"Sadly, 2008 has undoubtedly been the year of data breaches and data losses" said Information Commissioner Richard Thomas at a speech to the RSA Conference Europe about data breaches.
There have been 28 breaches by central government; 75 within the NHS and other health bodies; with 80 reported in the private sector.
I recognise that some breaches are being discovered because of improved checks and audits as a welcome result of taking data security more seriously.
Much more worrying is where -- in an age of ever increasing cyber-crime, illegal access and identity theft -- organisations are not even aware that personal information which they hold has been stolen, obtained by fraud or otherwise fallen into the wrong hands.
Worse still, there are still organisations which are not aware of the risks that they face with any collection of data and have not taken adequate steps to deal with those risks.
Worst of all, are those organisations who have simply failed to understand just how much personal information they are accumulating through more and more and ever-cheaper technology.
Used properly and intelligently, personal information leads to better customer service, improved efficiency, more effective law enforcement and protection of the vulnerable and a better quality of life for everyone.
But this means that respecting and protecting people's privacy and personal information -- data protection -- has never been more important.
As government, public, private and third sectors harness new technology to collect vast amounts of personal information, the risks of information being abused increases.
The more you centralise data collection, the greater the risk of multiple records going missing or wrong decisions about real people being made.
Put simply, holding huge collections of personal data brings significant risks.
It is therefore alarming that -- despite high profile data losses, the threat of enforcement action, a plethora of reports on data handling and clear ICO guidance -- the flow of data breaches and sloppy information handling continues.
Of course it is important to recognise that incidents vary from regrettable one-off and probably unavoidable accidents to wholesale and systematic failure to take information security seriously.
There must be a wake-up call each time there are headlines about unencrypted laptops which have gone missing, health or financial records found in the streets or memory sticks or hard drives which cannot be accounted for.
There must be complete clarity on who, inside each organisation, has responsibility for safeguarding each set of personal data.
We (and many others) have long argued that our powers, sanctions and resources -- fixed in another era -- are now wholly inadequate.
The notification fee for the largest organisations needs to be increased to give the ICO the resources we need to do our job properly.
As a matter of good practice, the ICO should be contacted immediately when any significant breach is discovered and, with the benefit of risk assessments applying to the particular situation, we can ensure that individuals who are affected are being told where that is necessary or genuinely useful.
But I do not favour placing a statutory duty on organisations to notify people directly whenever a breach occurs and I am doubtful that a satisfactory law could satisfactorily distinguish in advance between situations where notification is needed and those where it is not.
Automated summary from: PublicTechnology.net