One assumes the organisation would find it necessary to look at all regular
requests requiring an update regarding a set or associated set of data,
resulting in a need to make enquiries with a requester. Agreeing that if a
regular request is identified the information should be published, but that
is not always the way with problematic data, which may be of continuing
interest only to small groups. (Who like any group of experts, because of
their particular expertise or perspective may become labelled as a pressure
group).

An example of [log in to unmask] who makes regular requests for a specific
dataset, which is difficult to collate, may be helpful. Using whatever
investigative means are deemed necessary it turns out the e-mail user is one
'Will Cremer' a secretarial assistant for the national training association
of ice cream vendors, who have no web-site.

If the real identity of that individual had initially been provided, would
the issue have been perceived as any the less potentially vexatious? Would
it become necessary to charge them for the time it had taken to validate
they were not a malicious vexatious requester? Would the response have been
any different if the requester was [log in to unmask]

The issue continues to reveal that real diversions and dangers of
institutionalizing prejudicial actions can exist in focusing on the name of
a requester, rather than the request itself (no matter how humorous or
infuriating that ID may be perceived by the recipient).

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: 30 June 2006 13:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Anonymity when making FOI requests of your own
> organisation
>
>
> >What would therefore be the identifier of corresponding with X?
>
> Well that was my point - why actually do you need a name as an
> identifier?  Couldn't a response simply be addressed to the
> Requester with
> the salutation 'Dear Sir or Madam' etc.
>
>
> >it is unclear how one can communicate with no individual....
>
> So how come my local council is able to communicate with me simply by
> addressing their correspondence to "The Occupier"?
>
> >It seems to me that simply to establish the organisation had
> complied
> >with the Act would require that a name or a pseudonym be supplied so
> >that the organisation could be sure that they were dealing with the
> >same individual.
>
> Which brings me back precisiely to the original point.  You
> are not using
> the name to simply address correspondence you are using it as
> a check.
> And that check enables you to identify habitual and
> persistent persons
> whose sole aim is to cause  inconvenience and unnecessary
> expense to the
> organisation i.e. a vexatious request.  So in my view that is why an
> obvious pseudonym is likely to indicate a vexatious request.
>
>
> >If you mean that the requester should just request the
> organisation to
> >publish in the public domain - that is fine - but I would
> suggest that,
> >if that happened, public administration would grind to a halt.
>
> I didn't mean that.  But if I sent you a letter or an email
> and didn't
> include my name but did include my address and stated what
> information I
> was seeking, and you understood what I was seeking then what would
> preclude you from sending the information to me? Nothing!  If
> you weren't
> clear what I wanted then you could still right a letter/send an email
> asking me to clarify.  So I don't see how including a name is
> simply there
> for the purposes of communication. It's there as a check or a
> mechanism
> for you to be certain (or more certain) who you are dealing
> with and that
> is different to facilitating communication.
>
> Kevin
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/06

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       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)
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^