T-Mobile investigation a year in the making
By Nicole Kobie
Posted on 11 Dec 2009 at 09:13
T-Mobile first notified data watchdogs that members of its staff were selling off personal data nearly a year ago, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has admitted.
Last month, the ICO said it was investigating one of the major mobile operators - later found to be T-Mobile - after employees were discovered be selling off user data.
Since then, a Freedom of Information Act request has revealed that T-Mobile notified the ICO of the problem on 16 December last year.
The request also asked the ICO to detail how many people were involved in the case, how many warrants had been doled out, and correspondence between the watchdog and the firm - all of which the ICO refused to do, as such information is exempt from the act.
ICO has launched a full investigation and is preparing a a case for possible prosecution
An ICO spokeswoman claimed that the watchdog has several ongoing investigations that have not been made public, and has "launched a full investigation and is preparing a a case for possible prosecution."
Why no Phorm investigation?
The FOIA request also asked why the ICO "would take such drastic action against T-Mobile, yet take no action at all with respect to the BT/Phorm scandal?"
To that, the ICO responded: "As you will appreciate the issues involved in these two matters are very different.
"In respect of the T-Mobile issue the ICO is looking into possible criminal offences committed under the DPA [data protection act] whereas the matter of BT and Phorm regarding targeted online marketing did not involve any criminal offences under the DPA but raised issues of fair processing and compliance with the first Data Protection principle," it concludes.
From around the web
"did not involve any criminal offences"
"raised issues of fair processing and compliance with the first Data Protection principle,"
So, according to the ICO, non-compliance to the DPA is NOT a criminal offence?
By greemble on 11 Dec 2009 ![]()
Yes. It's a civil matter, I think this will change next April but in the period last year to right now? Not criminal.
By steviesteveo on 12 Dec 2009 ![]()
advertisement
- Laptop bag reviews: nine tested
- Sony VAIO T Series Ultrabook review: first look
- Revealed: the military standards and robots HP uses to test its laptops
- Windows 8: multi-monitors and double standards?
- Why is TalkTalk's year-old porn filter suddenly big news?
- Why are laptop screens so far behind mobiles?
- HP EliteBook Folio review: first look
- The shoebox-sized all-in-one printer
- Forget the Ultrabook: here comes the HP Sleekbook
- HP Spectre XT review: first look
- Why you have to be left in the dark on OS patches
- Is Microsoft mismanaging Windows on ARM?
- Dealing with spam surrogates
- Why 3G broadband can be better and cheaper than ADSL
- Is Twitter bad for business?
- Publishing your email address isn't a security disaster
- Why you'll need a fax machine to develop iOS apps
- Learning to adapt to the mobile web
- Why you shouldn't use WPS on your Wi-Fi network
- Disabled users suffer when software breaks the rules
advertisement
