Just before 6pm yesterday, an email was received on here; it was sent on behalf of the Data Protection Commissioner and was in response to the complaint submitted from here on Wednesday this week. The complaint followed the revelation in a court affidavit that NAMA had apparently provided large amounts of confidential information on loans to third parties. When the matter was first reported on here, NAMA sought an undertaking not to publish the information it had apparently disclosed to third parties; the undertaking was sought under threat of an injunction, and the undertaking was readily provided though with the proviso that the information would be provided to the Data Protection Commissioner as part of a complaint.
The non-confidential email from the DPC yesterday evening expressed thanks for bringing the matter to its attention. It went on to say “However, I can confirm that this Office has received a report on the matter from NAMA. Please be assured that the Breach Notification Section of the Office is investigating the matter under the provisions of the Personal Data Security Breach Code of Practice.”
The email was responded to, asking for clarification and specifically if the DPC was suggesting that the complaint from here would not be addressed directly. It was pointed out to the DPC that it was the public which owned NAMA that was one of the major parties that might suffer from the NAMA information. A further message was sent asking if the DPC could confirm when NAMA made a report of the matter to the DPC and if the DPC can provide any information on its content.
It’s a Bank Holiday weekend so there’s not likely to be any update until Tuesday.
Funny how the old media went bat crazy last year when it emerged from a NAMA investigation that its employee Enda Farrell had emailed confidential information outside the organization; in this instance, there has not been a mig out of the old media.