Data security
Benefiting from a trail of destruction
Data destruction and IT asset disposal are heavily regulated and complex areas, especially within the NHS, which is responsible for the safekeeping of extremely personal data on millions of UK citizens. In the light of escalating efforts by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998, data destruction specialist, Julie Pickersgill, of Advanced Digital Dynamics, outlines the requirements on estates departments for the secure disposal of IT equipment – and how to avoid falling foul of the law.
an NHS Trust or other Government body. Only recently the ICO imposed a £200,000 penalty on NHS Surrey after patient records were found on a secondhand computer bought through an online auction site. In 2012-2013, the watchdog imposed civil monetary penalties of over £2.6 million on 23 data controllers and organisers – for serious breaches of the Data Protection Act and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations.
I
Laying down the law Under the Data Protection Act 1998, organisations have a duty of care to ensure that no confidential data collected and held by them is released into the public domain in an unauthorised or accidental manner. Under the 2007Waste Electronic & Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Directive, there is also an obligation to process redundant IT equipment within certain legal parameters, and there are another half a dozen laws that can apply to IT disposal, depending on the methods employed. In 2008 NHS chief executive,
Sir David Nicholson, attempted to ensure standardisation of procedures via a mandate demanding the encryption, by Trusts across the UK, of removable data. At the time the mandate was unique to the NHS – although it was later also adopted by the Cabinet Office. While a very positive step forward, the mandate did not provide
t seems that hardly a week goes by without a story in the news highlighting yet another breach of data security by
guidelines specific to IT asset disposal, leaving this area open to interpretation, and vulnerable to the risk of both asset and data loss as a result of a fragmented approach to compliance.
Still some confusion Sir David Nicholson’s directive resulted in a policy stating that ‘all removable data must be encrypted’. Five years on, there is still some confusion within the NHS as to what actually constitutes ‘removable data’. From reading the supporting correspondence it is clear that the intention was to prevent data being transported off site unless encrypted.
However, a large proportion of NHS Trusts still send unencrypted desktop devices off site by the van-load for destruction, an act which many believe contravenes the directive.
Taking ownership The majority of Trusts subsequently developed their own policy document, but these are highly inconsistent, both in their approach, and content. Such documents also rely on one department or individual with some level of authority both to take ownership of policies and procedures, and to ensure their implementation – which in turn makes that department or individual liable for any ‘slip’ leading to a breach, and potentially a large fine from the ICO and the Environment Agency. It is not sufficient to simply
destroy data: organisations also have to be able to prove that their data was securely destroyed using approved methods. In the event of a breach, during the investigation that follows organisations will be required to show traceability of all data assets, and documentation including a valid data destruction certificate.
ADD’s Data Destruction team leaders, Aidan McNab and Martin Pearson.
‘Definitive proof’ How many Trusts can genuinely claim that they have definitive proof of destruction of all redundant IT and data? In my personal experience, only perhaps one in 10 NHS organisations can lay hands on the appropriate records upon request. This, in itself, is a breach
Health Estate Journal September 2013
51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122
