Server with Top-Secret Data Stolen

An anonymous reader writes "Usually missing information stories are fairly low key; the loss of a few thousand student records is cause for concern for those involved, but hardly national security. This one is slightly different. The company Forensic Telecommunications Services has announced that a server containing 'thousands of top-secret mobile phone records and evidence from undercover terrorism and organized crime investigations' has been stolen. From the article: 'The company — whose clients include Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service — has assured the public that the server is security protected, and the breach will not compromise ongoing police operations. The information is made up of either old cases that have passed through the judicial process, or cases that are already in the judicial system and so subject to full disclosure to both defense and prosecution teams.'"

Just FYI...

[daveschroeder]

...Forensic Telecommunications Services [forensicts.co.uk] is a UK company, not a US company, so please keep that in mind when crafting your comments.

(And yes, this is fairly plainly obvious to anyone who takes a moment to look.)

This was a Physical Break in

[varmittang]

"FTS can confirm that the company was recently the victim of a break-in at one of our premises in Kent. As a result, some IT equipment including a server was stolen."

Very important info for all those who want to start a flame war about what OS it was running and why it was connected to the Internet.

Re:Wrong Terminology

[stewbacca]

I was a contractor that handled real Top Secret data and that term is reserved for government classified data only. Contractor's own stuff is neither Top Secret, nor protected under the provisions provided to government Top Secret data. My point is that there are too many stories from JoeBlow, Inc. that report "Top Secret" information being stolen just to sensationalize the story. To working professionals in the Intel field, the notion that Top Secret data was stolen is a national security crisis, only to read in the story that some stupid company lost some data with private information in it.

True, that many countries share classification terminology. England, Canada, U.S. and Australia, for example, have all worked to synchronize their terms and laws. But the common thread is that these are all covered by government classification guidelines, not the private sector.

I suppose the info in the story could be "Top Secret" in the true sense of the word, but if this company was a contractor handling real Top Secret (ie, government classified) data, it would be a much bigger story than something buried in slashdot ;-)

Re:Wrong Terminology

[stewbacca]

Contractors working with US classified documents are bound to the same rules and regulation as government employees when handling classified data. My point is that companies can't just make up their own classification of something being "Top Secret". Boeing doesn't have the right to make something they created "Top Secret" just because Boeing thinks it is Top Secret. Only the government classification authority can designate a classification of: Unclassified, Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Anything else would be internal corporate policy, but any naming convention Boeing comes up with on their own is NOT provided the same protections under US Law that real government classifications are. (I may sound like a broken record, but I used to teach this stuff to government employees).

Re:Wrong Terminology

[jrumney]

it would be a much bigger story than something buried in slashdot ;-)

It was front page news in several UK papers over the weekend.