A SCOTTISH council has been forced to apologise after a data breach that saw personal details of objectors to a multi-million-pound flood defence scheme being put up online.
One woman, who had previously been threatened in a Facebook post about the Musselburgh scheme, told the Sunday National she was “upset and angry” that her contact details had been posted online by East Lothian Council.
Campaigners are calling for a halt to the proposed scheme for high concrete walls along the River Esk and harbour seafront which they say will scar the town’s green spaces, damage the environment and involve the felling of mature trees along the riverside.
A total of 470 valid objections to the scheme have been lodged, including from NatureScot and Historic Scotland.
Protesters claim that the flooding risk has been overstated, nature-based solutions have not been properly considered and the scheme is not worth the financial cost which has rocketed from £8.9 million in 2016 to £96m so far.
The objections were put up online on Friday, October 21, but the data breach was only discovered by one objector late the following Monday evening.
The woman, who does not wish to be named, immediately emailed all 22 councillors plus officials and all the objections were taken down the following morning, with a letter of apology sent out later by the council to the six individuals whose contact details had not been redacted.
It stated that the Information Commissioner for Scotland had been informed of the breach and added that those dissatisfied with the council’s response had the right to complain to the commissioner.
However, when another of the objectors tried to deliver a letter of complaint to the commissioner at the address given by the council, she found that it was a residential block of flats in Edinburgh instead of the correct address at Queen Elizabeth House.
In the letter of apology, the council states that it intends to put all 470 valid objections back online, fully redacted.
However, one objector whose data was breached said she didn’t want her objections put back online as she had lost confidence in the council.
She said: “The majority of people are against this scheme but some are for it and when I posted a comment on Facebook around six months ago about it, someone replied that if there was a flood, they would come and find out where I lived, so I was upset and angry to see my details online.
“At least it was just my email address but other people had their whole address and other personal details.
“Apart from the data breach, the whole thing was a mess as some people’s objections were there twice and others were missing even though they were valid.
“The reason why people are so upset is the way we have been treated throughout this consultation.”
The woman said that even when she alerted officials and all 22 councillors about the breach, it was two days before she was given an official acknowledgement and apology.
“The Scottish Government’s guidelines for consultations clearly state that you should ask the public what their permissions and preferences are and whether they are happy that stuff goes online but the council did not do that,” she said.
Campaigner Dr Jeffrey Wright said the data breach showed the council did not take data management or the objections seriously enough.
“They are making a summary for the councillors but it is fairly misleading and is trying to trivialise many of the objections that have been submitted,” he said.
“Their strategy seems to be to ignore the objections and then leave it to the Scottish Government to decide whether to call this into an inquiry – it is as if they want the Scottish Government to make the decision to go ahead so the Labour-controlled council can say it was them.”
Dr Wright added: “I would hope the Scottish Government will take a look at what the Labour-controlled council in East Lothian is doing and not waste the funds because there are other areas in Scotland that need flood protection and have been flooded more recently and regularly than Musselburgh has.”
An East Lothian Council spokesperson said: “A small number of objections (totalling six) unfortunately contained unredacted information which was initially published among these representations.
“The information was subsequently removed, and we have contacted and apologised to those affected individuals. The Information Commissioner was also informed who has confirmed no further action was to be taken.
“Representations, with information redacted where required, will be republished in due course.”
