Loss of RAF Data
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pont has hit it firmly on thumb. If it's a data transfer IT SHOULD NOT BE ON A PC!!
Someone, somewhere, is up to something.
The fish smell is overpowering. Methinks 600,000 people should all be just a bit worried; not so much with the loss, but with the way the data was being handled. Knowledge is power, and someone had access to a huge amount of it. Why?
Someone, somewhere, is up to something.
The fish smell is overpowering. Methinks 600,000 people should all be just a bit worried; not so much with the loss, but with the way the data was being handled. Knowledge is power, and someone had access to a huge amount of it. Why?
1. Military makes government look bad.
2. Government loses 25m peoples data, making selves look bad.
3. Military continues to make government look bad, government continues to lose data.
4. Government looks bad.
5. Military Officer (not a civil serpent, but a RN Officer) loses data, military looks bad.
6. Government looks slightly better as even the military can lose data, and are quiet at last.
Is it me, or are there 'dark forces' at work here?
(dark forces could well be a 2006 Merlot)
2. Government loses 25m peoples data, making selves look bad.
3. Military continues to make government look bad, government continues to lose data.
4. Government looks bad.
5. Military Officer (not a civil serpent, but a RN Officer) loses data, military looks bad.
6. Government looks slightly better as even the military can lose data, and are quiet at last.
Is it me, or are there 'dark forces' at work here?
(dark forces could well be a 2006 Merlot)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe that they have 600 000 names and it is just people interested or appyilng to join the military! As others have mentioned, this sounds like a data base of all the british military going back say 15-20 years. I hope the Sunday press dig out more info tomorrow. Can't wait for prime ministers question time next Wednesday
Guest
Posts: n/a
No independant report that it was an RN officer, just an 'official' statement. Believe what you want (or are told) - (Oh FFS, I'm sounding like MGD or any of his other alias's!)
Too much (or maybe not enough) St Peters tonight. Sleep Bingo caption is lit.
Too much (or maybe not enough) St Peters tonight. Sleep Bingo caption is lit.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The numbers are barely credible.
I was told on good authority that the AFCO foot fall for officers to the RAF is 12000 pa. Even assuming a ratio of 5-1 that could put the airmen footfall at 60000 pa. This could of course sum to the 600 000 for the RAF alone but is it really credible that they recorded and retained records of everyone of these wanabees?
Factor this up for the Army and down for the Navy then the total 10 year foot fall could, I guess, reach 3 million over 10 years. Thus they have 'lost' records for 20% of the people interested in the armed forces?
I suppose this is just credible if my assumptions are right and they didn't include the 80% who just popped in on the off chance 'I was walking down the street and it began to rain'.
As the 12000 wanabee officer initial foot fall falls to 12000 and the into training pilot figure to 120, the whole numbers game starts to skew. OK, into Army training will probably match the higher numbers. Into RAF training, even at the bottom end, will remain far lower.
Kippers for breakfast I think,
from the smell.
I was told on good authority that the AFCO foot fall for officers to the RAF is 12000 pa. Even assuming a ratio of 5-1 that could put the airmen footfall at 60000 pa. This could of course sum to the 600 000 for the RAF alone but is it really credible that they recorded and retained records of everyone of these wanabees?
Factor this up for the Army and down for the Navy then the total 10 year foot fall could, I guess, reach 3 million over 10 years. Thus they have 'lost' records for 20% of the people interested in the armed forces?
I suppose this is just credible if my assumptions are right and they didn't include the 80% who just popped in on the off chance 'I was walking down the street and it began to rain'.
As the 12000 wanabee officer initial foot fall falls to 12000 and the into training pilot figure to 120, the whole numbers game starts to skew. OK, into Army training will probably match the higher numbers. Into RAF training, even at the bottom end, will remain far lower.
Kippers for breakfast I think,
from the smell.
These numbers do not add up. Where on earth do they get 600 000 people from interested in joining the RN or RAF whose joint manning totals less than 75 000. Do these figures include all the Sea Cadets and ATC cadets and all those serving in the Reserves? I still cannot see where 600 000 would come from. Which individual needs to have all this information on his laptop - what was his job that meant he could put so many individuals data at risk?
It makes you wonder who else is wandering around with all the details of those currently serving on their lap top just waiting to be pinched.
VMD
It makes you wonder who else is wandering around with all the details of those currently serving on their lap top just waiting to be pinched.
VMD
To ease the unfounded suspicions, I've got it on good authority that it was an RN officer type. I'm guessing that the 600k figure is everythnig from those who sent in an email to the website asking for more information, to those who went all the way and joined. Given the wastage ratio en route, 600k over 10 years or so doesn't seem that high - say 60k per year, of which maybe 6 - 10k would have joined.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Just a thought, but there have been several offences committed under the DPA98.
The obvious one is the failure to implement proper safeguards to protect the data. I suggest this is the lesser of the crimes. As the Government says, you cannot legislate against this form of human endeavour.
The second, and far more serious offence, IMHO, is the retention of data beyond the period when it would have been reasonable to retain such data. This is clearly a systemic failure going on for more than 10 years.
Clearly no one saw the need to do a filter sort and archive or delete data. I suppose they would argue the need to retain information on a 16 year old as he may eventually return and reapply many years down the line. But to retain the data on an active list or out of archive!
The obvious one is the failure to implement proper safeguards to protect the data. I suggest this is the lesser of the crimes. As the Government says, you cannot legislate against this form of human endeavour.
The second, and far more serious offence, IMHO, is the retention of data beyond the period when it would have been reasonable to retain such data. This is clearly a systemic failure going on for more than 10 years.
Clearly no one saw the need to do a filter sort and archive or delete data. I suppose they would argue the need to retain information on a 16 year old as he may eventually return and reapply many years down the line. But to retain the data on an active list or out of archive!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday Times
Perhaps some clarification from the Sunday Times article:
The article also discusses the threat to Muslim service personnel following the 'kidnap and beheading' plot of last year.
'Two Jobs' is to make another apology - er "statement" - in parliament tomorrow. To use the same terms as one of his predecessors, is his department really 'fit for purpose'?
The personal details of every person who wrote inquiring about a job with the navy, RAF and the Royal Marines in the last 10 years were held on the stolen laptop.
The MoD says the data include the names, home addresses, bank and passport details, national insurance and National Health Service numbers of thousands of staff and potential recruits. A Whitehall official said yesterday the details of many serving servicemen and women were among the data.
The information was not encrypted and would therefore be accessible to anyone with basic technical knowledge.
The MoD says the data include the names, home addresses, bank and passport details, national insurance and National Health Service numbers of thousands of staff and potential recruits. A Whitehall official said yesterday the details of many serving servicemen and women were among the data.
The information was not encrypted and would therefore be accessible to anyone with basic technical knowledge.
'Two Jobs' is to make another apology - er "statement" - in parliament tomorrow. To use the same terms as one of his predecessors, is his department really 'fit for purpose'?
I agree with PN. There is no reason that this data should have been downloaded onto a local disc. The security systems should have ensured that sensitive data like this should remain on a secure server, only accessed by suitably authorised personnel and not downloadable.
Technology is now available that you do not need this stuff locally and you only access the information whilst online.
Why doesn't the government get its act together????
Technology is now available that you do not need this stuff locally and you only access the information whilst online.
Why doesn't the government get its act together????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technology is now available that you do not need this stuff locally and you only access the information whilst online.
MoD defends £5bn IT system
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMG recently stated that the personal details of 25,000,000 people who received Child Benefit had been lost - this data included Bank details.
If there are 25 million receiving benefit then there are at least 25 million children out there - total 50 million people so far.
The latest estimate for the total population of the UK gives a total population in mid 2006 of 60,587,000
Thus, if the Child Benefit claimant is the Mother and there is only one child, there are only 10,587,000 people out there to be Husbands/Partners; Grandparents, Great Grandparents, Maiden Aunts, Spinsters, Bachelors etc.
The only way the sums would work out is if the data lost was the personal details of EVERY PERSON WHO HAS EVER CLAIMED CHILD BENEFIT SINCE ITS INCEPTION
Its really quite pleasant here in France.
If there are 25 million receiving benefit then there are at least 25 million children out there - total 50 million people so far.
The latest estimate for the total population of the UK gives a total population in mid 2006 of 60,587,000
Thus, if the Child Benefit claimant is the Mother and there is only one child, there are only 10,587,000 people out there to be Husbands/Partners; Grandparents, Great Grandparents, Maiden Aunts, Spinsters, Bachelors etc.
The only way the sums would work out is if the data lost was the personal details of EVERY PERSON WHO HAS EVER CLAIMED CHILD BENEFIT SINCE ITS INCEPTION
Its really quite pleasant here in France.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Back on the laptop.
AFCO has records on a particular system which, I am reliably told, goes back about 3 years. The records from the previous system would not have been transfered to the new system.
The figures of 6 or 10 years and 600000 do not therefore hold up in relation to normal systems out there.
Somone must have done something quite deliberate to actually get 600000 records on to that laptop. As the STh said (I think they did), what was a junior officer doing with all those records.
AFCO has records on a particular system which, I am reliably told, goes back about 3 years. The records from the previous system would not have been transfered to the new system.
The figures of 6 or 10 years and 600000 do not therefore hold up in relation to normal systems out there.
Somone must have done something quite deliberate to actually get 600000 records on to that laptop. As the STh said (I think they did), what was a junior officer doing with all those records.
PPatRoN
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: England
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following comments are based entirely on uninformed speculation.
I wonder if this might raise a question about protective marking. One person's application data might be marked confidential, or confidential exclusive, but when you bulk up to half a million.... It's the same sort of data, but the sheer volume seems to me to merit a level of protection way above that you'd arrive at by asking only, "What sort of data is it?"
adr
I wonder if this might raise a question about protective marking. One person's application data might be marked confidential, or confidential exclusive, but when you bulk up to half a million.... It's the same sort of data, but the sheer volume seems to me to merit a level of protection way above that you'd arrive at by asking only, "What sort of data is it?"
adr
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
adr,
What you allude to is indeed part of the security mantra of agregation.
It is the same argument for not publishing publicly collated open source material etc as you are potentially focusing a hostile agent on interesting information.
How many people would be interested in the complete data on 10 people? or a 100 people scattered throughout the UK, or even a 1000.
But given a working population of some 24 millions we are talking 2.5% of the working population. Now even a marketting company would die for that focussed data set.
What you allude to is indeed part of the security mantra of agregation.
It is the same argument for not publishing publicly collated open source material etc as you are potentially focusing a hostile agent on interesting information.
How many people would be interested in the complete data on 10 people? or a 100 people scattered throughout the UK, or even a 1000.
But given a working population of some 24 millions we are talking 2.5% of the working population. Now even a marketting company would die for that focussed data set.
PPatRoN
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: England
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, PN. So, to vary a little the question you and others have already raised, I'd say, choose one from these two:
adr
- What was (reportedly) an Area Career Liaison Officer of Petty Officer rank doing with a file marked [x] on his laptop, and how did he protect it while in his custody?
- Why was this file marked [y] when it should have been marked [x]?
adr
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Actually it might be far more than 600,000
AA jr applied to join the RN last year. She filled in the officer application form. The form asked for all her personal data, and additionally the name, former name, place/date of birth and passport numbers of both her parents. This will be standard for anyone who makes a formal application, as the info on their parents is reqd for negative vetting. How many more people are now involved, I wonder?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Two Jobs' is to make another apology - er "statement" - in parliament tomorrow. To use the same terms as one of his predecessors, is his department really 'fit for purpose'?
In addition to whatever "standard" punishment the officer will receive, I think he should print out 600,000 letters of apology and personally sign, seal and post everyone of them. Cock.