Well, here's a case where drive encryption like AlertBoot wouldn't have made a difference, although things may be a little different with file encryption.
Carlos McSweeney, a 10-year-old boy with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), was given a computer memory stick on which his artwork was saved...as well as sensitive information about his classmates, such as "details of all the pupils at the school and their education history as well as addresses and phone numbers." The family of the child soon realized the implications of what the information meant, and waited for the school to get in touch with them. The school didn't. So, the family did the right thing and called the school. And this is what happened: "When I did tell them again they got angry and demanded we give it back and harassed us with early phone calls and then threatened us saying if we didn't give them the memory stick then they would have to send the police around to get it." [thisisbristol.co.uk] I realize that there's always two sides to a story, but if the above is true, where does the school get the gall to harass people? I mean, is it because the family is adamant about not returning the USB stick? If so, why? Also, note how the above quote starts off with "when I did tell them again...." Is the family implying that they had to let them know of the data breach more than once? Why not just return the thing? More questions than answers on this one.
Carlos McSweeney, a 10-year-old boy with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), was given a computer memory stick on which his artwork was saved...as well as sensitive information about his classmates, such as "details of all the pupils at the school and their education history as well as addresses and phone numbers."
The family of the child soon realized the implications of what the information meant, and waited for the school to get in touch with them. The school didn't. So, the family did the right thing and called the school. And this is what happened:
"When I did tell them again they got angry and demanded we give it back and harassed us with early phone calls and then threatened us saying if we didn't give them the memory stick then they would have to send the police around to get it." [thisisbristol.co.uk]
I realize that there's always two sides to a story, but if the above is true, where does the school get the gall to harass people? I mean, is it because the family is adamant about not returning the USB stick? If so, why?
Also, note how the above quote starts off with "when I did tell them again...." Is the family implying that they had to let them know of the data breach more than once? Why not just return the thing? More questions than answers on this one.
For the very basic reason that this USB memory stick was given to the kid for taking his artwork with him. (Rant: what are kids doing nowadays? In my time, we used crayons. Cheaper, too.)
If the USB stick had been protected with disk encryption, he wouldn't have been able to access his artwork once he gets home. So, it only makes sense that one of the teachers--or whoever actually little Carlos the USB disk--would have sent him home with an unencrypted one. In principle, they should have to check that the disk is free of sensitive data.
In principle.
Related Articles and Sites:http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/educationplus/home/Memory-stick-given-Bristol-boy-sparks-school-data-law-row/article-1573873-detail/article.html