is, when deciding whether to report an incident as a personal data breach, rather than first focussing on the consequences, DPOs should first consider whether it is a “breach of security” or, perhaps in this case, planned maintenance (albeit which went disastrously wrong). EDPB guidance says:

“To be clear, where personal data is available due to planned maintenance being carried out this is not a “breach of security” as defined in Article 4(12).”

Of course even if the CrowdStrike incident is not a reportable data breach, this does not mean that there will be no repercussions for organisations who suffered an outage. The GDPR includes stand-alone obligations on Data Controllers to ensure they have technical and organisational measures to keep personal data safe and secure.

We have two workshops coming up (How to Increase Cyber Security in your Organisation and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to up skill their employees about cyber security. See also our Managing Personal Data Breaches Workshop

ICO Reprimand for Children’s Services 

Yesterday, the ICO issued a reprimand to Birmingham Children’s Trust Community Interest Company after the personal information of a child was inappropriately disclosed to another family. 

The child protection and review department at Birmingham Children’s Trust Community Interest Company, which is owned by Birmingham City Council, was working with two neighbouring families when the data breach occurred. A child protection plan was disclosed to one family that contained both personal information and criminal allegations relating to a child from the neighbouring family. This information was included in error after being copied across from meeting minutes. 

The ICO investigation found that Birmingham Children’s Trust Community Interest Company did not have appropriate policies or sufficient practical guidance in place to ensure the security of personal information. This is a breach of Article 5(1)(f) and 32(1)(b) and 2 of the UK GDPR. 

The ICO has recommended that Birmingham Children’s Trust Community Interest Company should take further steps to ensure its compliance with data protection law, including: 

  • Implement a more granular approach to data protection and create a Standard Operating Procedure with regards to producing social care documents. 
  • Include a process for any social care product to be independently checked by someone other than the author prior to disclosure. 
  • Create and implement a corporate redaction policy, which ensures staff have the knowledge and tools, to redact the product if necessary. 

Our GDPR Essentials e learning course is ideal for organisations who wish to upskill their employees about data protection and data security. 

Another Day; Another Police Data Breach  

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.

We have two workshops coming up in September (Introduction to Cyber Security and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to upskill their employees about data security.

Privacy Concerns Raised Over Adoption Records on Genealogy Website 

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. 

We have two workshops coming up in September (Introduction to Cyber Security and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to upskill their employees about data security. 

Ibrahim Hasan’s BBC Radio Ulster Interview about the PSNI Data Breach 

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.

We have two workshops coming up in September (Introduction to Cyber Security and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to upskill their employees about data security. Our Data Mapping workshop is proving very popular with IG and DP Officers who wish to develop this skill.

The Electoral Commission and PSNI: One Day, Two Data Breaches!

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 only discovered 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.

We have two workshops coming up in September (Introduction to Cyber Security and Cyber Security for DPOs) which are ideal for organisations who wish to upskill their employees about data security. Our Data Mapping workshop is proving very popular with IG and DP Officers who wish to develop this skill.

Ticketmaster Fined £1.25m Over Cyber Attack

0_MGP_CHP_270618TICKETMASTER_0736ticketmasterJPG

GDPR fines are like a number 65 bus. You wait for a long time and then three arrive at once. In the space of a month the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued three Monetary Penalty Notices. The latest requires Ticketmaster to pay £1.25m following a cyber-attack on its website which compromised millions of customers’ personal information.  

The ICO investigation into this breach found a vulnerability in a third-party chatbot built by Inbenta Technologies, which Ticketmaster had installed on its online payments page. A cyber-attacker was able to use the chatbot to access customer payment details which included names, payment card numbers, expiry dates and CVV numbers. This had the potential to affect 9.4million Ticketmaster customers across Europe including 1.5 million in the UK. 

As a result of the breach, according to the ICO, 60,000 payment cards belonging to Barclays Bank customers had been subjected to known fraud. Another 6000 cards were replaced by Monzo Bank after it suspected fraudulent use. The ICO said these bank and others had warned Ticketmaster of suspected fraud. Despite these warnings it took nine weeks to start monitoring activity on its payments page. 

The ICO found that Ticketmaster failed to: 

  • Assess the risks of using a chat-bot on its payment page 
  • Identify and implement appropriate security measures to negate the risks 
  • Identify the source of suggested fraudulent activity in a timely manner 

James Dipple-Johnstone, Deputy Information Commissioner, said: 

“When customers handed over their personal details, they expected Ticketmaster to look after them. But they did not. 

Ticketmaster should have done more to reduce the risk of a cyber-attack. Its failure to do so meant that millions of people in the UK and Europe were exposed to potential fraud. 

The £1.25milllion fine we’ve issued today will send a message to other organisations that looking after their customers’ personal details safely should be at the top of their agenda.” 

In a statement, Ticketmaster said:  

“Ticketmaster takes fans’ data privacy and trust very seriously. Since Inbenta Technologies was breached in 2018, we have offered our full cooperation to the ICO.
We plan to appeal [against] today’s announcement.” 

Ticketmaster’s appeal will put the ICO’s reasoning and actions, when issuing fines, under judicial scrutiny. This will help GDPR practitioners faced with similar ICO investigations.   

Ticketmaster is also facing civil legal action by thousands of fraud victims. Law firm Keller Lenkner, which represents some of these victims, said: 

“While several banks tried to alert Ticketmaster of potential fraud, it took an unacceptable nine weeks for action to be taken, exposing an estimated 1.5 million UK customers,” said Kingsley Hayes, the firm’s head of cyber-crime.  

Data Protection Officers are encouraged to read the Monetary Penalty Notice as it not only sets out the reasons for the ICO’s conclusion but also the factors it has taken into account in deciding to issue a fine and how it calculated the amount. This fine follows hot on the heels of the British Airways and Marriott fines which also concerned cyber security breaches. (You can read more about the causes of cyber security breaches in our recent blog post.) 

75% of fines issued by the ICO under GDPR relate to cyber security. This is a top regulatory priority for the ICO as well as supervisory authorities across Europe.
Data Protection Officers should place cyber security at the top of their learning and development plan for 2021.  

We have some places available on our forthcoming Cyber Security for DPOs workshop. This and other GDPR developments will be covered in our next online GDPR update workshop.

The Marriott Data Breach Fine

Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada - September 3, 2019: Sign of Marriott on the building in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada. Marriott International is an American hospitality company.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has issued a fine to Marriott International Inc for a cyber security breach which saw the personal details of millions of hotel guests being accessed by hackers. The fine does not come as a surprise as it follows a Notice of Intent, issued in July 2018. The amount of £18.4 million though is much lower than the £99 million set out in the notice.  

The Data 

Marriott estimates that 339 million guest records worldwide were affected following a cyber-attack in 2014 on Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc. The attack, from an unknown source, remained undetected until September 2018, by which time the company had been acquired by Marriott.  

The personal data involved differed between individuals but may have included names, email addresses, phone numbers, unencrypted passport numbers, arrival/departure information, guests’ VIP status and loyalty programme membership number. The precise number of people affected is unclear as there may have been multiple records for an individual guest. Seven million guest records related to people in the UK. 

The Cyber Attack 

In 2014, an unknown attacker installed a piece of code known as a ‘web shell’ onto a device in the Starwood system giving them the ability to access and edit the contents of this device remotely. This access was exploited in order to install malware, enabling the attacker to have remote access to the system as a privileged user. As a result, the attacker would have had unrestricted access to the relevant device, and other devices on the network to which that account would have had access. Further tools were installed by the attacker to gather login credentials for additional users within the Starwood network.
With these credentials, the database storing reservation data for Starwood customers was accessed and exported by the attacker. 

The ICO acknowledged that Marriott acted promptly to contact customers and the ICO.
It also acted quickly to mitigate the risk of damage suffered by customers. However it was found to have breached the Security Principle (Article 5(1)(f)) and Article 32 (Security of personal data). The fine only relates to the breaches from 25 May 2018, when GDPR came into effect, although the ICO’s investigation traced the cyber-attack back to 2014. 

Data Protection Officers are encouraged to read the Monetary Penalty Notice as it not only sets out the reasons for the ICO’s conclusion but also the factors it has taken into account in deciding to issue a fine and how it calculated the amount.  

It is also essential that DPOs have a good understanding of cyber security. We have some places available on our Cyber Security for DPOs workshop in November. 

The Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, said: 

“Personal data is precious and businesses have to look after it. Millions of people’s data was affected by Marriott’s failure; thousands contacted a helpline and others may have had to take action to protect their personal data because the company they trusted it with had not.”

“When a business fails to look after customers’ data, the impact is not just a possible fine, what matters most is the public whose data they had a duty to protect.” 

Marriott said in statement:  

“Marriott deeply regrets the incident. Marriott remains committed to the privacy and security of its guests’ information and continues to make significant investments in security measures for its systems. The ICO recognises the steps taken by Marriott following discovery of the incident to promptly inform and protect the interests of its guests.”

Marriott has also said that it does not intend to appeal the fine, but this is not the end of the matter. It is still facing a civil class action in the High Court for compensation on behalf of all those affected by the data breach.  

This is the second highest GDPR fine issued by the ICO. On 16th October British Airways was fined £20 million also for a cyber security breach. (You can read more about the causes of cyber security breaches in our recent blog post.) The first fine was issued in December 2019 to Doorstep Dispensaree Ltd for a for a comparatively small amount of £275,000. 

This and other GDPR developments will be covered in our new online GDPR update workshop. Our next online GDPR Practitioner Certificate is fully booked.We have added more courses.