In regard to the massive loss of personal data by the UK government earlier this week, it has emerged that senior UK government officials had been repeatedly warned that sensitive data was at risk of being compromised months ago because of slack security procedures. However, even after being told this, officials insisted that the data protection approached being used were "fit for purpose" - i.e., acceptable. Shoe Number 1.
An almost exact replica of this problem happened in 2005 involving HM Revenue and Customs and UBS customers. At the time, HMRC said, "This is a one off incident in a single office which receives thousands of pieces of post per week. We are urgently reviewing our procedures to make sure this does not happen again." Yeah, right. Shoe Number 2.
Seems that senior officials at HM Revenue and Customs knowingly refused taking even minimum security measures to protect the data being sent to the NAO because it was seen as being too expensive to do so. Shoe Number 3.
These senior officials - not the "junior official" whom the government blamed for the mess (who in fact looks like an administrative clerk) - apparently also authorized the method of data security (password protection, not data encryption) and the means of getting the information to the NAO (on CD sent by unregistered post). The junior official was merely following orders. Shoe Number 4.
It has now come out that HM Revenue and Customs has had over 1,211 - yes, 1,211 - data protection breaches in the past year, but as I mentioned earlier - this was apparently seen as being perfectly acceptable. HMRC has refused to talk about them. Shoe Number 5.
It was also disclosed that there are at least two other CDs that are missing on top of the two that are currently missing. Again, HMRC refuses to comment. Shoe Number 6.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling informed parliament that he delayed announcing the loss of the CDs for 10 days after being told about it on November 10 because banks wanted more time to prepare anti-fraud measures. The banks vehemently dispute this. Shoe Number 7.
The government has told people not to worry - if any fraud is committed because of the breach, they will be covered. Now, all you have to do is prove a causal link. Good luck and God speed on that one. Shoe Number 8.
The "junior official" involved has been at least suspended (and some say sacked), and is at a safe house under 24 hour protection, supposedly for the person's own safety. More likely the government doesn't want this person talking to the press. Future Shoes Number 9 to ???
Hmm, its looks like UK Government's closet is as full of shoes as Imelda Marcos' closet.
