News Porn email leak

[DaGaffer]

This is what I fail to understand. Why is the failure to secure data and handle data correctly before sending it on not a breach in itself?

And cheers for the contructive criticism Chilly

It is, but its not the same breach as the ACS breach. They have to be treated separately. And the BT breach is a lower level infringement because no data was actually lost/stolen when the data was in their care.

 

[Ctuchik]

Frankly it's not Sky's, or any other ISP's, job to mount a legal challenge against a court order they've recieved.

why not? many ppl will probably change their ISP if they find out their current one doesn't try to protect their privacy.

so if nothing else they might want to fight it out of self preservation.

 

[Scouse]

BT lawyers asked for the adjournment, saying that the firm needed to see details of the security system that would be used to store its customers' data before it could comply with any order

Scouse, you're a retard.

/toldyaso hat ON

 

[Krazeh]

BT lawyers asked for the adjournment, saying that the firm needed to see details of the security system that would be used to store its customers' data before it could comply with any order

/toldyaso hat ON

It's hardly a surprise. If BT hadn't done it then one of the other ISPs would have done; they all need to make some sort of gesture now to try and win back some customer confidence and questioning/confirming the security of the requesting firm is a fairly safe basis on which to make such a gesture.

 

[Ch3tan]

I tried to post this earlier but some idiot has blocked the word porn on the router in the office. I was too lazy to reset it.

 

[Scouse]

It's hardly a surprise. If BT hadn't done it then one of the other ISPs would have done; they all need to make some sort of gesture now to try and win back some customer confidence and questioning/confirming the security of the requesting firm is a fairly safe basis on which to make such a gesture.

I agree that it's hardly a surprise (although you wouldn't acknowledge the possibility until after they did it)

They have to be seen adhering to the spirit of the law as well as the letter. Jobsworth "I'm just adhering to my responsibilities under the DPA" doesn't cut it. And I think they're worried that someone could make the legal argument that they should have been taking more care about who they handed the data to...

...which was what I'd said all along...

 

[Krazeh]

I agree that it's hardly a surprise (although you wouldn't acknowledge the possibility until after they did it)

They have to be seen adhering to the spirit of the law as well as the letter. Jobsworth "I'm just adhering to my responsibilities under the DPA" doesn't cut it. And I think they're worried that someone could make the legal argument that they should have been taking more care about who they handed the data to...

...which was what I'd said all along...

I don't think it's anything of the sort. It seems to me that this has been a major PR disaster and the ISPs need to do something to save face. The fact the disaster surrounded a leak of data has given them a very easy to use excuse for asking for an adjournment to the current court order request. I don't see it has anything to do with legal arguments about them having taken more care or their responsibilities under the DPA. Simply because there isn't a major DPA issue they've got to concern themselves with.

 

[Ctuchik]

tbh i'm mildly surprised that the ISP companies isnt flexing their muscles more.

closing the internet for a couple of days in protest would probably get almost anyone to back down