*/
In a two part feature, Graham Cunningham looks at the new guidelines on Information Security; in part 1, he examines the guidelines regarding electronic devices.
There is good news; and there is bad news. The good news is that there are only two or three barristers on the ‘ICO list’. The bad news, in these harsh economic times, is that you could be spending a lot of your increasingly hard-earned cash on paying administrative penalties to the Government.
To what am I alluding? The following is a true story. A barrister went away on holiday, leaving her home in the care of two plumbers who were fitting a new boiler. She stressed the need for them to secure the premises and set the alarm when they had finished work. When she returned from holiday, her purse and laptop were missing.
Unfortunately, the laptop contained highly sensitive information about people she was representing and it had insufficient technical security to protect such information. This resulted - in this instance - in an undertaking given to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rather than a penalty (‘the list’). However, there is no guarantee that the ICO will continue to be satisfied with an undertaking. Just to put the matter in sobering perspective, the maximum penalty for the worst cases is currently £500,000, and the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) has indicated that its policy does not automatically cover such penalties. In other words, you literally cannot afford to ignore this.
The basics
What do you need to know? Let me start with the basics:
The recommendations
All very interesting, you will say, but what do you actually have to do? Your Bar Council IT panel has drafted “Guidelines on Information Security” which is a splendid read if you have time. Since most of you don’t have the time, I will summarise its “Recommendations”:
Next month, information security for physical materials.
Graham Cunningham, Hardwicke Chambers, with contributions from Iain Mitchell QC, Clive Freedman and Jacqueline Reid of the Bar Council IT Panel
To what am I alluding? The following is a true story. A barrister went away on holiday, leaving her home in the care of two plumbers who were fitting a new boiler. She stressed the need for them to secure the premises and set the alarm when they had finished work. When she returned from holiday, her purse and laptop were missing.
Unfortunately, the laptop contained highly sensitive information about people she was representing and it had insufficient technical security to protect such information. This resulted - in this instance - in an undertaking given to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rather than a penalty (‘the list’). However, there is no guarantee that the ICO will continue to be satisfied with an undertaking. Just to put the matter in sobering perspective, the maximum penalty for the worst cases is currently £500,000, and the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) has indicated that its policy does not automatically cover such penalties. In other words, you literally cannot afford to ignore this.
The basics
What do you need to know? Let me start with the basics:
The recommendations
All very interesting, you will say, but what do you actually have to do? Your Bar Council IT panel has drafted “Guidelines on Information Security” which is a splendid read if you have time. Since most of you don’t have the time, I will summarise its “Recommendations”:
Next month, information security for physical materials.
Graham Cunningham, Hardwicke Chambers, with contributions from Iain Mitchell QC, Clive Freedman and Jacqueline Reid of the Bar Council IT Panel
In a two part feature, Graham Cunningham looks at the new guidelines on Information Security; in part 1, he examines the guidelines regarding electronic devices.
There is good news; and there is bad news. The good news is that there are only two or three barristers on the ‘ICO list’. The bad news, in these harsh economic times, is that you could be spending a lot of your increasingly hard-earned cash on paying administrative penalties to the Government.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Get ready to lead in a rapidly evolving digital landscape
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Baffled by the government’s proposed s 41 reforms and by the Law Commission’s preferred model, Laura Hoyano looks at what won’t work, and what will