The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Abortion provider BPAS under attack from hackers

Following the arrest of a hacker who planned to publish women's details, there have been 2,500 attem

An anti-abortion rally outside Parliament. London, 2007.
An anti-abortion rally outside Parliament. London, 2007. Photograph: Getty Images

Last week, a 27 year old man was jailed for stealing the personal details of 10,000 women from Britain’s largest pregnancy advisory clinic.

James Jeffery, a member of the hacking collective Anonymous, planned to publish the names, email addresses and telephone numbers of these women, which he took from the website of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years and eight months in jail at Southwark Crown Court.

But the risk to BPAS is far from removed. Indeed, the BBC reports this morning that in the five weeks since Jeffery’s arrest, a mind-boggling 2,500 attempts have been made to hack into the advisory service's computer systems.

As yet, none of these attempts have been successful, and BPAS has reassured women that their details are safe. But this is a seriously worrying development. Around 60,000 women contact BPAS each year, and 53,000 have abortions under their supervision. Their privacy is paramount. Sentencing Jeffery, Judge Malcolm Gledhill spoke of the potentially “terrible consequences” of the women's details being published:

Many of them were vulnerable women, vulnerable simply because they had had a termination or because of their youth or because their family did not know about their situation.

That is quite apart from the risk to their personal safety from anti-abortion activists.

So where are these latest hacking attempts coming from? It is difficult to say. The IP addresses suggest that almost half of the computers used during these hacking attempts come from the US. However, as the BBC points out, the nature of hacking means it is impossible to say with any certainty that this means the hackers are US-based.

The US is home to a far more virulent and live debate on abortion than we currently see in the UK, but there is serious cause for concern about the direction of travel on home shores. Elements of government are undeniably hostile to abortion. Hardcore anti-abortion backbenchers like Nadine Dorries are encouraged by sympathetic ministers like Andrew Lansley. Dorries’ proposals on  that women undertake independent counselling before they are allowed to have an abortion has been adopted by the Department of Health despite the fact that the Commons voted against it. Lansley recently announced spot checks on abortion clinics – including those run by BPAS – after reports that a small number of doctors were pre-signing consent forms to circumvent the rule that states that two doctors must attest a woman’s sanity before an abortion is allowed.

Clearly, the assault on BPAS’s cyber-security is something else altogether – a renegade, bottom-up attack by what appears to be a collection of individuals rather than an organised political force.

But it is a reminder that the battle on abortion is not yet won. Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general and a pro-choice campaigner, has called for the police to prosecute anyone who attempts to break in to BPAS’s computers. She was right to do so. Whether the attacks are coming from hackers or ministers, the law must protect women’s rights to both abortion and to medical privacy.
 

11 comments

JackieO's picture

Not all women are so vulnerable, unless you could call it emotionally screwed up. One 24yr old I know of, playing one bloke off against another, seeing who could make her pregnant first. The one that she got pregnant with, she decided to have an abortion, at insistance of the other. Devastating for the young father. The two men had a fight over it. She made the appointment, but still hasn't said if she actually went through with it, he won't know till he sees her tummy swell up, or not, in a few months. Not to mention what its doing to potential grandparents. Young women these days think the only people with emotions are themselves.

Aoi's picture

Holy misinformation, Batman, has Anon really stooped that low? I thought they were better than that bull. Anon's always stood for freedom no matter what, so go speak out against abortion is really unlike them. I hope it's just one guy acting on his own, and claiming to be part of Anonymous, rather than all of them in it together. >.<

If it's the former, then I hope Anonymous teaches him a lesson. If the latter, then internet: I am disappoint.

Alex Baldwin's picture

It's difficult to tell whether you're being sarcastic.

"Anonymous" does not exist as a coherent group with a membership or clear power structure. You could draw an analogy with the Animal Liberation Front who say: "Any act that furthers the cause of animal liberation, where all reasonable precautions are taken not to harm human or non-human life, may be claimed as an ALF action." The difference with Anonymous however is that they don't even have that limited sort of definition of who their membership are or what can be declared as an "Anonymous" activity.

"Anonymous" is difficult to define, mainly because it is so open that the label itself is almost meaningless.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley's picture

It's certainly not true that"Elements of government are undeniably hostile to abortion." because no-one is above the Law, least of all government workers. Samira Shackle should calm down, or pipe down - whatever.

iriz's picture

Some of these people believe only a fetus is without sin, once born it shares the 'original sin' of humanity. Once born, most of these people have no 'special' interest in it's welfare... they've already done their bit for salvation.

mike cobley's picture

Why did James Jeffery hack into the BPAS when there are so many other far more deserving targets? Especially in the City.

And why dont antiabortionists switch their energies to saving the lives of diseased and starving infants and children in Africa, for example? Why obsess over a 20/30 week foetus when worldwide there are already existing children desperately in need of help?

Alex Baldwin's picture

If he's a member of Anonymous then he probably hacked it because it was vulnerable. Most of the "more deserving" targets that you allude to would likely have had better security. You can bet that there are people (hobbyists and professionals) TRYING to hack other systems, but it only makes the news when somebody manages.

Another possible motivation to hack BPAS rather than a bank is that the information that a bank holds isn't necessarily that critical or potentially damaging. A list of women who have had abortions is valuable both because the people on it might not want to be "outed", and because other groups might want to pay to find out who is on it. In that sense (and no other) this is similar to the BNP membership leak of a few years back.

iriz's picture

i think your overlooking the issue being targeted here and the very real battles raging over abortion and a women's right to choose - and if the IP addresses are associated with the US its worth having a look at the climate over there and how it might influence the situation here:

http://jezebel.com/5887627/the-ten-scariest-places-in-america-to-have-la...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-clinics-landlord-turns-the-tables-...

Alex Baldwin's picture

I'm not overlooking it. I'm saying that it is not *necessary* for this hacking to be part of some larger political/cultural battle.

My point is that the threshold that needs to be crossed for an event like this to occur is not a certain strength of conviction in the morality of what's going on, or a particular weight of numbers that you need to get behind you. The other respondent is correct: the hacking skills required for this are transferrable and amoral. He could have found out how to do it from people who were pro-choice. As I said, the strategy that you use to get a list of women who've had abortions is the same strategy that you'd use to get any other arbitrary list of people.

All that is required for an attempt like this to succeed is just whether the system is vulnerable. If that's the case then you only need one person to decide to do it (whether for moral reasons or for personal gain). The subsequent flood of attempts is going to be a mix of hackers out for "revenge" and those who have been made aware that the system was vulnerable and hope to get lucky breaking into it themselves.

So: there may be a big intentional anti-choice hacker conspiracy behind this, but it isn't necessary to explain what's going on.

mike cobley's picture

Am not overlooking the issue, Iriz, and I`m very well aware of the relentless nature of the forces ranged against womens rights in the States. They dont call it the War on Women for nothing.

mike cobley's picture

so much for ethical hacktivism, eh?

Latest tweets