Prime Minister's health records breached in database attack

Scottish rich and powerful victimized

By Dan Goodin, 2nd March 2009

Personal medical records belonging to Scotland's rich and powerful - including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Holyrood's First Minister Alex Salmond - have been illegally accessed in a breach of a national database that holds details of 2.5 million people.

The files contained names, ages, addresses, and occupations of the patients, in addition to medical information such as a list of any current medications and allergies to medicines, according to The Sunday Mail. The records of BBC newswoman Jackie Bird (an earlier version of this story mistakenly referred to her as "newsman") and former Labour leader Jack McConnell and his culture chief wife Bridget were also accessed.

The files were part of the Emergency Care Summary system database, which was established three years ago amid guarantees by the NHS that it was protected using the "highest standards of security." NHS staff generally have to ask patients' permission before reading records except when a patient is unconscious or otherwise unable to give consent.

An NHS Fife doctor has been charged with contravention of the Data Protection Act in the case and appeared on petition at Dunfermline in late December. He made no plea or declaration and isn't scheduled to appear again in court until later this year.

Government officials quoted by The Sunday Mail said the breach didn't appear to be motivated by financial gain and that the only thing linking the victims was that they were famous or had a high public profile.

It's at least the second security breach to personally hit a British government official in as many weeks. UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw recently saw his Hotmail account ransacked by advanced fee fraudsters, who used it to send his contacts a scam email claiming he was in desperate need of financial assistance after being stranded in Nigeria. ®

Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner

COMMENTS

House Rules Send Corrections

All Reader Comments (64)

Latest Comments

Posted Wednesday 4th March 2009 20:07 GMT

Anonymous Coward

@The BBC have been thorough with their reporting on this.

lol. BBC. You don't arn't under the illusion that they're a legitimate news organisation are you'?

Posted Wednesday 4th March 2009 20:07 GMT

John Smith

AC@15:06

"He added: "What happened, from what I saw on the CCTV and I heard in evidence, was that the behaviour of Miss French and Mr Jarman, which they cannot deny because there is visible evidence, was bizarre behaviour which amounted to harassment.""

Let me see if I got this right

So 4 different neighbours spy on your garden

You respond with a something designed to upset them and discourage them from spying, which is what you think they have been doing.

This behaviour is on completly private property and therefor you have an expectation of a right to privacy.

You are accused of harassment.

Nosey, officious busybody neighbours spying on other people when its none of their business.

This isn't Redditch by any chance?

Posted Wednesday 4th March 2009 15:23 GMT

Anonymous Coward

Re: The BBC have been thorough with their reporting on this.

This is off-topic, but one of the "most popular stories now" caught my eye: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7923718.stm

"CCTV simulated-sex pair sentenced

"A couple who were caught on CCTV cameras simulating sex to torment their neighbours have both been given two-year restraining orders.

...

"Deputy District Judge Alan Fowler said the CCTV cameras, which had been pointed into the couple's back garden by the four neighbours, did invade their privacy but they were entitled to do this by law as they were detecting a crime.

"He said: "The response of Mr Jarman and Miss French to the cameras was entirely unnecessary and bizarre in the extreme, with Miss French holding up her jumper and walking up and down with a sign saying 'pervert' on it.

""Behaving in the way they did was very odd."

It does sound like there's more to the harassment than just how they responded to the CCTV. But even so, this interpretation of the matter is more than just worrying. It sounds like if your privacy is invaded, and you respond to that invasion of your privacy by larking about and expressing your objection to such intrusion, your response can count as "harassment", thereby justifying the invasion of privacy itself, which then counts as "detecting a crime"!

We really do need a Big Brother icon these days. Paris instead, because she looks like she's keeping a watchful eye on things.