 |
 |
Isn't it predictable that a filter system will sometimes catch legitimate requests? What about the applicant who has been sworn at (eg by a neighbour or even an official) and reports this in an email - "X told me to "F*** off" - and then goes on to make an FOI or DP request about the matter? If an authority's email filters are likely to reject such a request, I don't think it adequate just to leave it to the requester to eventually chase it up. Apart from anything else, the applicant will probably do so by attaching the original request to to another email. Obviously, it will be rejected again. One approach would be to experiment with the filters, to see if they can be overridden for emails which refer to FOIA, EIR or DPA etc. If spammers eventually spot and exploit this, it might have to be dropped, but it seems worth trying. Another is to say on your FOI web page, that all FOI requests will be acknowledged within X days, and give a phone number to ring where no acknowledgement has been received within the period - so the applicant has an alternative to just emailing again. Maurice Frankel Campaign for Freedom of Information On 6 Jun 2008, at 08:26, Harrison, Iain wrote: > Pretty much my view and the best approach to take! > > From experience - I stand by my first paragraph! > > Regards > > Iain Harrison > Information Governance Officer > Information Governance Team > Customer & Workforce Services > Coventry City Council > Council House > Earl Street > Coventry CV1 5RR > > Telephone No: 024 7683 3305 > Fax No: 024 7683 3395 > > www.coventry.gov.uk > > > From: The UK Records Management mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Bradshaw, Phillip > Sent: 05 June 2008 16:48 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: FOI and filters > > My advice to my IT section is to apply whatever filters they deem > appropriate for security and operational reasons - and of course to > keep sensitivity settings under regular review. > > If that results in us getting a formal notice from the ICO every > two or three years because an applicant chooses not to follow up a > non-response by other means, I assess that as an acceptable risk. > > Phillip Bradshaw > > Information Manager > Clerk to the Council > > Room CY4B, County Hall > > EMail: [log in to unmask] > > Phone: 029 2087 3346 > Mobile : 07890 265987 > > Fax: 029 2087 3349 > > Proactive Publishing Promotes Positive Perceptions > > > > > From: The UK Records Management mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Geddes, Craig > Sent: 05 June 2008 10:26 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: FOI and filters > > There is some precedent for the enclosed: > > http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/applicationsanddecisions/Decisions/2005/200502045.asp > > While the comments below might seem reasonable, it is not evident > that the Information Commissioners - North or South of the border - > would agree. Their focus is on FoI, and other information management > considerations can be somewhat relegated. > > As you will see from the above decision, in this case OSIC went > straight to issuing an Information Notice, and then found the Board > at fault - despite it having never received the request. > > Craig > ____________________ > Craig Geddes, > Council Records Manager > Legal Services > > (0141) 577 3059 > > EAST RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL - WORKING FOR YOU > > <www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk> > > -----Original Message----- > From: The UK Records Management mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ]On Behalf Of Harrison, Iain > Sent: 05 June 2008 08:27 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: FOI and filters > > There hasn't been much/any precedent in the UK concerning cases of > this kind, and my view is that it is probably a bit of a non-starter > as frankly most stuff likely to be filtered out (at Coventry > certainly) would not meet most of the basic UK FOI requirements > anyway i.e. It may be in writing, but whether it gives a > correspondence address and describes the information required would > be debateable. > > If I put a request in, and it goes unanswered, I would chase, often > by another means, or via a different contact, so that option is > surely available to the determined/thwarted requester? > > If challenged, we can state that we are also required by other > legislation i.e. DPA to take reasonable organisational & technical > measure to protect personal data (and by implication-our systems)- > and use of filters and blocking software/controls is arguably part > of that, as is compliance with standards, good practice etc. > Granted, there may be cases where staff (because of what they do) > need to receive certain types of material-but that can be assessed > on a case-by-case basis > > In short, us applying a block (that is not too restrictive) to what > we consider and have defined as unreasonable/dangerous is clearly a > defensible position! > > Iain Harrison > Information Governance Officer > Information Governance Team > Customer & Workforce Services > Coventry City Council > Council House > Earl Street > Coventry CV1 5RR > > Telephone No: 024 7683 3305 > Fax No: 024 7683 3395 > > www.coventry.gov.uk > > > From: The UK Records Management mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Sonya Sherman > Sent: 05 June 2008 05:55 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: FOI and filters > > Hi everyone, > > > I'm wondering if anyone can provide some advice on the best way to > handle the implementation of email spam filters in government > departments, with respect to the provisions of the Freedom of > Information Act. > > How do you manage the risk of a legitimate request for information > being blocked and deleted at the server, and never delivered to the > intended recipient for action? > > > Would it be sufficient to publish (in the email policy) broad > details about the filter, and adding some kind of explanatory note > on any webpage where the FOI contact address apprears? Requests can > of course be sent to any government officer (not just via the > dedicated FOI address) and our IT folk are not keen to publish much > detail about filter settings, as they feel this will enable spammers > to circumvent the filter. > > > I've done a bit of random Googling but can't find many published > cases - or consistent findings - regarding appeals where requests > had been filtered out. > > > Grateful for any thoughts, suggestions or precedents you may have. > > Best wishes > > Sonya > > > > http://changingthepresent.org/ > > > > "As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to > remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being > able to remake ourselves... Be the change that you want to see in > the world." --Mohandas K. Gandhi > > Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. > All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, > using M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services in accordance with the > Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. > _____________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > service is powered by MessageLabs. > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > are intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have > received this e-mail in error, you are requested to contact the sender > > All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, > using M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services. > > The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Coventry City Council. > ______________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > service is powered by MessageLabs. > ********************************************************************** > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are not necessarily > the view of East Renfrewshire Council. It is intended only for the > person or entity named above. If you have received this e-mail in > error please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and then > erasing the e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, review, > dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly > prohibited. > Please be advised that East Renfrewshire Council's incoming and > outgoing e-mail is subject to regular monitoring > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept > for the presence of computer viruses. (v5.2r) > ********************************************************************** > > All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, > using M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services in accordance with the > Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. > _____________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > service is powered by MessageLabs. > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > are intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have > received this e-mail in error, you are requested to contact the sender > > All e-mails are monitored by Coventry City Council IT Security, > using M@ilMeter and Star Filtering Services. > > The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Coventry City Council. > ______________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > service is powered by MessageLabs.