PogoWasRight.org

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

UK: Information Commissioner’s Office under fire for dropping BT investigation (update2)

Posted on February 1, 2011July 3, 2025 by Dissent

Josh Halliday reports:

Privacy groups have attacked the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for dropping its investigation into BT, which in September emailed details about more than 500 of its customers to a law firm.

The ICO told the Guardian that BT cannot be held responsible for the action, in which a spreadsheet with confidential information including names, addresses and telephone numbers was sent in plain text by one of BT’s staff to the solicitors’ firm ACS:Law in connection with allegations of online copyright infringement. The spreadsheet, which by BT’s own rules should have been encrypted, later leaked onto the web when ACS:Law’s site came under attack from online activists.

[…]

The ICO closed its investigation into the apparent data breach earlier this month after ruling that BT was not liable for the mistake, which it said was committed by one of its employees.

BT became embroiled in a wider row over data privacy late last year when the confidential details of thousands of UK internet users – including Sky, TalkTalk and BT Plusnet customers – leaked online in the aftermath of the attack on ACS:Law’s website. The ICO is presently investigating that leak separately from the BT breach, and could levy a £500,000 fine on any guilty party.

Read more in the Guardian.

Since when isn’t a company liable for a breach just because one of its employees may have violated its policies? I’m with Privacy International and Big Brother Watch on this one, although given how the ICO typically only has entities sign “undertakings,” I don’t know that I would have expected the ICO to do much more than that with respect to the failure to encrypt part of the incident.

Update: Alexander Hanff of Privacy International has blogged about the ICO’s decision and his concerns about it on his blog.

Update 2: V3.co.uk covers the controversy and includes some quotes from the ICO and Stewart Room that provide another perspective on the issue of whether – or when – the ICO should pursue action against an entity whose employee has not adhered to policies or who has engaged in criminal activity.

No related posts.

Category: BreachesNon-U.S.

Post navigation

← Chinese biometrics device that uses a person’s pace to identify them
FL: Landlord ordered to pay for spying on female tenant →

Search

Contact Me

Email: info[at]pogowasright.org
Security Issue: security[at]pogowasright.org
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: Dissent.73
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]pogowasright.org

Research Report of Note

A report by EPIC.org:

State Attorneys General & Privacy: Enforcement Trends, 2020-2024

Categories

Recent Posts

  • EU justice chief draws red line on privacy reforms
  • Kaiser Permanente to Pay Up to $47.5M in Web Tracker Lawsuit
  • How Palantir shifted course to play key role in ICE deportations
  • U.S. Judge Blocks Trump From Cutting Medicaid Funding For Planned Parenthood In 22 States
  • India backs off mandatory ‘cyber safety’ app after surveillance backlash
  • Judge orders Trump administration to halt warrantless immigration arrests in District of Columbia
  • EU court says websites on the hook for user privacy harms

RSS Recent Posts at DataBreaches.net

  • Marquis data breach impacts over 74 US banks, credit unions
  • Virginia Twins Arrested for Conspiring to Destroy Government Databases
  • Cyberattack on Puerto Rico IT vendor Truenorth hits 3 agencies
  • Easy Question, Complicated Answer: What Does It Take to Stop Workers From Snooping?
  • Update on Dos-OP’s report on Nova RaaS
©2025 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.