Information Commissioner's Office
London council fined by the ICO for disclosing sensitive personal data about alleged gang members
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined the London Borough of Newham £145,000 for disclosing the personal information of more than 200 people who featured on a police intelligence database.
The database is known as the ‘Gangs Matrix’ and its purpose is to record information in respect of alleged gang members.
An ICO investigation found that on 26 January 2017, a Newham Council employee sent an email to 44 recipients that contained both redacted and unredacted versions of the Gangs Matrix. These had previously been sent to the council by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) as part of its work with partners to tackle gang violence.
The 44 recipients included the council’s Youth Offending Team as well as external organisations, including a voluntary agency, that work together to respond to gang related crime.
As a result of the breach, information was shared relating to 203 people. This included dates of birth, home addresses, and information on whether they were a prolific firearms offender or knife carrier, as well as their alleged associated gang.
The ICO investigation found that between May and September 2017, rival gang members had obtained photographs of this information via the social media platform Snapchat. The Gangs Matrix featured in the photographs was the unredacted version that had been disclosed by Newham Council to partners in January 2017.
In 2017, the Borough of Newham experienced a number of incidents of serious gang violence. Victims of the violence included people who featured on the inappropriately shared Gangs Matrix.
It is not possible to say whether there was a causal connection between any individual incidents of violence and the data breach. However, the ICO does highlight the significant harm and distress that can be caused when this type of sensitive personal information is not kept secure.
James Dipple-Johnstone, Deputy Commissioner, yesterday said:
“We recognise there is a national concern about violent gang crime and the importance of tackling it. We also recognise the challenges of public authorities in doing this. Appropriate sharing of information has its part to play in this challenge but it must be done lawfully and safely.
“Our investigation concluded that it was unnecessary, unfair and excessive for Newham Council to have shared the unredacted database with a large number of people and organisations, when a redacted version was readily available. The risks associated with such a transfer of sensitive information should have been obvious.”
The investigation also found that Newham Council did not report the data breach to the ICO. Whilst the council did conduct their own internal investigation, it did not start until December 2017, a significant time after they became aware of the breach.
Additionally, the ICO found that the council did not have any specific sharing agreements, policy or guidance in place to determine how its own staff and partner organisations should handle and use the Gangs Matrix databases securely.
Mr Dipple-Johnstone added:
“This is a reminder for organisations handling and sharing sensitive information to make sure they have suitable processes, training and governance in place to ensure they meet their accountability obligations.
“Data protection is not a barrier for information sharing but it needs to be compliant with the law. One of the ways in doing this is by conducting data protection assessments. We have a data sharing code which provides guidance on how to share data safely and proportionately, and we will soon be publishing an updated code.
“Ultimately, personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly, proportionately and securely, so the community can have confidence that their information is being used in an appropriate way.”
Due to the timing of the data breach, the fine has been issued under the previous legislation, the Data Protection Act 1998, and not the General Data Protection Regulation and 2018 Act that replaced it last year.
The investigation into Newham Council was part of a wider inquiry into the use of the Gangs Matrix by the MPS. The ICO issued an enforcement notice to the MPS in November 2018, compelling them to make changes to the Matrix so it complies with data protection laws, including providing better arrangements for sharing the Matrix with partner agencies. A wider investigation into police use of Matrix type databases continues.
Notes to Editors
- The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent regulator for data protection and information rights law, upholding information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.
- The ICO has specific responsibilities set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA2018), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR).
- Due to the timing of this investigation, the civil monetary penalty has been issued under the previous legislation, the Data Protection Act 1998. The maximum financial penalty in civil cases under former laws is £500,000.
- Under past and current law, the ICO can take action to change the behaviour of organisations and individuals that collect, use and keep personal information. This includes criminal prosecution, non-criminal enforcement and audit.
- Since 25 May 2018, the ICO has the power to impose a civil monetary penalty (CMP) on a data controller of up to £17million (20m Euro) or 4% of global turnover.
- The GDPR and the DPA2018 gave the ICO new strengthened powers, some of which, such as assessment notices can be used for this investigation.
- The data protection principles in the GDPR evolved from the original DPA, and set out the main responsibilities for organisations. Article 5 of the GDPR requires that personal data shall be:
- Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals;
- Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes;
- Adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed;
- Accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date
- Kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary; and
- Processed using appropriate technical or organisational measures in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data.
- Article 5(2) requires that “the controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate, compliance with the principles.”
- Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) under past and current law are subject to a right of appeal to the (First-tier Tribunal) General Regulatory Chamber against the imposition of the monetary penalty and/or the amount of the penalty specified in the monetary penalty notice.
- Any monetary penalty is paid into the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund and is not kept by ICO.
- To report a concern to the ICO go to ico.org.uk/concerns.
Latest News from
Information Commissioner's Office
Winner of the ICO’s Practitioner Award for Excellence in Data Protection 2020 announced07/04/2020 12:25:00
Recognising the increasingly vital role played by data protection professionals, the third ICO Practitioner Award for Excellence in Data Protection is awarded to Barry Moult, Information Governance and Privacy Consultant, and former Head of Information Governance at an NHS Trust.
Blog: Community groups and COVID-19: what you need to know about data protection01/04/2020 09:10:00
Blog posted by: Ian Hulme, Director for Regulatory Assurance at the ICO, 30 March 2020.
Statement in response to the use of mobile phone tracking data to help during the coronavirus crisis30/03/2020 12:25:00
The ICO’s Deputy Commissioner Steve Wood recently responded to the use of mobile phone tracking data to help during the coronavirus crisis.
Blog: Community groups and COVID-19: what you need to know about data protection27/03/2020 13:20:00
A blog by Ian Hulme, Director for Regulatory Assurance at the ICO.
Council employee fined £400 for illegally deleted audio file16/03/2020 10:25:00
A council employee has been fined £400 for an offence under the Freedom of Information (FOI) regulations.
Data protection and coronavirus12/03/2020 15:25:00
We all share the same concerns about the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The need for public bodies and health practitioners to be able to communicate directly with people when dealing with this type of health emergency has never been greater.
Blog: Don’t get caught out when it comes to pupil photos10/03/2020 15:10:00
Blog posted by: Andrew Laing, ICO Head of Data Protection Complaints, 09 March 2020.
Combining privacy and innovation: ICO Sandbox six months on10/03/2020 12:25:00
It’s been an exciting, interesting and challenging first six months for the ICO Sandbox – both for those externally involved in the various projects and for the ICO staff working on the scheme. Ian Hulme discusses the progress so far.