tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-97277502024-03-13T04:44:24.876+00:00Freedom of Information (Scotland) Blogbloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.comBlogger1104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-87212069665548716392012-07-26T19:40:00.001+01:002012-07-26T19:40:12.835+01:00The impotence of FOI<br />
Tony Blair has been criticised by MPs for refusing to co-operate with their parliamentary inquiry into the ineffectiveness of the Freedom of Information Act.<br />
<br />
In his autobiography, Blair described the legislation (which he introduced) as "antithetical to sensible government" and admitted that he was "not at all sure that the act has really achieved its goal of greater transparency".<br />
<br />
A prime example of the ineffectiveness of Freedom of Information law in the UK and its inability to establish anything like a transparent and accountable society was the Information Commissioner's decision not to act in the News of the World phone hacking scandal. The Commissioner showed a complete lack of integrity when he refused to investigate the matter fully - even when he had the opportunity (and the evidence) to reveal the true extent of the News of the World's corrupt journalistic practices.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Alexander Owens, who was a senior investigating officer at the Information Commissioner's Office, uncovered what he referred to as a "Pandora's box" of information at the house of private investigator Steve Whittamore. It included 17500 entries in notebooks with requests for information from journalists.</span><br />
<br />
Owens claimed that despite the discovery of this paper trail, he was told by his line manager at the ICO that he was not to make any approach to any reporters or the press.<br />
Owens said that the former deputy head of the ICO had told him that Murdoch's media empire was "too big" to pursue.<br />
<br />
The failure of the Commissioner's Office to properly investigate the evidence and the lack of any official criticism about the News of the World's practices from the PCC, the police and a number of MPs helped keep the truth behind the story out of the news for years.<br />
<br />
But the truth emerged. Eventually. Despite the best efforts of the Information Commissioner's Office to hide the truth by concealing the evidence. So much for freedom of information.<br />
<br />
See: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/26/mps-criticise-tony-blair-inquiry" target="_blank">MPs criticise Tony Blair for failing to co-operate with inquiry</a> (The Guardian, 26 July 2012)<br />bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-6944419500595236962011-09-28T20:23:00.001+01:002011-09-28T20:26:44.065+01:00ICO accused of burying bad news<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The freedom of information watchdog has been accused of trying to “bury” the announcement of an enforcement decision that it hoped would go unnoticed by the press.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">A string of emails obtained and published by Privacy International, the pressure group, show senior officials at the Information Commissioner’s Office planned the release of the news for a day it would not attract attention.</span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The decision that the ICO, which oversees data protection rules, is accused of trying to play down concerned Internet Eyes, a company that offers a bounty to members of the public for watching CCTV footage and catching shoplifters. Privacy International and another privacy watchdog, No-CCTV, had complained that the company violated shoppers’ privacy.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">However, the ICO rejected the complaint, asking Internet Eyes to sign an undertaking that it would not break the law.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The ICO then became concerned about how the decision would be received and planned a strategy to minimise the impact of the news.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">“It has occurred to us that the ICO may not wish this release to stand out from the crowd – maybe it would be better to send the letter today and publish Wednesday or Thursday this week to ‘bury’ it among others?” wrote Diane Slater, lead case officer at the organisation.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The phrase was an unfortunate echo of one used by Jo Moore, the Labour government adviser who notoriously suggested that the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was a good day to bury bad news.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">In another email, Kirsty McCaskill, press officer, said: “Yes, we would ideally not want this to attract much publicity.” She confirmed that when sending out the press release “we will try to pick a day when it looks like a busy news day out there”.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The press release went out on June 14 this year, on the same day that the government announced a U-turn on NHS health reforms and teachers voted for a national strike.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said: “I am satisfied that the ICO acted with complete integrity in the matter of Internet Eyes. We published the results of our inquiry on 14 June with a full news release. Given the complainants’ long track record of media stunts misrepresenting the ICO’s actions it is perhaps understandable that there was consideration of the presentational issues around the publication of the undertaking we had secured.”</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Privacy International said the emails “cast a more sinister and disturbing light on the activities of the regulator”, and called for an inquiry into the ICO’s activities.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">“There is need for urgent reform to the way the ICO operates. It is clear that the office is now incapable of fulfilling its statutory responsibilities,” said Simon Davies of Privacy International. “It is up to the government to decide if the ICO is fit for purpose. It cannot go on any longer the way it is.”</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The group has said it will ask to see correspondence around all of the ICO’s recent decisions under the Freedom of Information Act. This will include details of the ICO’s response to the security breach last year when Google’s Street View service collected unsecured wireless data from thousands of private homes without permission. The ICO had initially decided not to investigate the violation, but reopened the case after other data protection authorities abroad decided to act.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The ICO has been criticised for often taking a softer line on privacy regulation than similar organisations in Europe.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1ed358fe-e9db-11e0-bb3e-00144feab49a.html" target="_blank"><u>Financial Times</u></a>, 28 September 2011</span>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-89999084554865811262011-01-20T21:26:00.001+00:002011-01-20T21:27:16.532+00:00Britain exempts monarchy from FOI law<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Welcome to the open society: </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">What happens in the palace stays in the palace.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">A law that took effect yesterday makes Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, and Prince William exempt from freedom of information laws, meaning many details of their activities won’t be public for decades.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said the exemption will protect the monarch’s private conversations with politicians and officials — but others say it will make it even harder to hold the royal family accountable.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">For centuries, the workings of the monarchy were shrouded in secrecy, a blend of law, convention, deference, and media self-censorship. That media acquiescence is long gone, and under laws that took effect in 2005, information about the royal family could be released if it was in the public interest.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">“It at least raised the possibility that information could be disclosed,’’ said Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. “What the [most recent] changes do is remove the public interest test — exemption becomes absolute.’’</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Clarke, the justice secretary, said the new rule is needed “to protect the longstanding conventions surrounding the monarchy and its records.’’</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">But critics say Prince Charles has cast neutrality aside by peppering ministers with letters on behalf of environmental issues and his pet projects.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">“What he’s doing in some of these cases is obviously lobbying,’’ said Frankel. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2011/01/20/britain_exempts_royals_from_foi_law/" target="_blank"><u>Britain exempts royals from FOI law</u></a> (Boston Globe, 20 January 2011)</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">See also: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/19/freedom_of_info_changes/" target="_blank"><u>More privacy for the Queen, less for everyone else</u></a> (John Oates, The Register, 19 January 2011)</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Go <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110118/wmstext/110118m0001.htm#11011870000013" target="_blank"><u>here to read Clarke's statement</u></a> on Freedom of Information, from Hansard. </div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-4754959542657442482011-01-20T19:49:00.001+00:002011-01-20T19:49:48.015+00:00Transparency and the state<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">“You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop…I quake at the imbecility of it.” So Tony Blair berates himself in his memoirs for passing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which came into force in 2005. The realities of power transformed him from an advocate of official openness into a despairing critic.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Mr Blair’s jaded attitude seems not yet to have infected the coalition government, which is planning to let a little more light into the tenebrous corridors of Whitehall. In opposition, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, promised to promote transparency. It is a cause that Mr Clegg’s Liberal Democrats have long championed, arguing that it will improve the workings of government, while the Tories see informed citizens and an open state as essential conditions of their plans to devolve power.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">To those ends, the government intends to broaden the scope of the FOIA, extending it to currently uncovered parts of the state, among them the Association of Chief Police Officers, an outfit that sets much policing policy, as well as the regulators that oversee many privatised industries. The government also plans to reduce the length of time that official records remain sealed from 30 years to 20 (the rule looks rather quaint now that former ministers publish tell-all memoirs within months of leaving office).</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Other changes are already revealing more details of how government works. The Downing Street website features a new “transparency” section that discloses, among other things, which lobbyists and potentates are meeting which ministers and when. All central-government spending of more than £25,000 must be published, as well as local government spending of over £500. The government is keen, at least in theory, to make available much of the data that it holds, for the perusal and analysis of “armchair auditors” and enthusiastic nerds (see <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17963571">article</a>).</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Britain’s small but vocal freedom-of-information lobby has given the plans a cautious welcome. Maurice Frankel, who runs the Campaign for Freedom of Information, is heartened that the government has pressed ahead despite having plenty of other things on its plate.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Nevertheless, much will remain whelmed in mystery. Messrs Cameron and Clegg both promised before the general election that the new regime would cover Network Rail, an oddly constituted body laden with publicly backed debt that runs Britain’s railway tracks. That idea seems to have been ditched. Northern Rock, a bank nationalised in 2008, will escape scrutiny; the rules concerning the royal family are to be tightened. Private firms that administer parts of the NHS, criminal justice, schools and other public services will also be exempt (Scotland, which has separate laws, is considering making big contractors subject to FOI requests).</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">And changing the rules might not, by itself, fix a cultural resistance to scrutiny within some bits of government. Heather Brooke, a journalist who did much of the spadework that led to the revelations over dodgy expense claims by MPs, thinks that parts of the British state are run “almost feudally,” and remain resistant to explaining their workings to mere voters. She argues that better enforcement of the existing system would do more to inform the public of what is done in its name than fiddling with it. That might be a vain hope: the Information Commissioner’s Office, which enforces the Freedom of Information Act, has a hefty backlog of cases—and, under the government’s austerity plans, is facing cuts.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17963581" target="_blank"><u>Fiat a little more lux: The coalition hopes to build on one of Tony Blair’s biggest regrets</u></a> (The Economist, 20 January 2011)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-77012078770537636312010-12-14T21:11:00.000+00:002010-12-14T21:11:15.541+00:00Wikileaks and FoI - an American perspective<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Here's a useful insight into the Wikileaks saga from Maher Arar, a Human rights advocate: </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Let me state at the outset that governments have indeed legitimate reasons to keep some information confidential and out of public reach. But it is also important to mention that this should be the exception rather than the norm. Unfortunately since 9/11, Western governments have become more secretive and less transparent especially when it comes to foreign policy and national security.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Have you tried recently to get information from your government through the Freedom of Information Act? Good luck!</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">When the so called National Security label is attached to these documents you will mostly end up receiving heavily redacted documents 3-5 years later. I have experienced this first hand with both the Canadian and the U.S. governments while fighting to obtain information about what happened to me. So it is in this context that people should understand the emergence of web-based media like WikiLeaks willing to publish information from whistle-blowers.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><a name='more'></a><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">What I found disturbing is the animosity shown by various mainstream media outlets towards this small and young organization. Since WikiLeaks published what appeared to be State Department cables some media outlets have decided that focusing on the person of Julian Assange, spokesperson and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, makes more sense than discussing or publishing the content of these cables.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">As a concrete example of this vendetta, the Toronto Star published an article entitled "10 things you don't know about WikiLeaks mystery Julian Assange." The title itself is extremely sensational. How can this be explained? Is it jealousy, naivety or complicity? I really do not know. If anything, it shows that many of these mainstream media organizations have lost touch with reality. They have completely forgotten the purpose of their existence.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">When I was a kid I used to hear stories around me about some political reformers in Syria who were detained by the government because "they allegedly engaged in illegal trade" or because "they allegedly had affairs with some women".</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">It was common belief among the population that the Syrian government circulated these rumors in order to damage these people's reputations. Bingo here we are but this time we have Western governments, who claim to support free speech, resorting to the same tactics.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Let's for a moment suppose that the leaked documents belonged to the North Korean government in which information is revealed about this country's nuclear ambitions. How would the U.S. government have portrayed Mr. Assange? I can assure you that he would have been invited to Oslo last week to receive the Nobel Peace Award.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">When Salman Rushdie insulted over one billion Muslims by writing Satanic Verses, every Western government came to his rescue after Khomeini issued his fatwa calling upon Muslims to assassinate him. I do not remember seeing a list of "ten things you don't know about Salman Rushdie".</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">To this day he is portrayed as the darling of free speech. Another example is that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the House of Representative in the Netherlands. Her screenplay entitled Submission, which the majority of Muslims considered offensive to their religion, led to various death threats.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Again this was considered by all Western countries as an attack on freedom of speech (not to mention the various free speech awards she has received). Again we did not see any press coverage about "the ten things you don't know about Ms. Ali".</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">This is despite the fact that she was found to have obtained political asylum by lying to authorities. When this fact became public she was forced to resign from her post. A few months later she immigrated to the U.S. where she was immediately welcomed and hired as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">What I am trying to say is that WikiLeaks is filling a vacuum that governments have themselves created. So instead of blaming WikiLeaks, governments should blame themselves.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The solution is for these governments to become more transparent, more accountable, to uphold the principles of fundamental justice and to ensure that citizens of the world are treated equally regardless of their race, color or religion. Only then will WikiLeaks and its future clones be deprived of the audience they are looking for.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_258763651"><br />
</a></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maher-arar/enough-hypocrisy-wikileak_b_796238.html" target="_blank"><u>Enough Hypocrisy: WikiLeaks Is Filling a Vacuum</u></a> (Huffington Post, 14 December 2010)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-38361449309106138002010-12-12T17:11:00.002+00:002010-12-12T17:19:16.704+00:00Wikileaks publishes information that FoI laws cannot reach<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D_TYyfSvbk4/TQT_k-1fNiI/AAAAAAAAACQ/i658oYl6Zj8/s1600/wikileaks.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D_TYyfSvbk4/TQT_k-1fNiI/AAAAAAAAACQ/i658oYl6Zj8/s1600/wikileaks.png" /></a><br />
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The recent furore surrounding the <a href="http://www.wikileaks.ch/" target="_blank"><u>Wikileaks</u></a> release of US diplomatic communications serves to highlight the shortcomings of our freedom of information laws. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Does FoI really lead to a more open society with more transparent and accountable government? Not on the evidence so far (MPs' expenses, political interference by the royal family, what governments are doing behind our backs and in our names). </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Or are formal FoI laws just an extension of the state - providing scraps of information to present the illusion of openness while ensuring the most important information stays secret and citizens remain in the dark? </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">A thought-provoking article from the American news service The Inwell (part of the College Media Network) is presented below - it's a valuable insight into the key issues surrounding Wikileaks and Julian Assange. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">See also this story in The Guardian: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/10/war-media-propaganda-iraq-lies" target="_blank">John Pilger: Why are wars not being reported honestly? The public needs to know the truth about wars. So why have journalists colluded with governments to hoodwink us?</a> </div><a name='more'></a><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In the weeks since Thanksgiving, Julian Assange has been cast as public enemy No. 1. Outcry against the Australian national erupted after his whistle-blowing organization, WikiLeaks, published a slew of classified State Department cables shedding light on questionable foreign policy issues.<br />
<br />
The documents, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, included directives asking U.S. diplomats and other State Department employees to gather personal information about foreign dignitaries.<br />
<br />
Included in the documents were insulting comments made about foreign heads of state and the revelation of treaty-violating – and law-breaking – practices, such as spying on diplomats at meetings of the United Nations in New York.<br />
<br />
Since publishing the cables late last month, Assange has been in the figurative crosshairs of prominent politicians and the American public.<br />
<br />
On Tuesday, the embattled WikiLeaks founder was arrested in England on a Swedish extradition warrant pertaining to alleged sex offenses. Assange's lawyers maintain the charges are an attempt to discredit his character.<br />
<br />
Whether the charges stick is yet to be seen, but the notion that powers-at-be are trying to mar Assange's public image isn't that far-fetched.<br />
<br />
Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Assange deserved to be hunted like Osama Bin Laden, and The Washington Times published an editorial calling for his assassination.<br />
<br />
Even the President, who campaigned ardently on government transparency, decried WikiLeaks' publishing of "classified" State Department cables.<br />
<br />
The American public, for the most part, seems to have jumped on the witch-hunting bandwagon.<br />
<br />
And truly, that anger isn't entirely misdirected. The publication of the leaked cables compromised the security of individual persons and, to a certain degree, put national security at risk.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, Assange broke a story.<br />
<br />
Diplomatic gossip aside, WikiLeaks exposed a massive security flaw in the way the United States government transmits top-secret information. This was a legitimate act of journalism. It was not story created from spite but a desire for accountability.<br />
<br />
When criminals break the law, we expect them to be sent to prison.<br />
<br />
When nations break the law, we expect them to reform.<br />
<br />
The State Department cables were supposedly pulled from the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SPIRNET, a hypothetically secure private internet used by the military and the State Department.<br />
<br />
In an "All Things Considered" story on Nov. 29, NPR News correspondent Martin Kaste reported that clearance to SPIRNET was expanded after 9/11 on the belief that inter-agency information sharing would abet the detection of terrorist activity. It's now estimated, Kaste said, that more than two million military and civilian personnel have access to SPIRNET.<br />
<br />
A network accessible by two million people is not secure. There's no feasible way to police the flow of information through so many eyes. It was inevitable that this "top secret" conduit would spring a leak, and the government's failure to recognize such a security crater is nothing short of irresponsible.<br />
<br />
It's not believed that Assange and crew hacked into SPIRNET, but rather that the cables were provided to WikiLeaks by someone who had access to the network. <br />
<br />
That shouldn't happen. We trust our government to keep us safe, and allowing for such damning documents to fall into the hands of a trigger-happy publisher like Assange endangered American lives.<br />
<br />
That's a story that deserves breaking.<br />
<br />
But our government attempts to sway public opinion away from that revelation. Last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee called for Assange's prosecution under the Espionage Act. To successfully do so would require proof that Assange aimed to deliberately harm the United States by publishing the State Department cables.<br />
<br />
If this scenario sounds somewhat familiar, it's because our nation has been down this road before.<br />
<br />
Nearly 40 years ago, The New York Times began printing portions of classified government documents detailing American policy in Vietnam. The press dubbed the documents the Pentagon Papers, and they shed light on government deception regarding the Vietnam War. Other newspapers followed suit, and the Nixon Administration lobbied the Supreme Court to put a stop to the publishing of the Pentagon Papers on the grounds of national security.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment, ruling that the government had no authority to halt the publication of state secrets barring that information would have direct and irreparable damage to the United States or its citizens.<br />
<br />
The court did, however, opine that journalists could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act after the publication of state secrets.<br />
<br />
The journalists who published the Pentagon Papers were never prosecuted. And so far, the U.S. Government has brought no such charges against Assange – perhaps because no such merit exists.<br />
<br />
A reader recently asked Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, how the press can print state secrets.<br />
<br />
He candidly answered: "Why do we get to decide? And why did we decide to publish these articles and selected cables? We get to decide because America is cursed with a free press."<br />
<br />
It's the job of journalists to hold the feet of government officials to the fire – it's bedrock of the free press. So too is using editorial discretion when it comes to publishing sensitive information. In that, Assange failed miserably. Whether he will be brought to answer for this oversight remains to be seen.<br />
<br />
We, the American people, owe it to ourselves to think subjectively. In channeling public attention at ostracizing Assange, we are, in effect, shooting the messenger. We simply help our government quietly bury its security failings – presumably to Washington's delight. </span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.theinkwellonline.com/op-ed/freedom-of-information-needed-in-free-society-1.1828254" target="_blank"><u>Freedom of information needed in free society</u></a> (The Inkwell, 9 December 2010)</span></div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-61554422589511677122010-12-12T10:24:00.000+00:002010-12-12T10:24:04.140+00:00Recession? What recession? Senior officials at the House of Commons awarded bonuses totalling £250,000<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">While bankers face "stringent" caps on their bonuses by European regulators, officials at the Houses of Parliament have quietly been awarded some tasty little festive perks.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Malcolm Jack, the Clerk of the House, has signed off bonuses worth nearly £250,000 for his 56 top members of staff.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">A Freedom of Information request reveals that, on the recommendation of the mysterious "Senior Pay Panel", two individuals will receive £9,375, while 11 have been awarded £6,375. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8196449/Christmas-brings-generous-bonuses-at-the-House-of-Commons.html" target="_blank"><u>Christmas brings generous bonuses at the House of Commons</u></a> (The Telegraph, 12 December 2010)</span>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-42523030053511818102010-12-12T09:41:00.002+00:002010-12-12T09:44:52.896+00:00Government proposes blanket ban on release of information about royal family<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Queen is at the centre of a Government row over proposed moves that would give the public sweeping rights to demand secret information.<br />
<br />
The Liberal Democrats have been incensed by Conservatives’ attempts to restrict a new ‘right to data’ law so that it excludes the Royal Family.<br />
<br />
The new open access law, which was secured by the Lib Dems as part of the Coalition agreement, would extend the freedom of information rules, which have unearthed scandals such as last year’s furore over MPs’ expenses.<br />
<br />
But after lobbying from Buckingham Palace – which is worried that it would lead to a rash of fresh revelations – the Justice Ministry has proposed a blanket ban on the release of details about the Royals.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a name='more'></a> The move has infuriated Lib Dems, who argue that the Royals should be held to account for the way they spend taxpayers’ money.<br />
<br />
Under the current rules, although members of the Royal Family cannot be directly subjected to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, Whitehall departments holding information about them can be ordered to release details if it is deemed in the public interest.<br />
<br />
Recent disclosures have included secret correspondence between the Government and the Royal Household which showed that courtiers were lobbying for a top-up to the annual £42 million maintenance grant for palaces.<br />
<br />
The Royals have been embarrassed by repeated revelations about the cost of global junkets by Prince Andrew in his role as a British trade ambassador, and by details of Prince Charles’s ‘black spider’ memos – a reference to his handwriting – to ministers on issues such as the environment, architecture and education.<br />
<br />
FoI requests have disclosed how Charles foiled a £3 billion redevelopment of London’s Chelsea Barracks after personally meeting planning officials, and how he lobbied the NHS to provide homeopathy. <br />
<br />
One senior Lib Dem with access to the negotiations said he was ‘livid’ over the attempt to restrict the reforms.<br />
<br />
‘It was written into the Coalition agreement that the scope of the Freedom of Information Act would be extended,’ he said.<br />
<br />
‘Openness in Government is part of the spirit and philosophy of the party, and that should extend to finding out how the monarchy is spending taxpayers’ money. We have made enough compromises as it is to take our place in the Coalition and we are not really in the mood to make any more.’<br />
<br />
Last night Lib Dem MP Tom Brake demanded the inclusion of the Royals in the new law.<br />
<br />
‘The Royal Family should be subject to freedom of information rules, with the sole exception of the usual considerations about security,’ he said. ‘The balance of these things should always lie on the side of transparency.’<br />
<br />
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘We are looking carefully to see where we can further increase the openness and transparency of public affairs whilst ensuring that sensitive information is properly protected. We will announce the next steps on this in due course.’<br />
<br />
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said they could not comment because the proposals had not yet become law.</span></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div></div><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div></div></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337893/Lib-Dem-fury-Royal-gag-freedom-information-laws.html" target="_blank"><u>Lib Dem fury over Royal gag on freedom of information laws</u></a> (The Mail Online, 12 December 2010)</span></div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-48658427589690957412010-12-11T09:45:00.000+00:002010-12-12T10:05:25.453+00:00FSA spends up to £270,000 a year on Xmas parties<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has spent over £600,000 on Christmas parties since the beginning of the credit crunch.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Britain’s financial regulator, which is the coalition government plans to break up, was forced to reveal details of its lavish festive celebrations under the Freedom of Information Act provoking fury from consumer groups and politicians. </span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The FSA has spent some £1.2 million on Christmas parties since 2004.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a name='more'></a></span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The extravagant spending reached a peak in the early days of the crisis in 2007 when the regulator spent over £270,000 on staff entertainment at a time when questions where starting to be asked as to how it could have allowed the crisis to develop.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The partying continued in 2008 as the credit crunch began to take hold in earnest with £228,461 spent on staff junkets. The true cost could be much higher as the figures released do not include expenditure on travel and accommodation for the regulator’s hard-partying employees.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">When recession gripped the country in 2009 the FSA showed relative restraint and kept its staff entertainment budget down to a comparatively modest £107,814.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Charlotte Linacre, campaign manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “It is appalling that the FSA was living the high life in the middle of the financial crisis, when their failure was one reason the crisis was so severe.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">“Blowing almost a quarter of a million pounds on their own Christmas party is shocking and their levy on companies and entrepreneurs should not be spent so extravagantly.</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">‘They are supported by what they treat as a bottomless pit of money but the heavier the burden they put on businesses becomes, the more companies will consider relocating their activities outside the UK.”</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.totallymoney.com/news/index.php/2010/12/fsa-spent-up-to-270000-a-year-on-xmas-parties/" target="_blank"><u>Totally Money</u></a> (12 December 2010) </span></div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-76207426960693438332010-10-24T18:13:00.001+01:002010-10-24T18:27:01.294+01:00News digest<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Here's some recent FoI stories that you might have missed:</div><ul><li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/nyc-set-to-release-contro_n_770565.html" target="_blank"><u>NYC Set To Release Controversial Teacher Effectiveness Rankings</u></a> - Huffington Post, 20 October 2010<br />
The New York City Department of Education is set to release individual rankings of 12,000 teachers. But the city's United Federation of Teachers is fighting back and plans to go to court to ensure the controversial documents, based on students' test scores, aren't released.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/information-revolution-opens-door-to-secrets-20101020-16ud2.html" target="_blank"><u>Information revolution opens door to secrets</u></a> - Sydney Morning Herald, 21 October 2010<br />
Australians will be able to make freedom-of-information requests by e-mail and without charge from next month under changes set to revolutionise the 28-year-old law.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Police-pay-78k-bonus-to.6586229.jp" target="_blank"><u>Police pay £78k bonus to officers</u></a> - The Scotsman, 18 October 2010<br />
Performance-related payments of more than £78,000 were paid out to 17 senior officers in Lothian and Borders Police over the last year. A freedom of Information request showed that the 17 officers, including superintendents, detective superintendents, the assistant chief constable and the deputy chief constable, were paid £78,640 between them.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/mod-papers-reveal-catalogue-of-nuclear-safety-failures-1.1061975" target="_blank"><u>MoD papers reveal catalogue of nuclear safety failures</u></a> - The Herald, 17 October 2010<br />
Potentially catastrophic lapses in nuclear weapons safety at the Clyde naval base have been exposed by secret Ministry of Defence reports released after a three-year freedom of information battle. The ministry released a series of reports on the eve of an appeal to the UK Information Tribunal that threatened to expose multiple breaches of freedom of information law.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/10/18/boy-who-thinks-he-s-a-girl-treated-for-identity-disorder-115875-22642054/" target="_blank"><u>Boy aged 3 who thinks he's a girl treated for identity disorder</u></a> - Daily Mirror, 18 October 2010<br />
A boy of three who believes he is a girl has become the youngest child in Britain to be treated for the rare condition Gender Identity Disorder. Sufferers feel that they are in the body of the wrong sex. And the unnamed nursery schoolboy is currently being seen by experts with 20 other boys and three girls aged under 10, a Freedom of Information Request by the Mirror has found.<br />
</li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://citywire.co.uk/money/oops-fsa-loses-20-laptops-in-just-three-years/a440937" target="_blank"><u>FSA loses 20 laptops in just three years</u></a> - Citywire, 18 October 2010<br />
City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), has lost 41 laptops and Blackberries containing secure document and emails, in the past three years. However, the scale of losses at the FSA is dwarfed by the Ministry of Defence, where 220 laptops were lost and 120 stolen in the past two years. And less than half of the lost MoD laptops were not encrypted, according to a Freedom of Information request. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/13/government-spying-social-networks/?test=latestnews" target="_blank"><u>Federal Agents Urged to 'Friend' People on Social Networks</u></a> - Fox News, 14 October 2010<br />
A privacy watchdog has uncovered a government memo that encourages federal agents to befriend people on a variety of social networks, to take advantage of their readiness to share -- and to spy on them. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and Digg have not commented on the report, which details the official government program to spy via social networking. Other websites the government is spying on include Craigslist and Wikipedia, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which filed the FOIA request.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8054511/Met-chief-privately-urges-Theresa-May-to-protect-police-from-civilian-lawsuits.html" target="_blank"><u>Met chief privately urges Theresa May to protect police from civilian lawsuits</u></a> - Daily Telegraph, 10 October 2010<br />
Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson claims that money is being wasted fighting speculative law suits by civilians alleging brutality or wrongful arrest. He also urged the Home Secretary to load higher costs onto officers and other staff suing police forces at employment tribunals over claims of discrimination or unfair treatment. He added that members of the public should be charged a fee for making Freedom of Information requests, which he said were burdening police forces with unmanageable levels of paperwork. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/yourrighttoknow%20" target="_blank"><u>Campaigners offered free guide on Freedom of Information Act</u></a><br />
The NCVO has launched a guide on using the Freedom of Information Act as a campaigning tool. The guide cites five case studies from organisations that have successfully used the Act to further their cause and features the findings of a survey of 45 campaigning charities. These organisations were polled on their experiences of using the Act, how familiar they were with it, what benefits it could bring and the challenges involved in using it.<br />
<br />
The guide can be downloaded for free at the following URL: <a href="http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/yourrighttoknow%20" target="_blank"><u>http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/yourrighttoknow<br />
<br />
</u></a></li>
<li style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/203567/Leeds-Council-We-spied-in-bins-for-five-years" target="_blank"><u>Leeds Council: We spied in bins for five years</u></a> - Daily Express, 5 October 2010<br />
A secret five-year study of rubbish bins and refuse habits was carried out by spies for one of Britain’s largest councils. Leeds City Council had hoped to keep taxpayers unaware of its clandestine checks until forced to admit what was going on under the Freedom of Information Act.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11586" target="_blank"><u>Report finds little FOIA improvement under Obama</u></a> - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 1 October 2010<br />
Despite pledges to bring a new level of transparency to the federal government, the Obama administration has not shown a marked change in how agencies handle Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a report released by the public interest group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.<br />
<br />
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/supreme-court-to-decide-w_1_n_743907.html" target="_blank"><u>Supreme Court To Decide Whether Corporations Have Privacy Rights</u></a> - Huffington Post, 29 September 2010<br />
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case early next year that will impact whether corporations are able to prevent the government from publicly releasing documents that could expose their corporate misconduct. At the heart of the matter is whether or not a personal privacy exemption contained in a freedom of information law extends the same rights to corporations as it does to people.<br />
<br />
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/8026940/Royal-officials-spent-96000-on-cleaning-chandeliers.html" target="_blank"><u>Royal officials 'spent £96,000 on cleaning chandeliers'</u></a> - Daily Telegraph, 27 September 2010<br />
Royal officials spent more than £1.5m of public money on cosmetic improvements such as cleaning chandeliers and refurbishing a staff canteen. A report in the Daily Mail said The Queen’s officials spent £96,000 on cleaning chandeliers and £14,000 on a curtain to protect wine bottles in the Buckingham Palace cellars. Refurbishing a staff canteen and games room cost £808,000 while turning a private cinema into a state function room was £458,000, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. <br />
<br />
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Queen-Slammed-For-Applying-For-Anti-Poverty-Grant-To-Heat-Buckingham-Palace-And-Windsor-Castle/Article/201007415742369?%20" target="_blank"><u>Queen's Bid For Poverty Grant Slammed</u></a> - Sky News, 24 September 2010<br />
The Queen has been criticised after a freedom of information request revealed she tried to use an anti-poverty grant to heat her palaces. A senior Royal aide wrote to the Government in 2004 asking whether Her Majesty would be eligible for a handout from a £60m energy-saving fund. He complained that the cost of keeping the Queen and her staff warm had doubled to £1m a year, and the £15m Government grant to maintain her palaces was inadequate. But the request to replace four combined heat and power (CHP) units at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle was turned down, according to documents obtained by The Independent under the the Freedom of Information Act.<br />
<br />
See also: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html" target="_blank"><u>Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace</u></a> - The Independent, 24 September 2010<br />
</span><br />
</li>
</ul>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-6945362956018846672010-10-24T17:23:00.002+01:002010-10-24T17:24:18.343+01:00How to save money in a recession<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Here's an interesting suggestion for cutting back on inefficiencies - by merging four information bodies into one super-regulator. It's a bit different for Scotland, since there's separate legislation for FoI, but it could work for the rest of the UK.<br />
<br />
<b>Spending Review? Why not axe the Information Commissioner? writes Amberhawk Training<br />
</b><br />
<b><a name='more'></a></b></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
I have come to the conclusion that there is a credible argument to scrap the Office of the Information Commissioner. “No” I have not lost my marbles. Nor have I received a backhander from Google to fund our new Amberhawk web-site. This is a credible argument that can be made, especially at a time when deep public sector cuts are going to be announced next Wednesday.<br />
<br />
As you know, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude MP, blows hot and cold with Freedom of Information. First he announced at the Conservative Party Conference that he will change FOI legislation (presumably the Freedom Bill) so that FOI requestors can commercially exploit any information released by a public authority. Second he has simultaneously ordered a leak inquiry when a document which listed the Quangos under the threat of the axe. (This 20 page list was published by the BBC - see references).<br />
<br />
If you look at this Quango list one sees that the Information Commissioner’s Office is to be retained as is the Office of the Surveillance Commissioner. For some reason, the Human Rights Commission and the Interception of Communications Commissioner do not feature on his list so one assumes they are safe.<br />
<br />
All these four bodies have a role in protecting privacy. So my cost-cutting solution is to merge all four bodies into one super-regulator whose collective function is to oversee privacy protection across the board.<br />
Just look at the advantages.<br />
<br />
• With respect to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, you would have a single regulator who could protect individuals from the excessive use of wide ranging secondary legislation (by ensuring the processing of personal data was “lawful” in a human rights context) and report to Parliament about defects in primary legislation before it is enacted.<br />
<br />
• You would have a single point of contact for those individuals who allege their privacy has been invaded.<br />
<br />
• With respect to interception of communications and covert surveillance, you would <i><b>not </b></i>have the lead regulators, appointed by the politicians, and reporting to the politicians who have a vested political interest in the outcome of any interception or surveillance. It is easier to argue that such a combined regulator should directly report to Parliament.<br />
<br />
• With respect to decision taking on important privacy matters, you would have a range of Commissioners and a collegiate decision making process. With the current mish-mash of Commissioners, you have a single individual making important decisions.<br />
<br />
• With respect to investigations by the regulator into possible malpractice, you would have a critical mass that would allow best practice to emerge. Currently, each Commissioner has a small investigations group employing a number of techniques and different practices<br />
<br />
• With respect to staff, you would streamline administration and retain front-line staff by offering a wider range of career paths (e.g. someone could start in data protection and realise that they are more interested in equal opportunities).<br />
<br />
• With respect to privacy policy development, you would have a Commission that could report to Parliament with unrivalled authority and experience.<br />
<br />
• With respect to the national security agencies, these bodies would be seen to be subject to independent scrutiny in a way that the current fragmented system of scrutiny denies.<br />
<br />
• With respect other regulators that have powers in relation to privacy (e.g. OFCOM or the Financial Services Authority), their role in relation to privacy protection should be transferred.<br />
<br />
In other words, this recession provides an opportunity to restructure all the Commissioners that have fingers in the privacy protection pie. The “cuts” provide an opportunity to reorganise privacy protection into a coherent form that integrates all aspects of data protection and the respect for private and family life.<br />
<br />
This is a win-win scenario. The Conservatives get their “cuts” and the Lib Dems get their enhanced privacy protection. That is why it should appear in next week’s Spending Review.<br />
<br />
<i><b>References</b></i><br />
<br />
The list of quangos at risk is on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405096">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405096</a></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">From <a href="http://amberhawk.typepad.com/amberhawk/2010/10/spending-review-why-not-axe-the-information-commissioner.html" target="_blank"><u>Hawktalk</u></a>, 13 October 2010</span>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-74017773016879002922010-09-20T20:57:00.001+01:002010-09-20T20:58:09.165+01:00Culture of secrecy alive and kicking - FoI fails us again<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">An appeal seeking the release of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/prince-charles" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Prince Charles">Prince Charles</a>'s correspondence with ministers, so that the extent of his behind-the-scenes lobbying may be publicly assessed, has been adjourned until next year.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Examination of the documents by a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/freedomofinformation" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Freedom of information">freedom of information</a> appeal tribunal has been "deferred" for reasons the panel said it could "not go into".</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The delay came at the end of a day's cross-examination of Rodney Brazier, professor of constitutional law at Manchester University, who said that the "obligation of confidence [on the government] is very wide indeed". Perhaps, he added, the tribunal would say it was too wide.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The Guardian is seeking the release of letters written by Prince Charles during an eight-month period between September 2004 and April 2005 involving the departments responsible for business, the environment, health, schools, culture, Northern Ireland and the Cabinet Office. The Guardian argues they should be released so the public can see how much Prince Charles seeks to influence government policy.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The government departments and information commissioner have refused on the grounds that such correspondence remains private under "constitutional convention" that allows the heir to the throne to be educated in the business of government to prepare him for succession. Any disclosures would undermine the perception of political neutrality fundamental to him being sovereign, they claim.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Attention was drawn today to the prince's official website, which states that in his correspondence with ministers he "is always careful to avoid party political issues".</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Brazier was asked by Michael Fordham QC, for the Guardian, whether public confidence in Prince Charles would be undermined if some of the prince's letters strayed into such matters. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">It would depend on the quantity of such examples, Brazier replied. "We can all make mistakes. We can all be badly advised or reject advice for any reason. No one over the course of 40 years is going to be able to say they have never put their foot wrong."</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Brazier agreed that in an article for a constitutional law review in 1995 his view had been that the extent of letter writing by the prince amounted to a "constitutional innovation".</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">In evidence to the tribunal the professor said: "I think [the prince] has taken this kind of initiative in writing to ministers and putting his views to a much greater extent than his predecessors."</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Nonetheless, Brazier said he considered this activity to be part of the traditional activity of the heir the throne under what he termed "the apprenticeship convention" – the process of the prince learning about the business of state.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Prince Charles is keeping a close eye on the proceedings: a number of royal aides were in court today.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The case continues.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/16/prince-charles-foi-tribunal-adjourned" target="_blank"><u>Prince Charles's letters to ministers stay secret as appeal is adjourned</u></a> (The Guardian, 16 September 2010) </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-18395175318268304142010-09-05T00:26:00.001+01:002010-09-05T00:27:02.262+01:00Tony Blair on Freedom of Information<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">In Tony Blair's latest book he regards the Freedom of Information Act as of no use to anyone but journalists who use it as a weapon to beat the government:</div><blockquote style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders, you idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate ... Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him?"</blockquote><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a name='more'></a>See also Martin Rosenbaum's recent blog post ("<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/09/why_tony_blair_thinks_he_was_a.html">Why Tony Blair thinks he was an idiot</a>") where Blair is quoted as saying about FoI, "For political leaders, it's like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, 'Hey, try this instead', and handing them a mallet." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">In his Guardian interview to promote his book, Blair said:</span><br />
<blockquote style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations... And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That's why it's not a sensible thing."</blockquote>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-86529493926073369602010-09-01T21:45:00.002+01:002010-09-01T21:47:33.194+01:00Scottish Information Commissioner caves in to Scottish Government as case is "settled"<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The Scottish Information Commissioner has agreed to settle a case with the Scottish Government, withdrawing an information notice he had served on Scottish ministers in respect of an application he was considering.<br />
<br />
But this climbdown by the Commissioner has been portrayed in a different light by The Herald newspaper - as a victory for FoI.<br />
<br />
It raises a serious question - how many other cases have been quietly "settled" by the Commissioner and his staff?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Scottish ministers have backed down in a controversial row over the authority of the country’s freedom of information tsar.<br />
<br />
Government lawyers were due to appear in court last week to challenge the powers of Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion.<br />
<br />
Ministers wanted to restrict Dunion’s access to their files – a vital part of his job.<br />
<br />
However, at the eleventh hour they abandoned a key plank of their case.<br />
<br />
The climbdown has been hailed as a victory for Dunion and other freedom of information (FoI) campaigners, who had viewed the government’s challenge as an unprecedented attack on the public’s right to access state files.<br />
<br />
The Sunday Herald revealed in March that SNP ministers wanted the Court of Session to issue a clarification of Dunion’s powers. In particular, they wanted the court to rule on whether he should have unfettered access to state papers.<br />
<br />
It followed Dunion issuing the government with an “information notice”, ordering it to release material to the media.<br />
<br />
Although ministers downplayed their appeal to the court as “a small technical point”, FoI campaigners saw it as an unprecedented attack on the law underpinning FoI.<br />
<br />
The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, which came into effect in 2005, has led to a series of breakthroughs in public access to official data, including the release of PPP/PFI contracts, patient mortality figures for surgeons and MSPs’ expenses.<br />
<br />
It has also embarrassed First Minister Alex Salmond, unearthing his private correspondence with singer Sandi Thom, and revealing details of a controversial planning application involving ministers and an SNP donor.<br />
<br />
Dunion considers appeals from people unhappy about public bodies withholding information. As part of this work, his office has access to all relevant documents, and decides how much should be made public and how much withheld on grounds such as commercial confidentiality, law and order, and personal privacy.<br />
<br />
The government’s planned appeal against Dunion questioned whether he should have this right to inspect public records, even though it is an integral part of his work.<br />
<br />
However, minsters retreated at the last minute, Dunion dropped his information notice, and the court dismissed the government’s appeal.<br />
<br />
Heather Brooke, the FoI campaigner who exposed the MPs’ expenses scandal and author of The Silent State, said that “wiser heads had prevailed”.<br />
<br />
She told the Sunday Herald: “It would have set a very dangerous precedent if they had gone through with it. It would also have looked incredibly bad, as if they were politicians of the old school, very shady and secretive.<br />
<br />
“I don’t know how they could have argued an action like that was in the public interest.”<br />
<br />
Robert Brown, the LibDem MSP for Glasgow who denounced the court case as “spurious”, accused the government of wasting taxpayers’ money on the case.<br />
<br />
“The government has ultimately taken the right approach. But at a time of public spending pressures, it’s not at all satisfactory that they’ve been wasting our money on trying to prevent our FoI champion doing his job.”<br />
<br />
A spokesman for Dunion’s office said: “In the lead-up to this week’s court hearing the ministers amended their grounds of appeal quite substantially, with the result that, following discussions with the ministers’ team, we were able to settle this case earlier in the week.<br />
<br />
“As a result, the Court of Session dismissed the appeal at a hearing on Tuesday, and the full hearing did not proceed. The Commissioner is now progressing with the investigation of the case in question.”<br />
<br />
A Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Information Commissioner agreed to withdraw the information notice he had served on Scottish ministers in respect of an application he is currently considering. Ministers will not now proceed with their challenge to the notice.<br />
<br />
“The Scottish Government is committed to FoI and its underpinning principles of openness and transparent government.”</blockquote><br />
<a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/government-climbs-down-over-legal-threat-to-freedom-of-information-tsar-1.1041995" target="_blank"><u>Government climbs down over legal threat to freedom of information tsar</u></a> (Tom Gordon, The Herald, 18 July 2010)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-39893691621013003832010-09-01T20:57:00.001+01:002010-09-01T20:59:04.995+01:00Possible extension of FoI in Scotland<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on a possible extension of the coverage of Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) to specified bodies</span>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">This follows on from the Scottish Ministers' decision to consult with certain bodies on the extension of FOISA.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">This consultation, and all other Scottish Government consultation exercises, can be viewed online on the consultation web pages of the Scottish Government website at <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations" target="_blank"><u>www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations</u></a>. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Consultation commenced on 28 July 2010 and will run for 14 weeks. Responses should be received by 02 November 2010.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">A schedule list together with copies of the responses to the discussion paper is available to view <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/FOI/Responses" target="_blank"><u>here</u></a>. </span>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-74855162725782143592010-09-01T20:48:00.003+01:002010-09-01T20:49:37.004+01:00£11m: Yorkshire's toll of 180,000 repaired potholes<div class="ds-firstpara" id="ds-firstpara" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">More than 180,000 potholes have been repaired this year across the Yorkshire region as councils battled with the prolonged winter cold snap.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">So far this year authorities have filled in or patched up in excess of 35,000 more holes than in the whole of the previous year.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">One authority, North Yorkshire County Council, says it needs in excess of £25m to repair "accelerated damage" to the roads, including potholes and other problems – a figure that could yet rise. It has warned it will struggle to complete repairs before the onset of winter.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Earlier this year it opted to impose a controversial "snow levy" on council taxpayers to help pay for repairs.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Responding to a Freedom of Information request, the authority says it has redirected resources and amalgamated funds and received Government money to meet the huge bill.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/11m-Yorkshire39s-toll-of-180000.6505558.jp" target="_blank"><u>Yorkshire Post</u></a> (1 September 2010)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-63545720942094189992010-07-13T22:56:00.000+01:002010-07-13T22:56:42.778+01:00Commissioner commits u-turn on legal professional privilege exemption<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Not only has the Scottish Information Commissioner changed his mind about the information you are entitled to receive under Scottish Freedom of Information laws (you are now <b>not</b> entitled to receive a copy of actual documents you request, only the information that is contained within them - which opens up an opportunity for public authorities to mislead and misinform the public), but Mr Dunion has also committed a u-turn on legal professional privilege. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">In his May/June newsletter (<a href="http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/News/Newsletter/InformNewsletterMayJune2010.asp">http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/News/Newsletter/InformNewsletterMayJune2010.asp</a>), Mr Dunion wrote that he has now <i>changed his approach</i> to the legal professional privilege exemption. Previously in cases where some aspects of legal advice had been disclosed into the public domain, the Commissioner had ruled that the advice in full should be disclosed. In a complete reversal to this, Mr Dunion "no longer considers that this rule will apply to most requests under FOISA" and, so, will not normally order a public authority to disclose legal advice in its entirety where it has already disclosed parts of that advice. This totally contradicts his findings in a 2008 case (002/2008 <i>Ms D Cairns and the City of Edinburgh Council</i>). </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Does this now mean that any past cases where Dunion was of the decision that information was to be released on the basis of his erroneous application of the 'cherry picking' rule are all null and void because he applied the law incorrectly? </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Let's hope there are more challenges to the Commissioner's rulings in future - remember his decision is not final (and on this evidence it certainly cannot be trusted).</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Case: <a href="http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2010/200901030.asp">056/2010 Mr William Lonsdale and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council </a></div><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"> </span>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-60907757606850029112010-05-30T23:03:00.001+01:002010-05-30T23:05:29.928+01:00Commissioner's confusion over personal data results in court failure<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><b>Scotland’s first, longest and most disputed Freedom of Information case has ended up keeping vital cancer statistics secret.</b><br />
<br />
After two investigations by the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, plus appeals to the Court of Session in Edinburgh and the House of Lords in London, numbers that might (or might not) shed light on links between children’s blood cancer and radioactive pollution have been kept hidden from the public. The case has cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D_TYyfSvbk4/TALg5xoD8kI/AAAAAAAAACA/Ju2nPcoolOU/s1600/foi_cancer.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D_TYyfSvbk4/TALg5xoD8kI/AAAAAAAAACA/Ju2nPcoolOU/s320/foi_cancer.JPG" /></a></div><br />
According to a report in the Sunday Herald, "The Scottish Green Party, which made the original request, is frustrated and annoyed. The Scottish Health Service, which fought to keep the information confidential, sounds relieved."<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>From The Herald:<br />
<br />
"Back at the start of 2005, Michael Collie, a researcher for the then Green MSP, Chris Ballance, asked the Scottish Health Service for the annual incidence of childhood leukaemia in every census ward in Dumfries and Galloway from 1990 to 2003.<br />
<br />
They wanted to test widespread suspicions that the debilitating and potentially fatal cancer could be caused by radioactive contamination. Plutonium from the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria washes up on the Solway coast, and has been detected around the shoreline.<br />
<br />
The health service, however, refused to release the information on the grounds that the small numbers of cases in particular areas might enable individual patients still alive to be identified. So Collie lodged Scotland’s first Freedom of Information appeal with Mr Dunion’s office in St Andrews on 27 January 2005.<br />
<br />
After a six-month investigation, Mr Dunion concluded that the information could be released in a way that would not identify individuals. But the health service appealed to the Court of Session.<br />
<br />
The Scottish court upheld Mr Dunion’s findings, but the health service then appealed again to the House of Lords in England. In July 2008, five law lords concluded that Mr Dunion was wrong in law, and ordered him to rethink his decision.<br />
<br />
They argued that the form in which the information would be released amounted to sensitive personal data, that should be kept confidential under the 1998 Data Protection Act.<br />
<br />
As a result Mr Dunion, below, has conducted a second investigation, the results of which were sent to those involved last week. This time he agreed with the House of Lords, and ruled that the information as requested should not be released.<br />
<br />
He did, however, order the health service to provide aggregated statistics for the whole Dumfries and Galloway Health Board area. But they will not show the very local effects that are suspected.<br />
<br />
“I regret that it has taken so long to finalise this decision, particularly when your application was the first to be made,” wrote Mr Dunion to Mr Collie. “I appreciate how frustrating the whole process must have been for you.”<br />
<br />
The saga had helped resolve some issues over the form in which information had to be provided, but there were still problems. “Confusion over the definition of personal data is likely to remain for some time,” said Mr Dunion.<br />
<br />
“I don’t think there is anything at all for us in this,” commented former MSP Mr Ballance. “We wanted to test the hypothesis that childhood leukaemia rates are higher by the coast than inland, because of radiation from Sellafield blown in on sea spray.<br />
<br />
“An aggregated set of statistics for the area will tell us nothing except that they are about in line with national statistics. I think we know that already.”<br />
<br />
Mr Ballance argued that local communities had a right to their own health statistics. “The small numbers at issue here are a problem, but I don’t accept that there is no better way round it,” he stated.<br />
<br />
NHS National Services Scotland’s medical director, Dr Marion Bain, accepted this had been a difficult request. “We are fully supportive of the fundamental principles underpinning Freedom of Information,” she said.<br />
<br />
“At the same time, we have a clear duty to respect and preserve patients’ right to confidentiality.” The information in the form now requested by Mr Dunion would be released.<br />
<br />
“We will continue to work closely with the information commissioner to make as much information available as possible where this is consistent with protecting patient privacy,” Dr Bain added."</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/longest-foi-battle-ends-in-defeat-over-cancer-data-1.1031334" target="_blank"><u>Longest FOI battle ends in defeat over cancer data</u></a> (Rob Edwards: Environment Editor, Sunday Herald, 30 May 2010) </span>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-24509416982190962862010-05-24T22:49:00.000+01:002010-05-24T22:49:58.996+01:00FoI and the monarchy: secrecy rules<div id="article-wrapper" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"> The exemption from scrutiny under Freedom of Information shows the status gap between crown and public interest - by Heather Brooke.<br />
<br />
Where there's secrecy, there's scandal. The two certainly go hand in hand in the picture painted by the weekend's <a href="http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/822206/Duchess-of-York-Sarah-Ferguson-plots-to-sell-access-to-Prince-Andrew.html" title="">News of the World video that shows Sarah Ferguson</a> accepting a $40,000 briefcase of cash while promising that, for a £500,000 backhander, she would provide an introduction to trade envoy Prince Andrew.<br />
<br />
Any effort by the royal family to sweep away any impression of secrecy is, however, undermined by their aversion to transparency. Among the laws rushed through in the "wash-up" of the last government was a change to the Freedom of Information Act granting an absolute ban on all communications with the royal family and royal household. Prior to this such information was still exempt but if there was a public interest in the material, it had to be disclosed.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
That exemption meant, for example, one could argue that, as the billpayer, the public has a right to know the detail of how the £7.9m from the civil list is spent, about the additional £15m spent to maintain the royal palaces, and the estimated £50m spent on royal security.<br />
<br />
July will see the announcement of a new civil list settlement. There are rumours the royals are asking to double the amount to more than £15m. In the information blackout, facts are few and far between. We will only know the deal when it is done. As Graham Smith, campaign manager of the pressure group Republic, says: "We have no idea if these rumours are true. We aren't allowed any information about what the palace is lobbying for, or on what grounds."<br />
<br />
In a similar vein, there has been considerable speculation about Prince Charles's penchant for writing letters to ministers of state – be they about health, education or the environment. The Prince's health charity lobbied the NHS to provide homeopathy, and last year he scuppered a £3.6bn redevelopment project for <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/may/16/chelsea-barracks-prince-charles-high-court" title="">Chelsea Barracks</a> by lobbying the Emir of Qatar.<br />
<br />
A high court case is finally revealing the extent of the emails, phone conversations and meetings between the prince, his private secretary – Sir Michael Peat – and the Qataris over a decision to abandon the project. The prince's approach prompted the Riba president to say: "If the evidence presented is correct, it appears the Prince of Wales has brought inappropriate pressure to bear on the democratic planning process … The Chelsea Barracks developers chose not to proceed with the original design, which had been through extensive consultation and design review, and that was their prerogative. However, behind the scenes influence would have been a huge hurdle to consider. No individual should use their position in public life to influence a democratic process such as planning."<br />
<br />
Then there is Prince "air miles" Andrew, whose use of public funds for helicopter jaunts is well known. Less well known are the details of what he does as the UK's special representative for international trade and investment.<br />
<br />
Last December the tide was turning on all this archaic secrecy. It looked as though the royals would have to follow MPs in adapting to the new age of open, accountable government. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/15/mps-expenses-heather-brooke-foi" title="">Freedom of information cases such as my own (on MPs' expenses)</a> had shifted the default position from automatic secrecy for the powerful to the belief that power must be open and accountable to the people.<br />
<br />
The Independent newspaper had just won a three-year battle for the disclosure of public subsidies paid for the upkeep of royal palaces. In 2009, that amount was £41.5m, up £1.5m on 2008. Government officials refused all requests because of the "well established constitutional convention that correspondence between the sovereign and government is confidential in nature".<br />
<br />
When Republic tried to ascertain the number of letters government departments received from Prince Charles, even that was refused: "Whilst it is publicly known, and acknowledged by the Prince of Wales himself, that he corresponds on occasion with government, it is generally not known when, and with whom, he corresponds. This is entirely proper."<br />
<br />
Proper according to whom? Not the information commissioner. In December 2009 he <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/dec/21/freedomofinformation" title="">ruled in favour of the Independent</a>, saying: "Disclosure … would enhance public awareness and understanding of the funding and accommodation arrangements of the royal household and this would be in the public interest." He went on: "The discussions relate to the spending of the Grant in Aid which is specifically in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of the Royal Household. In the commissioner's view, disclosure would not undermine the privacy of, nor the constitutional position of, the royal family."<br />
<br />
When some of the information was finally released in March 2010 the nature of the correspondence was much like that of MPs' expenses – it showed the only "harm" was embarrassment. The palace was shown to be lobbying for more money while at the same time providing rent-free accommodation to a number of minor royals and courtiers.<br />
<br />
The monarchy is a part of the state. It exists to serve the people. By granting the royals an absolute ban from FoI, the previous government made it clear that the interests of the royals were more important than that of the people. This is an extraordinary and undemocratic victory for secrecy, and one that can only invite scandal.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1524045282"><br />
</a></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/24/royal-appetite-secrecy-only-invite-scandal">Royal appetite for secrecy can only invite scandal</a> (Heather Brooke, The Guardian, 24 May 2010)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-33863545313519788602010-05-24T22:35:00.013+01:002010-05-24T22:59:08.014+01:00Council catches canine terrorists<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Allerdale Council has admitted to spying on dog owners to see if their pets foul pavements and are wearing a collar, in some cases using hidden cameras.<br />
<br />
The authority was today named and shamed by the organisation Big Brother Watch, which says Allerdale has been misusing surveillance legislation aimed at tackling serious crime and terrorism.<br />
<br />
The group used the Freedom of Information Act to ask 372 local authorities Regulation of Investigatory Power Act (Ripa) and found it was be used, on average, 11 times a day.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></div><a name='more'></a>Allerdale has admitted using the Act a dozen times in 2007 and 2008, mostly to spy on dog owners. The council said the purpose of one of the investigations was: “To obtain evidence to see if [a] person is walking their dog, cleaning up after it but then depositing poop bag in trees, grass, or on road.”<br />
<br />
Other surveillance was carried out to see if a dog was wearing a collar and tag with “possible photographing” being allowed in that instance.<br />
<br />
Big Brother Watch campaigns against intrusions of privacy. It says councils such as Allerdale are abusing extensive powers, which allow them to bug homes and vehicles, follow people and use informers.<br />
<br />
Alex Deane, the group’s director, said: “Now that the absurd and excessive use of Ripa surveillance has been revealed, these powers have to be taken away from councils.<br />
<br />
“The coalition government plan to force councils to get warrants before snooping on us is good but that doesn’t go far enough. If the offence is serious enough to merit covert surveillance, then it should be in the hands of the police.”<br />
<br />
But Councillor David Wilson, deputy leader of Allerdale, said it was using the law correctly and was mystified as to why it had been singled out.<br />
<br />
He said: “We used it four times in 2007 and eight times in 2008 – these were static, covert observations not CCTV cameras after we received numerous complaints about dog fouling and strays in Silloth, Aspatria, Maryport and Workington. Use of the powers was authorised by the borough solicitor.”<br />
<br />
Big Brother’s report, called The Grim Ripa catalogues alleged abuses. Hambleton Council in North Yorkshire, and the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, used the act to check on staff suspected of faking illness. Other councils said they monitored customers smoking and drinking outside a pub and investigated the “fly tipping” of clothes outside a charity shop.<br />
<br />
More than 12 local authorities, including Allerdale, admitted using the Act to check up on dog owners whose pets were suspected of dog fouling. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Council used the act the most often – 231 times in two years.<br />
<br />
A spokesman for the Local Government Association said: “Surveillance powers should never be used lightly but there are times when it’s clearly in local residents’ interests.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/home/cumbrian-council-used-terror-laws-to-nick-dog-foulers-1.711875?referrerPath=home">Allerdale Council used terror laws to nick dog foulers</a> (News & Star, 24 May 2010)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-70969593100935756492010-02-24T21:31:00.004+00:002010-02-24T21:34:23.814+00:00UFOs and FoI<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D_TYyfSvbk4/S4WY20d6S9I/AAAAAAAAAB4/yAFG0N3ykNI/s1600-h/ufo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D_TYyfSvbk4/S4WY20d6S9I/AAAAAAAAAB4/yAFG0N3ykNI/s320/ufo.jpg" /></a></div><div class="first"><b><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Defence officials' insulting remarks about the public had to be blanked out of government UFO files before they were made public, a memo has revealed.</span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</span></b></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The Ministry of Defence had agreed to publish its full archive of reported sightings in response to a deluge of Freedom of Information Act requests.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">But the once-secret memo, published on its website, reveals "uncomplimentary comments" were edited out.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></div><a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Comments on international relations and defence technology were also deleted. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Thousands of pages from the department's UFO files have been released through the National Archives since 2008, revealing details of reported flying objects and encounters with aliens. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The newly released memo to ministers and defence chiefs, dated September 2007, discusses how to make the largely "low security classification" information public.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">It notes they "include references to air defence matters, defence technology, relations with foreign powers and occasional uncomplimentary comments by staff or police officers about members of the public, which will need to be withheld in accordance with FoI principles." </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The Ministry of Defence (MoD) recorded UFO sightings from the end of the Second World War until it shut its special investigation unit on 1 December last year. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Officials feared publishing only part of the information would "fuel accusations of a 'cover-up'," the document reveals. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"Contrary to what many members of the public may believe, MoD has no interest in the subject of extraterrestrial life forms visiting the UK, only in ensuring the integrity and security of UK airspace," it says. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"The MoD is aware of no clear evidence to prove or disprove the existence of aliens, and consequently the files are considerably less exciting than the 'industry' surrounding the UFO phenomena would like to believe." </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The fifth instalment of MoD UFO files was released last week, revealing reports of a large triangular UFO hovering in the skies above former home secretary Michael Howard's home near Folkestone, Kent, in March 1997.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1267046462955"><br />
</a></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8526871.stm" target="_blank"><u>UFO sightings - MoD 'blanked out' insults about reports</u></a> (BBC News, 21 February 2010)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-63743610091233612852010-02-14T21:31:00.002+00:002010-02-24T21:57:56.776+00:00MPs in duck house over unpaid bills<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">MPs are trying to block the publication of embarrassing details about unpaid food and drinks bills they have run up in the House of Commons.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Next thing you know, they'll be submitting fraudulent expenses claims to pay these bills. Or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a> </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The House authorities have delayed releasing the data after MPs reacted furiously to the prospect, following a freedom of information request by the Press Association.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Officials have been forced to seek new legal advice on their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act after the request for a detailed breakdown of the bills.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">After months of delays, the information watchdog has now written to the Commons demanding either the release of the details or an explanation for why it is refusing to do so.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Hundreds of MPs are liable for large tabs in Parliament's restaurants, many running to thousands of pounds. Total debts to the publicly-funded Commons catering department stood at £138,046 last summer.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Commons sources claim that officials had initially intended to release the information last autumn.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">But MPs on the Commons Administration Committee - which oversees the House catering facilities - asked for its release to be postponed pending further legal advice.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">It is understood that MPs have demanded that data protection considerations are studied afresh in relation to the case.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The Data Protection Act was cited by the Commons in its three-year battle - ultimately unsuccessful - to prevent the release of a detailed breakdown of MPs' second home allowance claims.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jqn7oJhBic-f9QDdHGFGYMERFA3A" target="_blank"><u>MPs bid to block bill documents</u></a> (Press Association, 14 February 2010)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-57126466173967849632010-02-08T20:37:00.005+00:002010-02-08T22:30:00.502+00:00Hamfisted Commissioner accuses Scottish Government of taking restricted view of FoI after court ruling<div class="first" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><b>The Scottish Government has been accused of routinely rejecting valid Freedom of Information requests.</b></div><div class="first" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion said civil servants took a "restrictive view" of applications "as a matter of course".</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Mr Dunion issued new guidance on how the laws should be interpreted after a ruling said people had the right to the information but not the documents.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
<a name='more'></a></div><br />
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The Scottish government said it was committed to freedom of information.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Kevin Dunion said: "If it is reasonably clear to the public authority what information you're looking for, they should respond to it in a perfectly normal way.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"The Scottish government has taken a rather restrictive view of it and is now issuing, almost as a matter of course, refusal notices saying requests are invalid if they make reference to documents. "I'm very surprised and disappointed by the line that they have taken, because up until now they have had an excellent record of supporting FoI.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"But that doesn't obscure the fact that in this case we now have ample evidence that as a matter of course civil servants are turning away perfectly valid information requests which are quite inexplicable."</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Mr Dunion said the Government's stance was "hamfisted" and "misguided", adding: "I think it can be remedied by simply coming into line with the rest of the public authorities in Scotland and with my guidance, which spells out what should be done.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"It's my job to interpret what the law is and I've issued to the permanent secretary of the civil service in Scotland guidance asking him to change the instructions he has given to his staff so that they accord with my interpretation of the Court of Session decision."</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><b>'Transparent government'</b></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">A Scottish Government spokeswoman said the administration was "committed to freedom of information, and its underpinning principles of openness and transparent government".</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">She said: "The publication of the Scottish Information Commissioner's guidance on the recent Court of Session decision is welcome.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"The court ruling says, for example, that the FoI Act provides a right to obtain information, rather than a right to obtain copies of specific documents, and of course we are now considering the implications of the court ruling in the context of the advice from the commissioner."</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8487385.stm" target="_blank"><u>Government 'rejects valid FoIs'</u></a> (BBC News, 29 January 2010)<br />
<br />
<b>* Commissioner issues guidance for public authorities</b> - "On 27 January 2010, the Commissioner published important new guidance explaining the practical effects for public authorities and applicants of the Opinion of the Court of Session in <a href="http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2009CSIH73.html" target="_blank"><u><i>Glasgow</i><i> City</i><i> Council v Scottish Information Commissioner</i></u></a>. The Court found that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the requests were invalid. The guidance provides practical advice on the interpretation of information requests, alongside the important duty to advise and assist applicants"- view the guidance here: <a href="http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/Law/FOISA-EIRsGuidance/CourtofSessionGuidance2010/Validrequests.asp" target="_blank"><u>Scottish Information Commissioner's Guidance</u></a></div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-69799524020007735812010-02-08T19:43:00.004+00:002010-02-08T22:30:36.593+00:00A desperate plea from the Scottish Information Commissioner<div class="ds-firstpara" id="ds-firstpara" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D_TYyfSvbk4/S3CQfDiJ7HI/AAAAAAAAABw/1QuRxBo9gec/s1600-h/dunion-pic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D_TYyfSvbk4/S3CQfDiJ7HI/AAAAAAAAABw/1QuRxBo9gec/s320/dunion-pic.jpg" /></a></div>If you wanted to find out the terms of a legally binding agreement entered into by a public authority and a commercial contractor, would you not simply ask for a copy of the contract?</div><div class="ds-firstpara" id="ds-firstpara" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></div><br />
<div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">If you wanted to establish what submissions were made by officials to a government minister in respect of a planning application, would you not simply ask for a copy of their report? In all likelihood you would use the normal everyday language of asking for a copy of the information.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Freedom of information requests couched in terms of copies of contracts, minutes, reports, briefings have produced valuable insights into PFI hospitals and road building programme, schools closures and the incidence of hospital acquired infections. But now the validity of such requests and the need to respond to them is being questioned by Scottish Government officials.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><a name='more'></a><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The freedom of information regime in Scotland has just celebrated its fifth birthday and is an internationally acknowledged success story. It was designed to have the minimum of formality so that anyone could make a request to any of Scotland's public authorities.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Unlike some other countries, there is no need to fill in an official form, cite the legislation or pay a fee when making a request. In case of dispute, there is a right of free appeal to me as the Scottish Information Commissioner to determine the case. I have issued nearly 1,000 formal decisions and settled hundreds of other cases informally. Few of my decisions are appealed against to the Court of Session.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">But the Scottish Government's interpretation of a recent court decision threatens to undermine the right-to- know regime. Last year, in the circumstances of a particular case, the court determined that freedom of information gives a right to "information", not to specific "documents". </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Scottish Government officials are writing to requesters refusing to respond to requests where there is a reference to documents. MSPs, journalists and voluntary workers are being told to try to rephrase their request. Some have tried and have still been refused. In exasperation, they are seeking my view.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">I find this to be a disturbing and unexpected turn of events. The current government has built on the groundbreaking work of the first Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition administration which brought in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act. It has signalled that it wants to extend FoI to bodies such as local authority leisure and recreation trusts, major PFI/PPP contractors and to others such as the Glasgow Housing Association.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">I have, in the past, commented favourably on the official attitude to freedom of information in Scotland compared to that in Westminster. There, the failure to extend FoI to similar bodies, the sustained attempt to withhold details of MPs' expenses, and the use of the ministerial veto to prevent disclosure of Cabinet minutes stands in marked contrast to our experience.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">But it is Scotland which is now going to attract unfavourable attention. I know of no other country in the world where the FoI law does not allow you to make reference to documents when requesting information. People will simply not play a parlour game where you have to identify what you want without using certain words – such as record, minute, report, e-mail, letter or indeed any means by which the information is recorded or could be located. In my view, it is obviously possible to describe information by reference to documents. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">(By the way, it is almost impossible to conceive of certain requests for information being made without asking for copies – how else, in plain language, would you ask for a photograph, a map, a plan, or a CCTV recording? All of these can be requested under freedom of information laws.)</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Crucially, the judges recognised that people will ask for copies of a document, and that authorities should still respond to a request if it is reasonably clear that it is the information contained in those documents which is wanted. </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">But not only are officials saying that they can refuse to respond to the requests, they are also saying that there is no right of appeal to me. Indeed, they are challenging my ability to adjudicate in such cases at all. I do not share this view and will do my job – of issuing guidance on good practice which I expect authorities to follow and determining whether authorities are dealing with requests in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, including whether it has misdirected itself as to what constitutes a valid request </div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">This is not a marginal technical disagreement. It lies at the core of whether we have a functioning FoI regime at all. I have looked at my current caseload and in nearly 80 per cent of cases the applicant has asked for a copy of a document. No-one wants to see the Freedom of Information Act being reduced to a mechanism for issuing official refusals of information, by which the majority of requests are turned away.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">A commonsense approach to what was intended to be a commonsense law would ensure that we can get back to celebrating the real progress towards openness which we have made in Scotland.</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/comment/-Kevin-Dunion-Resist-this.6029558.jp" target="_blank"><u>Kevin Dunion: Resist this threat to our freedom</u></a> (Scotland on Sunday, 31 January 2010)</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9727750.post-74307316265846393692010-01-25T19:15:00.001+00:002010-01-25T19:17:27.920+00:00MoD Staff Embrace Openness (even if MoD doesn't)<img alt="Whitehall" src="http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Oct/Week2/15404514.jpg" /> <br />
<div class="imageCaption"><br />
</div><div class="imageCaption"><b>Ministry of Defence staff have leaked secret information onto social-networking sites sixteen times in 18 months.</b><br />
</div><div class="imageCaption" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div class="imageCaption" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The MoD refused to say whether the leaks related to sensitive operational issues <br />
</div><div class="clearAll" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The figures were uncovered using the Freedom of Information Act, by computer security firm <a href="http://www.f-secure.com/en_UK/"><b>F-Secure</b></a> and <a href="http://www.lewispr.com/main/"><b>Lewis PR</b></a>.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">F-Secure security expert Mikko Hypponen said: "It's worrying that employees in sensitive positions have been sharing confidential information.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">"They might think they are confiding in friends or family when they go on Facebook. However, the recent changes in Facebook's privacy settings might make them disclose information to the world. This is a potential security risk."<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The <a href="http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Home/"><b>MoD</b></a> refused to comment on whether the leaks related to operational issues and what disciplinary action was taken.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">MoD personnel need clearance from their bosses before publishing anything which relates to operations, or offers opinions on Defence activity.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Staff are also forbidden from speaking on behalf of the MoD in relation to controversial, sensitive or political matters.<br />
<br />
</div><div class="imageCaption" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div class="clearAll" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">For security reasons, the MoD's main computer network doesn't allow access to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">But a small number of computers allow staff open access to the Internet when off duty. This includes internet cafes on military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">Staff guidelines state: "Remember you are a member of HM Forces/MoD civil servant. Observe the same high standard of conduct and behaviour online as would be expected of you in your professional or personal life."<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">In a statement, an MoD spokesperson said: "Service and MoD civilian personnel are encouraged to talk about what they do, but within certain limits to protect security, reputation and privacy. We have implemented a wide range of <a href="http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/MediaandPublicCommunicationPublications/OnlineEngagementGuidelines.htm%20%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0"><b>measures</b></a> to improve the security of our information but we continue to make changing the culture of data handling across the whole Department one of our top priorities."<br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Ministry-of-Defence-Staff-Have-Leaked-Secret-Information-16-Times-Onto-Social-Networking-Sites/Article/201001415535304" target="_blank"><u>MoD Secrets Leaked Onto The Internet</u></a> (Sky News, 25 January 2010) <br />
</div>bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732199239522348382noreply@blogger.com0