The hack which exposed millions of TalkTalk customer account details1 may have been orchestrated by more than one individual. Following the arrest of a 15-year-old boy2 on Monday, Metropolitan Police today confirmed3 that a second individual has been apprehended in connection with the case.
A 16-year-old boy was cuffed on Thursday at an address in Feltham, London, by detectives from the Metropolitan Police Cyber Crime Unit. The property was searched and the teenager has since been released on bail. In a statement, officers confirmed that a second property in Liverpool has also been examined, although it’s unclear how this relates to the overall investigation.
The high-profile TalkTalk hack covered a wealth of personal data, including customer names, addresses, account information and credit card/bank card data.
The company quickly took the account sections of its website offline, and CEO Dido Harding later confirmed that it had been sent a digital ransom note.
Once the dust had settled, the UK provider said the amount of stolen data was fortunately smaller than it first feared.
Regardless, this is the third data breach against the company in the last year, and Harding now faces tough questions about TalkTalk’s internal security capabilities and practices.
Image Credit: Getty Images
A man is in critical condition in hospital after being shot by police officers in south London, according to Scotland Yard and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Police said the incident occurred during a planned eviction, which was due to take place on Friday morning.
Unarmed officers were said to be escorting a housing officer when a man was reported to have emerged from one of the rooms in the property in Lambeth. A siege began when armed officers were sent to deal with the situation and the man was shot by police outside the premises shortly before 5pm, officers said.
In a statement released while the siege was going on, the Metropolitan police said: Officers attended and were threatened by the suspect who is believed to be in possession of a firearm.
But, later on Friday, a spokeswoman said that she could not clarify whether or not the man had, in fact, been armed because the IPCC had subsequently opened an investigation into the shooting.
The IPCC said on Friday night that it could not confirm whether or not the man had been armed with a firearm or any other weapon. For a police shooting to be lawful, officers have to show that they acted to protect their own lives or those of others.
The Metropolitan police said: As in any shooting, officers from the Met s directorate of professional standards (DPS) have been informed and this incident has been referred to the IIPCC which has started an independent investigation. They said cordons remained in place in the area.
One neighbour said the police told him soon after they entered the property at around 9.45am that the man was dangerous and that he should leave his home.
I didn t realise there was so many police cars until I came out. They said to stay indoors at first, but in the last hour they have said they needed to vacate the building, he told the Evening Standard, which did not name him.
The Met said: Unarmed police officers initially attended an address at around 9.45am where they found a male at the property. Armed response officers subsequently attended and remained at the scene for several hours before shots were fired, injuring the man.
He was taken by ambulance to King s College hospital in a critical condition.
IPCC investigators have been deployed to the scene, the post-incident procedure and to the hospital to make initial enquiries.
The next of kin are in the process of being identified and contacted, the police said.
Sky News has reported1 that several police forces have used the US company Taser to store information collected by Body Worn Cameras. According to the report, Taser s system is being used by four police forces in the UK: Metropolitan Police, British Transport Police, City of London Police and Staffordshire Police.
This investigation has highlighted that there is a lot of confusion about how Taser is storing the footage and how secure it actually is. Big Brother Watch has argued for a number of years that there needs to be clear, standardised rules about how data gathered by Body Worn Cameras can be collected and stored.
Concerns have been raised that not only is the data being held outside of the UK but that Taser is using a third-party system.
Ultimately if you are the Cloud supplier, you will be able to access the data so there is a real threat that the data is insecure. The data being collected by Body Worn Cameras is simply too sensitive, often relating to domestic violence or GBH incidents, for there to be any question about the security and integrity of the data.
West Yorkshire Police has raised further concerns about how the data is being stored by Taser, after admitting that they can t be sure that data has been deleted following a trial of the system. The Force has pledged to not use the service again, stating that all future data will be stored locally on secure West Yorkshire Police servers.
The Metropolitan Police, which is currently the largest user of the service in the UK, had previously issued statements saying that the data collected would be uploaded to its own servers, but they now admit that the data is actually being held in the European Union .
The Home Office has responded to these reports by stating that The operational usage, testing and procurement of police equipment is a matter for chief officers and police and crime commissioners.
There seems little reason why this data needs to be stored outside of the UK, especially by a commercial company.
It is of the upmost importance that the public can have faith that the data collected by the police, whether via Body Worn Cameras or not, is subject to the most stringent of safeguards.
Whilst the police may claim they are able to see who has accessed the footage internally, the same simply can t be said for anyone who may have looked at or tampered with the footage once it has left the Force.
The Home Office must address this lack of security as a matter of urgency.
Failure to do so will mean the public can simply not have faith that the increasing amounts of data being gathered by the police are being held securely.