Comments on: Lost Data – Pay Compensation?!?!

By: Mel Smith

Mel Smith — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:28:19 +0000

Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

By: term life insurance

term life insurance — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:15:52 +0000

Your writing style is quite a good role model for me – I have recently started my own blog and I am really struggling to write articles!

By: Purchase

Purchase — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:38 +0000

Just read some other comments on your blog, and I agree with the general impression, your doing a great job!

By: Xbox review

Xbox review — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:51:35 +0000

Good post, adding it to my bookmarks!

By: One Small Memory Stick… £1.5M… : View From The Bunker

One Small Memory Stick… £1.5M… : View From The Bunker — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:37:09 +0000

[...] government today cancelled the contract with the 3rd party who lost data on a memory stick. The cost of the contract… £1.5m. They are also reviewing other contracts held with that [...]

By: Guy Bunker

Guy Bunker — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:28:19 +0000

There does need to be a penalty, but it should be ‘fixed’ as part of the legislation – rather than on some ad hoc basis. Some fines are already levied by various bodies on companies who are careless with data, it certainly isn’t all of them. That could of course change with legislation. It also must apply to governments and government departments who, so often, seem to be exempt from these types of charges…

The idea of it being an insurable requirement is a good one – including 3rd party data handlers (40+% of data loss happens through 3rd parties).

By: j

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:02:13 +0000

Whilst one entirely agrees with the ‘no compensation’ aspect of the article, nevertheless there does need to be a system of statutory penalties (fines) for the offending organisation. Let us not forget that governement bodies have special status

Fines are a necessary evil to penalise these organisations and ensure that they themselves are accountable for any data loss. These fines should be on a ‘per record’ (say £100 per item) basis and levied against the offending organisation – they could also be used to offset any future litigation arising for subsequent misuse of the lost data.

In fact to take the whole matter one step further let us make this an insurable requirement. Therefore in the future no government contacts should be awarded without the company concerned demonstrating they have adequate insurance cover. This requirement will in itself be self regulating because those companies who have an historic record of data loss will suffer increased premiums and therefore may withdraw from the market

After all, in another context, no small contactor (one man tree surgeon) will be awarded County Council contacts unless they can show they have £10 million public liability insurance in place