Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence
Well it seems the HO do understrand the privacy when it comes to requested what went on between them , phorm and BT yet they feel we are not entitled to the same respect for ours.
This information might be too incriminating for BT, phorm and last the HO it should be released it is dealing with our privacy! Something that the HO has shown none. If they cannot understand why we are in arms about our privacy maybe they should re-read their reasons for not releasing the information. Then think just maybe this is why we don't want phorm invading our privacy for adverts.
If they can say it is ok for Phorm to be used the argument for with holding this info has no legal standing since we have no rights to privacy according to HO neither has phorm, BT of who ever at the HO who answered those. Time to appeal.
|
A friend of mine in the Civil Service was explaining (unrelated to Phorm) how decisions were made in the DTI (now BRRRRRRR), and I think this applies across the civil service.
Basically for any decision an assessment is made on what the likely public interest would be, and the chance of it blowing up and coming back to haunt them. If it is considered low risk then decision making takes a different path to that otherwise (I'll leave the reader to read between teh lines here!)
I pity the HO and BRRRRR on Phorm here, as I'm sure the people dealing with BT and Phorm didn't spot the likely public interest on this technology being stealthily installed at ISPs.
At the time of dishing out advice and emails I'm guessing that the civil servants involved never dreamt of FoI interest from teh great unwashed.
If correspondance hasn't been prepared with the likelihood of public scrutiny being considered, then of course it won't be released under FoI without an appeal.
It's a pity FoI didn't exist when they were still making "Yes, Minister!"