This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/government-has-no-idea-how-many-people-accessed-asylum-seekers-details

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Government has no idea how many people accessed asylum seekers' details Government has no idea how many people accessed asylum seekers' details
(about 5 hours later)
The Department of Immigration does not know how many people accessed the personal details of almost 10,000 asylum seekers in detention that were accidentally placed on its website, raising the prospect that the confidential information has been circulated to an unknown number of people around the world.The Department of Immigration does not know how many people accessed the personal details of almost 10,000 asylum seekers in detention that were accidentally placed on its website, raising the prospect that the confidential information has been circulated to an unknown number of people around the world.
Correspondence between the office of the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, and department officials obtained under freedom of information laws by Guardian Australia includes an internal briefing on the day the breach was discovered. It says: “The department is unable to identify how many people may have downloaded the information.”Correspondence between the office of the immigration minister, Scott Morrison, and department officials obtained under freedom of information laws by Guardian Australia includes an internal briefing on the day the breach was discovered. It says: “The department is unable to identify how many people may have downloaded the information.”
The briefing from the acting director of the department’s media team, Leah Tuckwell, continues: “However, there have been 398 views of the page that included a link to the report.”The briefing from the acting director of the department’s media team, Leah Tuckwell, continues: “However, there have been 398 views of the page that included a link to the report.”
The revelation raises further questions about the potential safety of asylum seekers detained in Australia, after numerous lawyers, politicians, and refugee advocates voiced concerns that the data’s publication could expose people to harm if returned home.The revelation raises further questions about the potential safety of asylum seekers detained in Australia, after numerous lawyers, politicians, and refugee advocates voiced concerns that the data’s publication could expose people to harm if returned home.
The background briefing continues: “At this stage, the department believes that if a person has downloaded or saved the report, they can still access the personal information, even though it has now been removed [from the department’s website].”The background briefing continues: “At this stage, the department believes that if a person has downloaded or saved the report, they can still access the personal information, even though it has now been removed [from the department’s website].”
The FoI disclosure also reveals that one of the minister’s media advisers, Julian Leembruggen, wanted to exaggerate the technological expertise required to access the data contained within the public file. A draft version of a statement later released by the minister sent to the department’s communications team said: "Accessing the data required sophisticated IT skills."The FoI disclosure also reveals that one of the minister’s media advisers, Julian Leembruggen, wanted to exaggerate the technological expertise required to access the data contained within the public file. A draft version of a statement later released by the minister sent to the department’s communications team said: "Accessing the data required sophisticated IT skills."
But Tuckwell flagged the sentence for review and wrote, “I’m not sure we can say that,” before the draft was later sent back to the minister’s office. The line was removed in the published version.But Tuckwell flagged the sentence for review and wrote, “I’m not sure we can say that,” before the draft was later sent back to the minister’s office. The line was removed in the published version.
Leembruggen wrote that this draft was “composed in consultation” with the secretary of the department, Martin Bowles.Leembruggen wrote that this draft was “composed in consultation” with the secretary of the department, Martin Bowles.
Guardian Australia defended its reporting of the breach after the minister claimed in his release that the information was not “in an easily accessible format within the public domain”. It only took three clicks to access the underlying data.Guardian Australia defended its reporting of the breach after the minister claimed in his release that the information was not “in an easily accessible format within the public domain”. It only took three clicks to access the underlying data.
On the day of the breach the minister identified the location and name of the document, which exacerbated the risk that the underlying data could be accessed by people who had already downloaded it.On the day of the breach the minister identified the location and name of the document, which exacerbated the risk that the underlying data could be accessed by people who had already downloaded it.
Correspondence between department officers on the day also appeared to flag this risk. After Morrison named the document, Tuckwell sent an email with an article addressing the issue by Crikey, and said: “We may hear more about this article.”Correspondence between department officers on the day also appeared to flag this risk. After Morrison named the document, Tuckwell sent an email with an article addressing the issue by Crikey, and said: “We may hear more about this article.”
A spokeswoman for the minister said: “The minister stands by the statements issued on the day as this reflects the government’s position.A spokeswoman for the minister said: “The minister stands by the statements issued on the day as this reflects the government’s position.
“The matters referred to do not reflect inconsistencies, rather further information the minister thought necessary to communicate about this matter.”“The matters referred to do not reflect inconsistencies, rather further information the minister thought necessary to communicate about this matter.”
Guardian Australia reported in February that the personal details of almost 10,000 asylum seekers – which included names, nationalities, dates of births and other identifying information – had been inadvertently published on the department’s website.Guardian Australia reported in February that the personal details of almost 10,000 asylum seekers – which included names, nationalities, dates of births and other identifying information – had been inadvertently published on the department’s website.
Dozens of asylum seekers have begun legal action relating to the breach and the privacy commissioner is conducting an investigation.Dozens of asylum seekers have begun legal action relating to the breach and the privacy commissioner is conducting an investigation.
The string of emails obtained by the FoI request reveals the panicked reactions of senior officials in the hours after the breach. The immigration minister was included personally in some of the correspondence, as was his chief of staff, senior advisers and Bowles.The string of emails obtained by the FoI request reveals the panicked reactions of senior officials in the hours after the breach. The immigration minister was included personally in some of the correspondence, as was his chief of staff, senior advisers and Bowles.
One email, written by Morrison’s chief of staff, Ann Brandon-Baker, is written entirely in capitals: “STILL AWAITING TECHNICAL INFORMATION AS TO HOW SOMEONE WOULD GO ABOUT ACCESSING THE EMBEDDED DATA,” part of it reads.One email, written by Morrison’s chief of staff, Ann Brandon-Baker, is written entirely in capitals: “STILL AWAITING TECHNICAL INFORMATION AS TO HOW SOMEONE WOULD GO ABOUT ACCESSING THE EMBEDDED DATA,” part of it reads.
Other draft press releases filed by Morrison’s office are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. They also reveal that Brandon-Baker revised a press release to remove detail about the severity of the breach.Other draft press releases filed by Morrison’s office are riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. They also reveal that Brandon-Baker revised a press release to remove detail about the severity of the breach.
The deleted lines included: “It [the public document] contains personal information that could put the safety of detainees and their families at risk, some of whom may have been returned to their home country.The deleted lines included: “It [the public document] contains personal information that could put the safety of detainees and their families at risk, some of whom may have been returned to their home country.
“The department has made it clear that publishing information that identifies individual detainees places and their families at significant risk.”“The department has made it clear that publishing information that identifies individual detainees places and their families at significant risk.”
A spokeswoman for the immigration said it was a “normal part of the process for government” to approve any statement issued by the department. A spokeswoman for the immigration minister said it was a “normal part of the process for government” to approve any statement issued by the department.
Another senior adviser to the minister, Charles Wann, requested advice from the executive officer to Bowles “on whether we have breached privacy laws”. No guidance on this question appears to have been provided.Another senior adviser to the minister, Charles Wann, requested advice from the executive officer to Bowles “on whether we have breached privacy laws”. No guidance on this question appears to have been provided.
A separate FoI request confirms that the department’s analytical service, IBM Digital Analytics, was not given the task of measuring downloads of all file types on the site, which means that the full number of downloads of the document may never be known.A separate FoI request confirms that the department’s analytical service, IBM Digital Analytics, was not given the task of measuring downloads of all file types on the site, which means that the full number of downloads of the document may never be known.