The broader matters arising out of the original point are not catered for in
that approach.
The problems attempting to be addressed still remain, so no better
resolution is achieved.
For instance requests are received by a single organisation from:-
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
Would any of them be vexatious requests? How much time should be spent
enquiring with the John Smiths involved to see if they were using their real
names and if they were the same person?
An alternative might be to use an ID number officially issued from a central
point globally, but what would happen to the people who may not be in a
position to receive that official electronic stamp of approval.
I have not read the Sussex Police case but have no doubt that the police
would wish to validate FOI requesters against their databases in order to
identify applicants who may be known to them and might have previously been
perceived as vexatious, at the same time updating the databases with any new
information arising.
I have personally on two occasions known the police to ignore calls from
recurrent 'vexatious' callers where the content of the call turned out to
actually be valid, one was a road accident where the 'vexatious' pedestrian
having been hit by a vehicle had to administer to themselves, the other a
death followed the reaction to the vexatious call, many similar cases have
also been reported in the news from time to time over the years. Those
experiences certainly confirmed to me that what may appear to be vexatious
from one perspective is not always so.
Of course, as on those occasions I mention, astute management techniques may
be employed to reduce any criticism of the organisations action, and after
all the 'vexatious' individual can clearly be placed in a disadvantaged
position so there is a reduced risk of real problems in maintaining any
given organisational perspective, morale and trust.
The points being presented in arguing for a 'real' name of an FOI requester
continue to reveal very real and distinct disadvantages over accepting what
is being presented. Organisations may argue vigorously for different
approaches, but they must inherently realise that they are merely promoting
their own particular interests.
Perhaps there is an exemption somewhere allowing organisational perspectives
to dominate?
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: 01 July 2006 17:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Anonymity when making FOI requests of your own
> organisation
>
>
> >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?
>
>
> In that example probably not. In fact your example seems to
> illustrate my
> point that to be applicant blind the name of the applicant is
> unnecessary. If the applicant had been abcd@northpole or
> 123@northpole
> the request could still be satisfied. Yet it would be an 'invalid'
> request. So it seems to me there is a purpose in stating the
> name of the
> applicant.
>
> The facts of a real case involving Sussex Police and the
> Commissioner's
> decision notice may helpful: see
>
> www.ico.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/Decision_Notice_FS50099691.pdf
>
> The Commissioner determines the request to be vexatious based on the
> volume of requests from a single applicant. In this particular case
> knowing the real identity/name of the applicant seems to be
> important not
> by itself but in enabling the Commissioner to go on to
> consider whether
> the request is vexatious.
>
> rgds,
>
> 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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|