Northern Ireland data breach

[gas112]

Someone needs their arris kicking for such a stupid mistake putting thousands of people at risk .

Northern Ireland police data breach: PSNI officers left 'incredibly vulnerable' due to human error

The PSNI Assistant Chief Constable apologises after the surname, initials, the rank or grade, the work location and departments of all PSNI staff were made public for up to three hours, with a union rep saying it may mean some have to leave their roles.

news.sky.com

 

[blup]

It sounds like an admin error.

We had a similar situation when the local council had an foi request for the top pension earners, it turned out HR had passed the request to finance who downloaded the info, sent it back in a pdf which hr then sent out. Each department blamed the other for not checking what was in the attachment. So an easy mistake for a bureaucracy to make.

It is very serious for psni but if the terrorists want to target officers they will find a way to do so.

Blup

 

[Brigadier]

but if the terrorists want to target officers they will find a way to do so

Doesn't mean the organisation should lay a red carpet out for them though.

 

[nwgs]

************************

 

[denso13]

It sounds like an admin error.

Unfortunately, yes. In the "old" days mistakes were just that. Now they go global in seconds.

 

[Dork Lard]

This is actually a very serious situation if you think about it. Also very expensive, a lot of thosePSNI employee's are going to need/want to relocate. Guess who gets to pay for that !

 

[denso13]

This is actually a very serious situation if you think about it.

No, I agree. But mistakes are multiplied out of control these days.

 

[Dork Lard]

No, I agree. But mistakes are multiplied out of control these days.

No, really. This IS a VERY SERIOUS situation. There will be PSNI employee's who cannot sleep in their own homes tonight.

 

[denso13]

No, really. This IS a VERY SERIOUS situation. There will be PSNI employee's who cannot sleep in their own homes tonight.

I KNOW. I AGREED.

 

[blup]

Doesn't mean the organisation should lay a red carpet out for them though.

Part of the problem is that the ICO guidance doesn't actually say names should not, or never, be disclosed. It is quite possible that the foi person at psni misunderstood the guidance and published the names while witholding the actual private addresses. Society is obsessed with naming shaming and mud slinging at civil servants, and that rubs off on the public sector.

Blup

 

[Brigadier]

Part of the problem is that the ICO guidance doesn't actually say names should not, or never, be disclosed

That you think anyone dealing with such sensitive information would be in need of that level of "guidance" is concerning in itself.

Society is obsessed with naming shaming and mud slinging at civil servants, and that rubs off on the public sector

Accountability.

 

[blup]

That you think anyone dealing with such sensitive information would be in need of that level of "guidance" is concerning in itself.

It’s pretty complicated stuff if you look at the guidance, and foi officers are way down the food chain. Common sense and independence of thought are the first casualties of the civil service.

Accountability.

Accountability leading to numbskull decisions

Blup

 

[Brigadier]

Accountability leading to numbskull decisions

Care to explain your reasoning?

 

[blup]

The legislation and ICO guidance does not exclude disclosure of names and ranks of serving police officers, which is outrageous in itself. So its a decision for each police authority, they can legitimately decide to disclose what they have disclosed:

This from the ICO guidance:

"Organisational structure charts are also routinely made available. For example, government departments publish organograms or structure charts on www.data.gov.uk showing the job titles and reporting lines for all their posts.This does not mean that there is a requirement to publish the names of all the post holders; usually only the names of senior managers are published. If a request is received for names below this level, the issue in terms of section 40 is whether it is reasonable to disclose these in the context of the specific request. It is not possible to establish a single cut-off point for all authorities, below which names will never be disclosed"

And don't blame the eu, it is within the governments powers to exclude sensitive occupations from disclosure.

Blup

 

[Brigadier]

The legislation and ICO guidance does not exclude disclosure of names and ranks of serving police officers, which is outrageous in itself. So its a decision for each police authority, they can legitimately decide to disclose what they have disclosed:

This from the ICO guidance:

"Organisational structure charts are also routinely made available. For example, government departments publish organograms or structure charts on www.data.gov.uk showing the job titles and reporting lines for all their posts.This does not mean that there is a requirement to publish the names of all the post holders; usually only the names of senior managers are published. If a request is received for names below this level, the issue in terms of section 40 is whether it is reasonable to disclose these in the context of the specific request. It is not possible to establish a single cut-off point for all authorities, below which names will never be disclosed"

And don't blame the eu, it is within the governments powers to exclude sensitive occupations from disclosure.

Blup

None of which explains "accountability leading to numbskull decisions".

If you know you will be held accountable for any decision you make, you'll make damn sure it's a good one (or make no decision at all).

Not a numbskull one.