al-jazeera memo - US FOIA request
My request for the al-Jazeera memo to the US Dept State rolls on, my appeal has now reached the Appeals Review Panel of the Dept, hopefully I will hear something soon.
(read the background about my US request)
Showing posts with label My FOI requests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label My FOI requests. Show all posts
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
al-Jazeera memo
The Pre-Trial hearing of the Keogh and O'Connor, charged under the Official Secrets Act of passing information relating the conversation between Bush and Blair that reported discussed the al-Jazeera. There has been some confusion of what took place in Monday as we had assumed this was the full trial starting - the trial will now apparently start on the 18th April. (see The Guardian)
My FOI request for the memo: my complaint reached the ICO a few months ago, but I have not yet had a case worker assigned. I also have a request under internal review at the US State Dept (they claim they don't hold any records). Staff at al-jazeera first picked up on my request on their "don't bomb" blog.
The Official Secrets Act states: S11(4) Section 8(4) of the [1920 c. 75.] "Official Secrets Act 1920 (exclusion of public from hearing on grounds of national safety) shall have effect as if references to offences under that Act included references to offences under any provision of this Act other than section 8(1), (4) or (5).". A certficate would have to be issued giving reasons.
Similar applications were made by the Government for parts of the David Shayler trial under the Official Secrets Act to be held in camera. (Two were issued one in 2000, the other in 2002). The context was obviously different given Shayler's background as an ex agent - there was a much greater risk of new senstive information coming to light given his extensive inside knowledge and nature of the witnesses involved. Shayler attempted to resist this, as did the press. In this case the detailed evidence supporting the certficate was seen as too damaging, so this was given to the court as a "sensitive schedule". The certficates were accepted by the judge for parts of the trial.
The Guardian carries a comment from Mark Stephens, the lawyer acting on on behalf of al-Jazeera, persuing their FOI request for the memo (similar to mine). It is likely that as with the Iraq/legal advice these similar complaints will dealt with as one cluster by the ICO.
SeeBBC coverage
Also see: Blairwatch
The Pre-Trial hearing of the Keogh and O'Connor, charged under the Official Secrets Act of passing information relating the conversation between Bush and Blair that reported discussed the al-Jazeera. There has been some confusion of what took place in Monday as we had assumed this was the full trial starting - the trial will now apparently start on the 18th April. (see The Guardian)
In his published ruling, Old Bailey judge Mr Justice Aikens accepted the government's case that disclosing the contents of the memo would have a "detrimental impact" on "diplomatic and political relations" between the UK and the US. This in turn would have "serious consequences" for "the national safety or national security of the United Kingdom in the current international situation
My FOI request for the memo: my complaint reached the ICO a few months ago, but I have not yet had a case worker assigned. I also have a request under internal review at the US State Dept (they claim they don't hold any records). Staff at al-jazeera first picked up on my request on their "don't bomb" blog.
The Official Secrets Act states: S11(4) Section 8(4) of the [1920 c. 75.] "Official Secrets Act 1920 (exclusion of public from hearing on grounds of national safety) shall have effect as if references to offences under that Act included references to offences under any provision of this Act other than section 8(1), (4) or (5).". A certficate would have to be issued giving reasons.
Similar applications were made by the Government for parts of the David Shayler trial under the Official Secrets Act to be held in camera. (Two were issued one in 2000, the other in 2002). The context was obviously different given Shayler's background as an ex agent - there was a much greater risk of new senstive information coming to light given his extensive inside knowledge and nature of the witnesses involved. Shayler attempted to resist this, as did the press. In this case the detailed evidence supporting the certficate was seen as too damaging, so this was given to the court as a "sensitive schedule". The certficates were accepted by the judge for parts of the trial.
The Guardian carries a comment from Mark Stephens, the lawyer acting on on behalf of al-Jazeera, persuing their FOI request for the memo (similar to mine). It is likely that as with the Iraq/legal advice these similar complaints will dealt with as one cluster by the ICO.
SeeBBC coverage
Also see: Blairwatch
Thursday, August 17, 2006
ICO releases names of MP complainants after internal review
I've received a positive response to my request for an internal review related to the request I made to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for the details of MP's complaints to the ICO under Section 50. In reponse to my request the ICO had previous supplied details of thc complaints but removed the names of MPs. The ICO stated:
All the names of the MPs have now been supplied. The data is useful for my research as it helps in building the profile of MPs using the FOIA and appeal procedures.
Download the data with MP names added as released by the ICO
Download my annotated version with party details added as colour codes. Party split is as follows 13 Conversative complaints 13, Liberal Democrat: 10 Labour: 11. It would be expected that opposition use is higher, it is interesting to note the Labour complaints mainly stay away from Central Govt (not a good career move?) compared to the Conservative complaints which are nearly all related to Central Govt.
See my previous post about my research into MPs use of the FOIA
Some public authorities have taken a proactive approach to this already, e.g see the disclosure log of Norwich and Norfolk University Hospital which names both MPs and organisations making requests (but not individuals).
I've received a positive response to my request for an internal review related to the request I made to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for the details of MP's complaints to the ICO under Section 50. In reponse to my request the ICO had previous supplied details of thc complaints but removed the names of MPs. The ICO stated:
It would appear that the decision to remove MPs names from the information that was supplied to you was based upon our general practice of removing the names of complainants from the published versions of decision notices. This practice is based upon a concern that in some cases a decision notice may reveal information about the private life of the complainant which might, in turn, be a breach of the Data Protection Act. For instance, we receive many complaints from private individuals who have been unsuccessful in their attempts to discover the identity of a person who has made a complaint about them. The background to these cases may lie in disputes with a social services department, allegations about breaches of planning regulations etc. The notices will generally provide some background information including information about the issues giving rise to the complaint about the applicant for information.
Identifying the complainant in these cases would by likely both to involve an interference with the private life of the complainant and to act as a deterrent to others contemplating making a complaint to the Commissioner. It seems to me reasonable in these cases that the Commissioner should wish to protect the privacy of those who complain to him. We have found it easier to adopt the general practice of removing the names of complainant's from published decision notices rather than making a judgement in individual cases.
However, while I think that the general approach by the ICO is defensible, I think that complaints made to the Commissioner by Members of Parliament acting as such are fundamentally different. Most such requests will be made on official stationery and will clearly be made by members acting in an official capacity, whether as the representative of a constituent or, where requests are made in their own right, for more broadly political purposes. I do not think that there is any general justification for the removal of the names of MPs from the information which was previously supplied to you.
All the names of the MPs have now been supplied. The data is useful for my research as it helps in building the profile of MPs using the FOIA and appeal procedures.
Download the data with MP names added as released by the ICO
Download my annotated version with party details added as colour codes. Party split is as follows 13 Conversative complaints 13, Liberal Democrat: 10 Labour: 11. It would be expected that opposition use is higher, it is interesting to note the Labour complaints mainly stay away from Central Govt (not a good career move?) compared to the Conservative complaints which are nearly all related to Central Govt.
See my previous post about my research into MPs use of the FOIA
Some public authorities have taken a proactive approach to this already, e.g see the disclosure log of Norwich and Norfolk University Hospital which names both MPs and organisations making requests (but not individuals).
Thursday, July 13, 2006
al-Jazeera memo - update on my FOI requests
More on the al-Jazeera memo: a few days ago I received a response to the FOIA request I made to the US Dept of State for the records of the meetings relating to the memo - the response essentially gives a "no records responsive to your request were located". This request was made back in December and has taken over 7 months to complete. I have the right to appeal and will do my best to take this forward, though any advice from US users of the USFOIA would be appreciated. I find it hard to believe that no record is held given that Peter Kilfoyle MP who saw the orginal memo said that it notes that Colin Powell (at the time US Secretary of State) was present at the Bush and Blair meeting in the White House and he sided with Blair. (see the Mirror report). The other problem is that if a record is held at the White House, "the President's immediate personal staff or any part of the Executive Office of the President whose sole function is to advise and assist the President" are not subject to the US FOIA (the reason I directed my request to the State Dept). Requests for records originating from the White House are also subject to special treatment (see 1993 FOIA memo).
Read the response to my request from the US State Dept
Read the acknowledgement from March
My request for the memo under the UK FOIA is now at the complaint stage at the Information Commissiomner's Office, after my internal review was rejected by the Cabinet Office. My complaint to the ICO essentailly focused on the issue relating to the Cabinet Office "holding" the memo and the change of position from request response (held relevant information) to internal review and the fact they had not addressed the issues in my internal review request. I've also complained about their delay and handling of my internal review.
Summary of my previous posts on the memo:
-Internal review delay
-Internal review request
-Reply to FOIA request
-Trial of David Keogh and Leo O'Connor under the Official Secrets Act
Meanwhile Blairwatch reports that: "Keogh and Leo O'Connor will appear at The Old Bailey criminal court to face charges under Britain's Official Secrets Act in the leaking of the memo. As part of their defence, they will attempt to use the memo as evidence in court." Both pleaded not guilty when they appeared in Court on the 25 April 2006.
See the International Herald Tribune Story on the trial
Also see: The Guardian: Reid to toughen secrecy laws
More on the al-Jazeera memo: a few days ago I received a response to the FOIA request I made to the US Dept of State for the records of the meetings relating to the memo - the response essentially gives a "no records responsive to your request were located". This request was made back in December and has taken over 7 months to complete. I have the right to appeal and will do my best to take this forward, though any advice from US users of the USFOIA would be appreciated. I find it hard to believe that no record is held given that Peter Kilfoyle MP who saw the orginal memo said that it notes that Colin Powell (at the time US Secretary of State) was present at the Bush and Blair meeting in the White House and he sided with Blair. (see the Mirror report). The other problem is that if a record is held at the White House, "the President's immediate personal staff or any part of the Executive Office of the President whose sole function is to advise and assist the President" are not subject to the US FOIA (the reason I directed my request to the State Dept). Requests for records originating from the White House are also subject to special treatment (see 1993 FOIA memo).
Read the response to my request from the US State Dept
Read the acknowledgement from March
My request for the memo under the UK FOIA is now at the complaint stage at the Information Commissiomner's Office, after my internal review was rejected by the Cabinet Office. My complaint to the ICO essentailly focused on the issue relating to the Cabinet Office "holding" the memo and the change of position from request response (held relevant information) to internal review and the fact they had not addressed the issues in my internal review request. I've also complained about their delay and handling of my internal review.
Summary of my previous posts on the memo:
-Internal review delay
-Internal review request
-Reply to FOIA request
-Trial of David Keogh and Leo O'Connor under the Official Secrets Act
Meanwhile Blairwatch reports that: "Keogh and Leo O'Connor will appear at The Old Bailey criminal court to face charges under Britain's Official Secrets Act in the leaking of the memo. As part of their defence, they will attempt to use the memo as evidence in court." Both pleaded not guilty when they appeared in Court on the 25 April 2006.
See the International Herald Tribune Story on the trial
Also see: The Guardian: Reid to toughen secrecy laws
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Cost of publicising the Freedom of Information Act
The following information has been placed on the DCA's disclosure log following an FOI request
Publicising of the Freedom of Information Act [PDF 27kb, 2 pages]
This is an interesting area, in terms of the addressing the issue of how FOI legislation should be publicised - the government has been quite tentative so far - spending a relatively low amount (387K) on promotion and awareness. The idea presumably being not to develop too high level of expectation or awareness that might have led to a deluge of requests. The Scottish Information Commissioner took a different approach - using TV adverts to promote the Act. (view here).
Earlier this year I highlighted that the Cabinet Office was using sponored links via yahoo when users searched on the term "freedom of information act" they were offered a link to the Directgov FOI page. My FOI request found out the amount (10p) they were paying per click and the number of clicks made. (see my previous post). Since then they have now also started using sponsored results on google (see this example)
The following information has been placed on the DCA's disclosure log following an FOI request
Information released:
Information about the different ways that the FOI act was publicised including the ways in which understanding was raised and the cost of raising awareness about it to the point that the Act came into force
Publicising of the Freedom of Information Act [PDF 27kb, 2 pages]
This is an interesting area, in terms of the addressing the issue of how FOI legislation should be publicised - the government has been quite tentative so far - spending a relatively low amount (387K) on promotion and awareness. The idea presumably being not to develop too high level of expectation or awareness that might have led to a deluge of requests. The Scottish Information Commissioner took a different approach - using TV adverts to promote the Act. (view here).
Earlier this year I highlighted that the Cabinet Office was using sponored links via yahoo when users searched on the term "freedom of information act" they were offered a link to the Directgov FOI page. My FOI request found out the amount (10p) they were paying per click and the number of clicks made. (see my previous post). Since then they have now also started using sponsored results on google (see this example)
Monday, June 26, 2006
MPs use of the Freedom of Information Act
I recently gave a paper to at UCL's Constitution Unit as part of their Government Information Policy series on the topic of "Parliament and FOI: How are MPs using the Act?"
Download slides (PDF)
The paper I gave was an outline of "research in progress" that will be published later this year supplemented by further detailed research. The paper produced a lot of interest and I've decided to publish some of the data I've gathered from using the FOIA about numbers and details of requests made MPs. The research is focused on looking at MPs use of FOIA and considering this against PQs and the wider context of Parliamentary accountabiilty and provision of information to Parliament. There are many examples of MPs using FOIA in combination with or instead of PQs , for example Mark Oaten(Lib Dem MP) appealed to the ICO over his request to the Department of Work and Pensions to release its internal feasibility study on the impact of the ID card scheme, that had originated as a PQ (see Computer Weekly's story). Essentially the data I have collated is the starting point of the research in proving that formal use of the FOIA is being made by MPs, the current ongoing phase of the research is researching the issue in more detail via questionnaires and interviews. Another interesting issue that has emerged is the mixed approach being taken by some public authorities in naming MPs as applicants and not treating this as personal data under S40 of the FOIA (e.g. the Treasury and DTI name the MPs). However the ICO in particular explcitly stated they had redacted the MPs' names.
Outline data: results of request made by MPs to Central Government Depts:
-DCA and Clearing house data relating to MPs
- Cabinet Office (No data supplied)
-Dept of Transpsort
plus - Guidance notes supplied
-DoH
-DWP(no data supplied)
-DCMS
-Northern Ireland Office (no data supplied)
-MoD
-DTI
-Home Office
-ODPM
-Scottland Office
-Treasury
-Wales Office
Also:
Information Commissioner's Office- Appeals recieved from MPs
MP/MSPRequests made to the Scottish Executive
Appeals made to Scottish Information Commissioner's Office by MPs/MSPs
I recently gave a paper to at UCL's Constitution Unit as part of their Government Information Policy series on the topic of "Parliament and FOI: How are MPs using the Act?"
Download slides (PDF)
The paper I gave was an outline of "research in progress" that will be published later this year supplemented by further detailed research. The paper produced a lot of interest and I've decided to publish some of the data I've gathered from using the FOIA about numbers and details of requests made MPs. The research is focused on looking at MPs use of FOIA and considering this against PQs and the wider context of Parliamentary accountabiilty and provision of information to Parliament. There are many examples of MPs using FOIA in combination with or instead of PQs , for example Mark Oaten(Lib Dem MP) appealed to the ICO over his request to the Department of Work and Pensions to release its internal feasibility study on the impact of the ID card scheme, that had originated as a PQ (see Computer Weekly's story). Essentially the data I have collated is the starting point of the research in proving that formal use of the FOIA is being made by MPs, the current ongoing phase of the research is researching the issue in more detail via questionnaires and interviews. Another interesting issue that has emerged is the mixed approach being taken by some public authorities in naming MPs as applicants and not treating this as personal data under S40 of the FOIA (e.g. the Treasury and DTI name the MPs). However the ICO in particular explcitly stated they had redacted the MPs' names.
Outline data: results of request made by MPs to Central Government Depts:
-DCA and Clearing house data relating to MPs
- Cabinet Office (No data supplied)
-Dept of Transpsort
plus - Guidance notes supplied
-DoH
-DWP(no data supplied)
-DCMS
-Northern Ireland Office (no data supplied)
-MoD
-DTI
-Home Office
-ODPM
-Scottland Office
-Treasury
-Wales Office
Also:
Information Commissioner's Office- Appeals recieved from MPs
MP/MSPRequests made to the Scottish Executive
Appeals made to Scottish Information Commissioner's Office by MPs/MSPs
Monday, May 08, 2006
al-Jazerra memo - my FOI request- internal review reponse from the Cabinet Office
See the latest reply to my request for internal review - I will post some detailed comment soon. Getting nowhere fast - semantics clearly coming into play, this will now go to the ICO
Read the response (PDF)
See: Previous my last posting on my review and previous postings on this topic
See the latest reply to my request for internal review - I will post some detailed comment soon. Getting nowhere fast - semantics clearly coming into play, this will now go to the ICO
Read the response (PDF)
See: Previous my last posting on my review and previous postings on this topic
Friday, April 07, 2006
al-Jazeera memo
My application for an internal review related to my request for the al-Jazeera memo is having the problems I expected - their deadline for response has extended again.
The last response on the 17th Feb, read:
The issue highlights a major problem with the Act that internal reviews are not a statuory process with a time deadline. The review process is only referenced at "Application for decision by Commissioner" in S50 2(a): (a) "that the complainant has not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority in conformity with the code of practice under section 45,". The S45 Code part IV states:
The Scottish Act in this respect states that public authorities must reply promptly and within 20 working days.
Whilst I ackowledge that complex cases such as this one may require detailed anaysis and deliberation it is not clear that this happening and the Cabinet Office would appear to be using this as a loophole to extend and extend.
See my previous posts
I also have made a request to the US state department
My application for an internal review related to my request for the al-Jazeera memo is having the problems I expected - their deadline for response has extended again.
Dear Mr Wood,
Further to our earlier correspondence with you, I am writing to advise that the Cabinet Office has not yet completed its response to your internal review request of 23 January. We do envisage, however, providing you with a response by the end of April. We apologise for the delay.
The last response on the 17th Feb, read:
Thank you for your e mail of 14 February. We anticipate providing a response to your internal review of 23 January by Friday 31 March.If we are unable to provide a response by this date, we will let you know
The issue highlights a major problem with the Act that internal reviews are not a statuory process with a time deadline. The review process is only referenced at "Application for decision by Commissioner" in S50 2(a): (a) "that the complainant has not exhausted any complaints procedure which is provided by the public authority in conformity with the code of practice under section 45,". The S45 Code part IV states:
Authorities should set their own target times for dealing with complaints; these should be reasonable, and subject to regular review. Each public authority should publish its target times for determining complaints and information as to how successful it is with meeting those targets.(The Code is non-statutory)
The Scottish Act in this respect states that public authorities must reply promptly and within 20 working days.
Whilst I ackowledge that complex cases such as this one may require detailed anaysis and deliberation it is not clear that this happening and the Cabinet Office would appear to be using this as a loophole to extend and extend.
See my previous posts
I also have made a request to the US state department
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
al-Jazeera memo
Along side my request to the Cabinet Office for the al-Jazeera memo I also made a request to the US Department of State for any similar documents. The Request was sent in December and I've just received an acknowledgement letter(PDF). Doesn't really give much away. Will post more when I hear anything.
Along side my request to the Cabinet Office for the al-Jazeera memo I also made a request to the US Department of State for any similar documents. The Request was sent in December and I've just received an acknowledgement letter(PDF). Doesn't really give much away. Will post more when I hear anything.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Use of pay per click to advertise FOI
I've had an interesting reponse to an FOIA request I made to the Cabinet Office about their use of the Overture sponsored results service via Yahoo.co.uk for the term "Freedom of Information Act" (see my previous post) that links through to the Directgov FOI page. They have been using the service since July 2005. The request has been met in full: I have been provided with the cost per click details: they pay 10p per click (the lowest bid) and have paid £191 for 1,917 clicks to the word "freedom of information" and £194 for 1,948 clicks to the term "Freedom of Information". It is also interesting to note the conversion rates of 13% and 16% from all searches made. Over 26000 searches were condcuted for both of the terms during the time period. The conversion rates are impressive compared to data for conversion rates for e-commerce sites (see recent research). I also received the page impressions data for the FOI page on the Directgov website which in January 2006 received about 4000 page views. It can be presumed a much a higher number of searches were made via google (which directgov does not currently use for these terms, other terms such as "Council tax" do come up as sponsored google results for directgov though).
I made the request and think it is interesting for a number of reasons: firstly it is first real example of any media advertising for the FOIA in the UK (this is in comparison to Scotland where TV advertisments have been prodcued by the Scottish Information Commissioner).
I feel the data illustrates that the use of the service has been a positive and innovative example of a cost effective way to guide users of the Act to the relevant official information on the topic. It would be good to see it is expanded to Google as well in the future. I would also say that that it illustrates a further issue about how the average user will often start to find information about the FOIA using a search engine as their starting point. It also in points to towards the need for some further research into the use of these services in promoting e-government more generally and the take up of services after the 2005 target for e-enablement. On the conversion rate issue it would merit further research to investigate whether government links gain better conversion rates because the public should have a higher level of trust than with commercial sites.
The number of visits to the Directgov pages in general would appear to be low though (only about the same number or less that this blog tend to get). There appears to be a missed opportunity in making the Directgov FOI pages into more of a "citzen portal" for users of the freedom of information act containing FOI contact links, publication schemes, aggregated discolsure logs etc. Though I am sure there are counter arguements that too comprehensive a central portal could make it too easy for users to bombard departments with questions....
Read the full response (PDF) and see the breakdown of "click through data" (MS word)
I've had an interesting reponse to an FOIA request I made to the Cabinet Office about their use of the Overture sponsored results service via Yahoo.co.uk for the term "Freedom of Information Act" (see my previous post) that links through to the Directgov FOI page. They have been using the service since July 2005. The request has been met in full: I have been provided with the cost per click details: they pay 10p per click (the lowest bid) and have paid £191 for 1,917 clicks to the word "freedom of information" and £194 for 1,948 clicks to the term "Freedom of Information". It is also interesting to note the conversion rates of 13% and 16% from all searches made. Over 26000 searches were condcuted for both of the terms during the time period. The conversion rates are impressive compared to data for conversion rates for e-commerce sites (see recent research). I also received the page impressions data for the FOI page on the Directgov website which in January 2006 received about 4000 page views. It can be presumed a much a higher number of searches were made via google (which directgov does not currently use for these terms, other terms such as "Council tax" do come up as sponsored google results for directgov though).
I made the request and think it is interesting for a number of reasons: firstly it is first real example of any media advertising for the FOIA in the UK (this is in comparison to Scotland where TV advertisments have been prodcued by the Scottish Information Commissioner).
I feel the data illustrates that the use of the service has been a positive and innovative example of a cost effective way to guide users of the Act to the relevant official information on the topic. It would be good to see it is expanded to Google as well in the future. I would also say that that it illustrates a further issue about how the average user will often start to find information about the FOIA using a search engine as their starting point. It also in points to towards the need for some further research into the use of these services in promoting e-government more generally and the take up of services after the 2005 target for e-enablement. On the conversion rate issue it would merit further research to investigate whether government links gain better conversion rates because the public should have a higher level of trust than with commercial sites.
The number of visits to the Directgov pages in general would appear to be low though (only about the same number or less that this blog tend to get). There appears to be a missed opportunity in making the Directgov FOI pages into more of a "citzen portal" for users of the freedom of information act containing FOI contact links, publication schemes, aggregated discolsure logs etc. Though I am sure there are counter arguements that too comprehensive a central portal could make it too easy for users to bombard departments with questions....
Read the full response (PDF) and see the breakdown of "click through data" (MS word)
Friday, February 17, 2006
My FOIA request for the al-Jazeera memo
My request for internal review has received (after prompting about the timescale) the following reponse:
"Thank you for your e mail of 14 February. We anticipate providing a
response to your internal review of 23 January by Friday 31 March.If we
are unable to provide a response by this date, we will let you know."
See my previous posts on this topic
My request for internal review has received (after prompting about the timescale) the following reponse:
"Thank you for your e mail of 14 February. We anticipate providing a
response to your internal review of 23 January by Friday 31 March.If we
are unable to provide a response by this date, we will let you know."
See my previous posts on this topic
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Direct.gov
The Government's main web portal, direct.gov is now advertising the the freedom of information act via sponsored search results on yahoo using the overture service (but interestingly not google) - if you search for "freedom of information act": see this example. The link takes you through to some (fairly poor) generalised pages about FOI. Out of interest I've made an FOI request to see how much traffic this is generating and how much they are paying per click. This is quite an important development in terms of how the government plans to promote the Act, given the cautious approach in 2005.
The Government's main web portal, direct.gov is now advertising the the freedom of information act via sponsored search results on yahoo using the overture service (but interestingly not google) - if you search for "freedom of information act": see this example. The link takes you through to some (fairly poor) generalised pages about FOI. Out of interest I've made an FOI request to see how much traffic this is generating and how much they are paying per click. This is quite an important development in terms of how the government plans to promote the Act, given the cautious approach in 2005.
Monday, February 06, 2006
al-JAzeera memo
The 2nd Al Jazeera Forum: "Defending Freedom, Defining Responsibility" took place last week. The Blairwatch site has been blogging from the conference. The US TV Station Democracy now broadcast an interview with Dan Mason from Blairwatch about the memo and another interview with Wadah Khanfar, Managing Director of Al Jazeera. (both links take you a page where you can watch a stream)
No news on my application for internal review at present
The 2nd Al Jazeera Forum: "Defending Freedom, Defining Responsibility" took place last week. The Blairwatch site has been blogging from the conference. The US TV Station Democracy now broadcast an interview with Dan Mason from Blairwatch about the memo and another interview with Wadah Khanfar, Managing Director of Al Jazeera. (both links take you a page where you can watch a stream)
No news on my application for internal review at present
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Trial of David Keogh and Leo O'Connor under the Official Secrets Act
The Times yesterday reported that "Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, is to apply to the Old Bailey for proceedings against two men under the Official Secrets Act to be held in camera".
Is this an indication that the Government are not yet prepraring to allow any part of memo to become public?
Both men were remanded on bail at a pre-trial hearing on Tuesday (see BBC news). They are next in court on the 25th April.
The Official Secrets Act states: S11(4) Section 8(4) of the [1920 c. 75.] "Official Secrets Act 1920 (exclusion of public from hearing on grounds of national safety) shall have effect as if references to offences under that Act included references to offences under any provision of this Act other than section 8(1), (4) or (5).". A certficate would have to be issued giving reasons.
Similar applications were made by the Government for parts of the David Shayler trial under the Official Secrets Act to be held in camera. (Two were issued one in 2000, the other in 2002). The context was obviously different given Shayler's background as an ex agent - there was a much greater risk of new senstive information coming to light given his extensive inside knowledge and nature of the witnesses involved. Shayler attempted to resist this, as did the press. In this case the detailed evidence supporting the certficate was seen as too damaging, so this was given to the court as a "sensitive schedule". The certficates were accepted by the judge for parts of the trial.
There is now a useful "live" set of pages on Wikipedia on the Trial and the al-Jazeera memo (with the caveat that Wikepedia is an "open editorial" site free to edit by any user)
The Times yesterday reported that "Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, is to apply to the Old Bailey for proceedings against two men under the Official Secrets Act to be held in camera".
Is this an indication that the Government are not yet prepraring to allow any part of memo to become public?
Both men were remanded on bail at a pre-trial hearing on Tuesday (see BBC news). They are next in court on the 25th April.
The Official Secrets Act states: S11(4) Section 8(4) of the [1920 c. 75.] "Official Secrets Act 1920 (exclusion of public from hearing on grounds of national safety) shall have effect as if references to offences under that Act included references to offences under any provision of this Act other than section 8(1), (4) or (5).". A certficate would have to be issued giving reasons.
Similar applications were made by the Government for parts of the David Shayler trial under the Official Secrets Act to be held in camera. (Two were issued one in 2000, the other in 2002). The context was obviously different given Shayler's background as an ex agent - there was a much greater risk of new senstive information coming to light given his extensive inside knowledge and nature of the witnesses involved. Shayler attempted to resist this, as did the press. In this case the detailed evidence supporting the certficate was seen as too damaging, so this was given to the court as a "sensitive schedule". The certficates were accepted by the judge for parts of the trial.
There is now a useful "live" set of pages on Wikipedia on the Trial and the al-Jazeera memo (with the caveat that Wikepedia is an "open editorial" site free to edit by any user)
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Request for internal review: Freedom of Information Act request
The response below is my request for internal review related to my request for the "al-Jazeera memo"
---------------------
Dear Mr Balmer,
This letter is in response to the communication received by myself from Nikil Rahti on the 22nd December relating to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 request I made for: “Any memos or notes that record President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar”.
I request an internal review of the non-disclosure decision relating to the information you state you hold. From this I conclude that you hold a memo or note that records President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar.
My request for internal review is based on the following arguments:
· Whilst you cite the reasons for using the exemption S27 1(a) “Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice- (a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State”, the reasons you state are generalised and are class based as opposed to being specifically related to the information I have requested (that you have indicated you hold). The nature of the prejudice that may occur from the release of this information is not clearly defined or explicitly explained.
· The balancing of the public interest weighting is not discussed and explained in enough detail to justify non disclosure, I challenge that the public interest is weighted in favour of disclosure for the following reasons:
o The public has a right to know about the level of involvement of the UK Government in any potential action that would have been in breach of the Geneva Convention and would have involved civilian deaths if the Al-Jazeera offices had been hit by a bomb or a missile. The public interest is further enhanced by the fact that many UK Nationals work for Al-Jazeera. Article 48 of the Geneva Convetion states: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives”. The fact that any potential military action against al-Jazeera would have broken International law makes the grounds for the public interest overriding the considerations you set out in your response.
o Guidance note 3 from the Information Commissioner sets out the public interest in “bringing to light information affecting public safety”, I would argue that public safety includes the safety of any journalists working at Al-Jazeera and the potential threat any bombing or missile attack poses to them. The note also states that the public interest should be considered in relation to: “furthering the understanding of and participation in the public debate of issues of the day.”
o Part of the document I request has in part been discussed in the media and possible content alluded to and therefore information is already in the public domain. The content of the memo has been confirmed by a respected source, a Member of Parliament, Peter Kilfolye. It should be noted that guidance from the Department of Constitutional Affairs on the application of exemption S27 states: “Individual requests for information must be considered on their merits but you should take account of what is already in the public domain when assessing prejudice to international relations. The fact that similar or related information is already in the public domain may reduce or negate any potential prejudice” (See DCA website)
o The call to publish in the public interest the documents I have requested has been backed by at least 75 MPs in two Early Day Motions to date, an indication of strong public interest in the issue.
o The response given does not mention or supply evidence that the other State involved in the document (the USA) has been consulted about release and has indicated they do not want the information released.
o There is a public interest in resolving conflicting information available in the public domain: by stating you hold “information relevant” to my request there appears to be a direct conflict between the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons (Written Answers House of Commons Hansard 12th January 2006 & 28th November 2005: “Adam Price, Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, PC: To ask the Prime Minister what information he received on action that the United States Administration proposed to take against the Al-Jazeera television channel. “Tony Blair (Prime Minister) Hansard source: None.) and
o A statement from the US White House calling such claims “outlandish” is also confusing and conflicts with the evidence of the Cabinet Office holding relevant information on the subject.
o If the memo is the record of a joke then the publication of the memo recording that fact will enable the public to understand the context of the reported information in the media.
· The Cabinet Office response to my request makes no attempt to indicate whether the memo could be released in part through the process of redaction to restrict the viewing of any other surrounding information that was not the subject of my request.
I request that any subsequent refusal to disclosure made after the internal review addresses each of the points made above.
I request that you acknowledge this request for internal review within one day of receipt, you supply me with full details as to what your procedures are for internal review under the Freedom of Information 2000 and an estimated date by which I may expect a decision to be communicated to me. At present I expect a decision within 15 days as listed in the complaints procedure on the Cabinet Office website.
Yours sincerely
Steve Wood
-----------------------------
Read the response I received to my original request
last week's background: Al-Jazeera Request | Press Gazette story Newsnight | Downing St denies
The response below is my request for internal review related to my request for the "al-Jazeera memo"
---------------------
Dear Mr Balmer,
This letter is in response to the communication received by myself from Nikil Rahti on the 22nd December relating to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 request I made for: “Any memos or notes that record President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar”.
I request an internal review of the non-disclosure decision relating to the information you state you hold. From this I conclude that you hold a memo or note that records President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar.
My request for internal review is based on the following arguments:
· Whilst you cite the reasons for using the exemption S27 1(a) “Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice- (a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State”, the reasons you state are generalised and are class based as opposed to being specifically related to the information I have requested (that you have indicated you hold). The nature of the prejudice that may occur from the release of this information is not clearly defined or explicitly explained.
· The balancing of the public interest weighting is not discussed and explained in enough detail to justify non disclosure, I challenge that the public interest is weighted in favour of disclosure for the following reasons:
o The public has a right to know about the level of involvement of the UK Government in any potential action that would have been in breach of the Geneva Convention and would have involved civilian deaths if the Al-Jazeera offices had been hit by a bomb or a missile. The public interest is further enhanced by the fact that many UK Nationals work for Al-Jazeera. Article 48 of the Geneva Convetion states: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives”. The fact that any potential military action against al-Jazeera would have broken International law makes the grounds for the public interest overriding the considerations you set out in your response.
o Guidance note 3 from the Information Commissioner sets out the public interest in “bringing to light information affecting public safety”, I would argue that public safety includes the safety of any journalists working at Al-Jazeera and the potential threat any bombing or missile attack poses to them. The note also states that the public interest should be considered in relation to: “furthering the understanding of and participation in the public debate of issues of the day.”
o Part of the document I request has in part been discussed in the media and possible content alluded to and therefore information is already in the public domain. The content of the memo has been confirmed by a respected source, a Member of Parliament, Peter Kilfolye. It should be noted that guidance from the Department of Constitutional Affairs on the application of exemption S27 states: “Individual requests for information must be considered on their merits but you should take account of what is already in the public domain when assessing prejudice to international relations. The fact that similar or related information is already in the public domain may reduce or negate any potential prejudice” (See DCA website)
o The call to publish in the public interest the documents I have requested has been backed by at least 75 MPs in two Early Day Motions to date, an indication of strong public interest in the issue.
o The response given does not mention or supply evidence that the other State involved in the document (the USA) has been consulted about release and has indicated they do not want the information released.
o There is a public interest in resolving conflicting information available in the public domain: by stating you hold “information relevant” to my request there appears to be a direct conflict between the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons (Written Answers House of Commons Hansard 12th January 2006 & 28th November 2005: “Adam Price, Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, PC: To ask the Prime Minister what information he received on action that the United States Administration proposed to take against the Al-Jazeera television channel. “Tony Blair (Prime Minister) Hansard source: None.) and
o A statement from the US White House calling such claims “outlandish” is also confusing and conflicts with the evidence of the Cabinet Office holding relevant information on the subject.
o If the memo is the record of a joke then the publication of the memo recording that fact will enable the public to understand the context of the reported information in the media.
· The Cabinet Office response to my request makes no attempt to indicate whether the memo could be released in part through the process of redaction to restrict the viewing of any other surrounding information that was not the subject of my request.
I request that any subsequent refusal to disclosure made after the internal review addresses each of the points made above.
I request that you acknowledge this request for internal review within one day of receipt, you supply me with full details as to what your procedures are for internal review under the Freedom of Information 2000 and an estimated date by which I may expect a decision to be communicated to me. At present I expect a decision within 15 days as listed in the complaints procedure on the Cabinet Office website.
Yours sincerely
Steve Wood
-----------------------------
Read the response I received to my original request
last week's background: Al-Jazeera Request | Press Gazette story Newsnight | Downing St denies
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Text of FOI request made on behalf of Al-Jazeera
I have a copy available for download of the FOI request made by the law firm working on behalf on of Al-Jazeera that followed up on my orginal request and tried to take a different slant in trying to narrow the request down and make a public interest case with the application. I understand that Downing St have so far issued a formal acknowldegement to the request but not have replied formally (apart from the comments made at the press conference this week). It will be interesting to compare the responses.
Download the request (PDF)
I have a copy available for download of the FOI request made by the law firm working on behalf on of Al-Jazeera that followed up on my orginal request and tried to take a different slant in trying to narrow the request down and make a public interest case with the application. I understand that Downing St have so far issued a formal acknowldegement to the request but not have replied formally (apart from the comments made at the press conference this week). It will be interesting to compare the responses.
Download the request (PDF)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)