Having followed this thread with some interest I am confused as to the
purpose or need for a 'real' name in order to facilitate the communication
of FOI data, and do wonder what valid purpose(s) organisational management
could put forward for wanting to know the identity of any FOI requestor,
especially any internal ones. When considered from those perspectives there
seem to be some weakness in the arguments so far presented in justifying
that demand.
The issue could become further confused when considering how organisations
regularly happily use various names for people which are not their real ones
and insist on doing so at times to enable the organisation to function
efficiently/effectively.
Accepting that having internal FOI requestors taking greater care to hide
their identity when making what could be contentious whistle-blowing type
requests would be a beneficial outcome, attempting to reduce problematical
personal conflict type requests by placing pressure upon employees who may
be stressed and feel a FOI request is a valid thing to do seems to promote
an authoritarian approach within organisations focusing on the individual
rather than facilitating a focus towards looking for root
cause(s)/resolutions to difficulties which may be revealed. Although such
an approach does appear consistent with apparent social trends.
Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Kevin Broadfoot
> Sent: 28 June 2006 11:24
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Anonymity when making FOI requests of your own
> organisation
>
>
> Ken wrote:
>
> >When we receive an FOI request we decide if the information is
> >available
> to the public or not.
>
> That is the correct approach. My only point (made in
> consideration of the
> Hansard report referred to in an earlier posting)was that the
> identity of
> an applicant can be taken into consideration if an obvious
> pseudonym is
> used and the Commissioner's guidance states that.
>
> >It is quite clear from the Act and Guidance that the name
> and address
> >are
> >for the purpose of communicating the information and for no
> other stated
> >purpose. FOIA Section 8(b).
>
> What the Act actually says is a (valid) request is one which
>
> "states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence"
>
> The word THE and the conjunctive AND may be significant. If
> the provision
> had said a (valid) request is one which 'provides/states a
> name and an
> address for correspondence' then you would be absolutely
> right. But it
> doesn't and there is less clarity than you would have us believe.
>
> If you are right then there would be no need for the
> Commissioner to state
> in his guidance that "if you send your request by email, you
> must give
> your name in the body of the email to fulfil the requirement
> that the name
> of the applicant is given." In other words the provision of
> a name seems
> to do more than just facilitate correspondence.
>
> The provision in the Act as it stands is open to interpretation and
> provides for the possibility of a request being denied if a
> false identity
> is used. You may disagree but the point is made by both the UK and
> Scottish Commissioner and has also been made by John Wadham (former
> Director of Liberty)in relation to the Father Cristmas
> example. Of course
> the recipient authority would have to know that a false
> identity is being
> used.
>
>
> >In England individuals do not as yet have an official
> identity. We can
> >and do call ourselves what we want and for now this is
> perfectly legal.
> >So if I choose to call myself Horatio Nelson today, that is my name
> >today. We may not like this but until we have an official
> identity (and
> >card) no doubt we are who we say we are.
>
> I'm not certain that that is correct. At present you may
> become habitually
> known by another name but unless you change it by deed poll for legal
> purposes your name will remain that which was registered on
> or shortly
> after birth. In certain circumstances giving or using a
> false identity is
> an offence. Also if you call yourself Nelson today and some
> other name
> tomorrow then certainty is lost and in those circumstances I would be
> absolutely justified in seeking evidence that your legal identity was
> indeed Horatio Nelson.
>
> >the Scottish Information Commissioner is wrong if he says
> anything else
>
> The Scottish Commissioner changed his guidance on how public
> authorities
> should deal with requests made under a pseudonym after
> receiving legal
> advice on the matter. The updated guidance makes it clear that for an
> application to be valid, the actual name of the applicant
> must be used.
> The Commissioner will not investigate cases where a pseudonym
> has been
> used. His position is now consistent with the approach taken
> by the UK
> Commissioner. In this area I don't believe Scots Law is any
> different
> from English Law.
>
> Kevin
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.6/378 - Release Date: 6/28/06
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|