During a session at the Seimas, N. Grunskienė provided details concerning the involvement of the Registrų centras in a recent matter. She explained that the centras itself reached out to the prosecutor’s office in early May.
Grunskienė stated that an initial investigation commenced on April 15 after the office received a report concerning a potentially criminal act. She noted that the prosecutor retains discretion regarding the timing, scope, and nature of any information disclosed about the initiation of an investigation. According to her account, the Registrų centras contacted the office on May 8, inquiring about the possibility of public information disclosure.
The prosecutor’s response indicated that disclosure would not be prohibited if the information was not directly related to the investigation. Grunskienė addressed the nature of the incident, clarifying that the centras did not link the event to a cyberattack or theft, referring to it instead as a “release.” She expressed concern regarding the communication process, arguing that the data processor should have proactively notified the public about the incident. She reiterated the ongoing procedural control, emphasizing that the prosecutor’s office remains the authority determining the extent and timing of public disclosures related to the investigation.
Topics: #prosecutor #office #centras
It seems the key takeaway is that reporting on the data theft was not officially restricted by the prosecutor’s office.
What specific actions or guidelines did the prosecutor’s office provide regarding the reporting of the population data theft?