On question time it was said by an MP that HoC staff did the redacting following standard 'rules'. An FoI request asking for a copy of those rules may answer the question.
Based on other responses from HoC that I have had I would expect them to have an official document (desk instructions, probably in word) telling redactors what to do. Paul /)/+) 2009/6/18 Matthew Somerville <[email protected]> > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
