How freedom of information works

[BBKing]

Hot on the heels of Charlie 'I Was Tony Blair's Flatmate And All I Got Was This Lousy Peerage' Falconer suggesting that the FoIA should be amended to stop 'frivolous' requests (his definition of frivolous, of course) comes this interesting Guardian round up of the first year, which reveals that there's a bunch of civil servants run by Charlie's department to which all 'sensitive' requests should be referred. So what are the really important secrets which need to be kept a tight rein on? Anything mentioning

'The current Prime Minister'
'Cabinet and its committees'
'the Royal Family'
'The Honours system'
'Government efficiency'
'Official contracts'

has to go through the Charlie's Clearing Committee in addition to the department it was requested from.

So that's bent, bent, mad, corrupt, totally absent and bent. No wonder they don't want us knowing. It will surprise no one that one of the least open parts of Government is Number 10 Downing Street*.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/c...677819,00.html

* Who, according to Private Eye, have just taken control of the BBC's foreign broadcaster monitoring service from the Foreign Office. I have absolutely no idea why.

[Ramrod]

Not to mention this from todays Times

PEOPLE will have to pay for information about their local schools, hospitals and councils under secret plans being considered by ministers, The Times has learnt.

An about-turn on the newly implemented Freedom of Information Act has been prompted by a series of embarrassing revelations about the inner workings of government. The cost of responding to requests has also proved so expensive for civil servants to administer that a charge for information is being seen as the only alternative.

The move could deter thousands of people who so far have used the Act in its first year to find out about local services, as well as to cast light on the size of subsidies paid to Britainââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s wealthiest landowners and discover how ministers had blocked the civil marriage of Princess Margaret.

Bills running into hundreds of pounds could be sent to people with complicated multiple requests, even if the authority ultimately refuses to supply them with the information.

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

has to go through the Charlie's Clearing Committee in addition to the department it was requested from.

So that's bent, bent, mad, corrupt, totally absent and bent. No wonder they don't want us knowing. It will surprise no one that one of the least open parts of Government is Number 10 Downing Street*.

Yeah, I agree... Let's release all information stored under the FOIA without any kind of supervision, censorship. That's not going to endanger national security is it?

You need information clearing houses to make sure information that isn't appropriate, safe, isn't released into the public domain. Those clearing houses need people, errr, clearing information.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Hot on the heels of Charlie 'I Was Tony Blair's Flatmate And All I Got Was This Lousy Peerage' Falconer suggesting that the FoIA should be amended to stop 'frivolous' requests (his definition of frivolous, of course) comes this interesting Guardian round up of the first year, which reveals that there's a bunch of civil servants run by Charlie's department to which all 'sensitive' requests should be referred. So what are the really important secrets which need to be kept a tight rein on? Anything mentioning

'The current Prime Minister'
'Cabinet and its committees'
'the Royal Family'
'The Honours system'
'Government efficiency'
'Official contracts'

has to go through the Charlie's Clearing Committee in addition to the department it was requested from.

So that's bent, bent, mad, corrupt, totally absent and bent. No wonder they don't want us knowing. It will surprise no one that one of the least open parts of Government is Number 10 Downing Street*.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foi/c...677819,00.html

* Who, according to Private Eye, have just taken control of the BBC's foreign broadcaster monitoring service from the Foreign Office. I have absolutely no idea why.

I would hope that stuff is checked twice!

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Not to mention this from todays Times

But the FOIA already allows for a charge to be made.

Of course after the Act was brought in all and sundry made requests for anything and everything they could think of. Sure, that was bound to be a bit expensive. But I'm sure the novelty will (if it hasn't already) wear off, and then the level and hence cost of the requests will fall.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

But the FOIA already allows for a charge to be made.

But it looks like they want to up it.......and I suspect it's to make life harder for us.....

[BBKing]

Let's release all information stored under the FOIA without any kind of supervision,

I'm not sure you understand how the FoIA works, punky.

1) Information isn't stored 'under' it, it's stored anyway, the Act merely enables us to ask for it, under certain restrictions of cost and national interest.
2) There are plenty of reasons why people won't release information, such as costing too much to find out, national security, information concerning relations with a foreign power, etc. There are already too many restrictions - the USA has a much stronger Act,
3) There is plenty of information of national security interest that the State trusts the actual people in charge of it not to release,
4) Why have a system specifically designed to protect *people* rather than *secrets*?
5) Why have it run by a mate of Tony's rather than an independent person?

The clearing house wasn't in the original legislation as passed by Parliament, which left it up to individual bodies to decide whether to release information, with an independent ombudsman. Hence, in a way, it's flouting the will of Parliament, which didn't say 'Anything potentially embarrassing to the PM should be checked by his best mate first'. It seems very obvious that the FoIA applies only to information of public interest as long as it doesn't come too close to the Exalted Personage Of The Dear Leader, May He Reign For One Thousand Years (and friends). This hardly inspires confidence.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by punky

Yeah, I agree... Let's release all information stored under the FOIA without any kind of supervision, censorship. That's not going to endanger national security is it?

I am pretty sure that any information (and I mean any) that might endanger National Security would be restricted by the Official Secrets act. I would be surprised if, the FOIA overrules the Official Secrets Act if they conflict. The Data Protection Act doesn't. Put simply, the Data Protection Act doesn't apply to any systems where Offical Secrets are stored. I would be surprised if the FOIA applied to any information stored under the Official Secrets act.

And the government place an awful lot of their information under the Official Secrets act. My mum had to sign the official secrets act because she worked in a bank where the government ONCE had an account. My sister has signed it because she worked for the DSS.

[basa]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Exalted Personage Of The Dear Leader, May He Reign For One Thousand Years (and friends).

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I am pretty sure that any information (and I mean any) that might endanger National Security would be restricted by the Official Secrets act. I would be surprised if, the FOIA overrules the Official Secrets Act if they conflict. The Data Protection Act doesn't. Put simply, the Data Protection Act doesn't apply to any systems where Offical Secrets are stored. I would be surprised if the FOIA applied to any information stored under the Official Secrets act.

And the government place an awful lot of their information under the Official Secrets act. My mum had to sign the official secrets act because she worked in a bank where the government ONCE had an account. My sister has signed it because she worked for the DSS.

I had to sign it when I joined (the now defunct) PSA.

Declaration: To be signed by members of Government Departments on appointment and, where desirable, by non-civil servants on first being given access to Government information.

I don't recall any character / police checks though !!??

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

1) Information isn't stored 'under' it, it's stored anyway, the Act merely enables us to ask for it, under certain restrictions of cost and national interest.

Sorry that should have read... " Let's release all information stored, under the FOIA "

You say it should be independent, but in reality, it is already. Charlie Falconer can't personally approve every FOIA request that is recieved. They have to get delegated and given to other departments.

4) Why have a system specifically designed to protect *people* rather than *secrets*?

Well, because people can die, but secrets can't? Would you be happy if information of paedophiles was released under the FOIA? You are against Megan's/Sarah's law aren't you?

Of course there is scope for abuse here, but the way your original post was written is that all censorship and clearinghouses of information are wrong. But that's just crazy, information needs to be censorsed from the public domain.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

2) There are plenty of reasons why people won't release information, such as costing too much to find out, national security, information concerning relations with a foreign power, etc. There are already too many restrictions

Sorry, can you just clarify that last sentance, as it looked like you were saying there were too many restrictions which prevent information being released, like those restrictions you mentioned.
Are you saying those restrictions you mentioned shouldn't be in place?

[Chrysalis]

the act also dissallows gathering information where the government has outsoruced to a commercial company with the reason "it is commcerically confidental information"

Recently the department of work and pensions (who wasnt listed in the report) blatantly lied about who owned copyright over some software called LiMA (which controls wether ill people get benefits or not) saying they couldnt produce it as they didnt own the copyright, but recent developments showed they do own the copyright, in affect they were breaking the law lying to withold it from the public. This software has been put into use without parliament's approval, this is just one example of the act not been honoured.