Comments on: Releasing the names of public officials http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/ Heather Brooke is an award-winning writer, journalist and activist Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:17:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: vaci http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/comment-page-1/#comment-589 vaci Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:27:57 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/#comment-589 I believe that FOI does indeed apply to work done by private companies on behalf of government bodies - but only to that work. It doesn't expose the entire company's business to FOI disclosure. I actually think that profit is an excellent driver for good practice, efficiency and quality of service. At least a company that fails to deliver those benefits will suffer a fall in profit. Public servants have no such motivation as their failures are absolved by the public purse! I believe that FOI does indeed apply to work done by private companies on behalf of government bodies – but only to that work. It doesn’t expose the entire company’s business to FOI disclosure.

I actually think that profit is an excellent driver for good practice, efficiency and quality of service. At least a company that fails to deliver those benefits will suffer a fall in profit. Public servants have no such motivation as their failures are absolved by the public purse!

]]> By: Tony Brooke http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/comment-page-1/#comment-588 Tony Brooke Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:11:22 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/#comment-588 With increasing use of third party service companies to do government work, shouldn't the same rules of public transparency be applied to them as a condition of doing such work.(Or is this already the case?) Surely we have an even greater need for accountability and public scrutiny when profit rather than public service is the driver? With increasing use of third party service companies to do government work, shouldn’t the same rules of public transparency be applied to them as a condition of doing such work.(Or is this already the case?)
Surely we have an even greater need for accountability and public scrutiny when profit rather than public service is the driver?

]]> By: N Louis http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/comment-page-1/#comment-587 N Louis Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:54:54 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/#comment-587 The original guidance issued by the DCA (http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance) doesn’t suggest that names of public officials should be redacted as a matter of course. But further FOI handling guidance sent out more recently by the DCA as the central clearing house for the civil service on FOI matters, advises that the names of officials, including their personal data, should be redacted if it’s not integral to the information requested. This is of course until the issues between FOI and Data Protection Acts on the naming of officials is resolved, and a decision is made either way. Although the Information Commissioner is the independent official appointed to oversee both the FOI and the Data Protection Acts. It remains to be seen if this particular conflict is going to be put to him for a resolution. The original guidance issued by the DCA (http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance) doesn’t suggest that names of public officials should be redacted as a matter of course.

But further FOI handling guidance sent out more recently by the DCA as the central clearing house for the civil service on FOI matters, advises that the names of officials, including their personal data, should be redacted if it’s not integral to the information requested. This is of course until the issues between FOI and Data Protection Acts on the naming of officials is resolved, and a decision is made either way.

Although the Information Commissioner is the independent official appointed to oversee both the FOI and the Data Protection Acts. It remains to be seen if this particular conflict is going to be put to him for a resolution.

]]> By: Vaci http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/comment-page-1/#comment-586 Vaci Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:13:04 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/#comment-586 The Information Commissioner is the independent official appointed to oversee both the FOI and the Data Protection Acts, and is surely best placed to resolve conflicts between the two Acts. The advice issued by the Commissioner clearly indicates that the names and job titles of public officials can be published without falling foul of the Data Protection Act: "...information which is about someone acting in an official or work capacity should normally be provided on request..." I've read nothing in the guidance issued by the DCA (http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance) that suggests that names of public officials should be redacted as a matter of course. The Information Commissioner is the independent official appointed to oversee both the FOI and the Data Protection Acts, and is surely best placed to resolve conflicts between the two Acts.

The advice issued by the Commissioner clearly indicates that the names and job titles of public officials can be published without falling foul of the Data Protection Act: “…information which is about someone acting in an official or work capacity should normally be provided on request…”

I’ve read nothing in the guidance issued by the DCA (http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance) that suggests that names of public officials should be redacted as a matter of course.

]]> By: N Louis http://heatherbrooke.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/comment-page-1/#comment-585 N Louis Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:52:17 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/2005/releasing-the-names-of-public-officials/#comment-585 As there are issues between FOI and Data Protection on the naming of officials which has yet to be resolved. The Department of Constitutional Affairs have sent out FOI Handling Guidance to all central government departments, advising that the names of officials, including any personal data, should be redacted (for example, in emails etc) if it's not integral to the information requested. So the anonymisation of official’s names is the now the norm unless knowing who dealt with a communication is integral to the information. As there are issues between FOI and Data Protection on the naming of officials which has yet to be resolved. The Department of Constitutional Affairs have sent out FOI Handling Guidance to all central government departments, advising that the names of officials, including any personal data, should be redacted (for example, in emails etc) if it’s not integral to the information requested. So the anonymisation of official’s names is the now the norm unless knowing who dealt with a communication is integral to the information.

]]>