Timothy Green wrote: > This is a tangentially related question, but is there any reason why > anonymising addresses and telephone numbers via salted hash or otherwise > wasn't considered for this data release?
It's a question you'd have to ask of the House of Commons, perhaps using our Freedom of Information request site http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ :-) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081967_en_1 amended the FOI act to exempt anything to with MP/Lord addresses, regular travel arrangements, service providers, and security, but obviously that doesn't mean they /couldn't/ do that (or some hash as you suggest), just that they don't have to, and presumably cost was involved, yes. ATB, Matthew > It'd be sufficient data to look > to see if claims were at the same property or if properties were shared, > though for issues like location of the house you'd need a postcode (or > the first half). > > Presumably it's something along the lines of it being too much effort > given that the data is held in scanned images. _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
