At FOI Live last week someone (I think it was the outgoing Information Commissioner, but I'm not sure) said that the first part of the postcode is a reasonable compromise.
i.e. It would reveal enough information to uncover the home flipping scandal, but without harming privacy/security (take your pick!) by giving the full address. Francis On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:53:46AM +0100, paul perrin wrote: > I have a separate FoI request asking for a list of occasions when MPs have > changed their address details - it was originally rejected as addresses are > excluded from FoI, but I pointed out I didn't want the addresses, just a > list of occasions (MP/Date) when the address changed (I had actually made > this clear in the original request... ho hum ) - they have said they are > re-consideriong and I am awaiting a response. > Would a database of address change dates mashed up with claims be enough? > > Paul /)/+) > > ps. I have found that my MP tried to claim for the same mobile phone > (purchase) invoice three times - one was rejected, but looks like it was > paid twice (six months apart!). > > 2009/6/19 Timothy Green <[email protected]> > > > Thanks for the replies - it seems like it was just never considered as > > part of the ruling? I doubt a FoI request would get anywhere if no-one > > thought about it, unless anyone can think of a specific target. > > > > Also, would it be possible, ignoring cost issues, to request that the > > information is released in anonymized form? If the High Court judgement > > and the FoI amendement only covered the actual data, for security > > reasons etc., would it still legally exempt them from releasing the > > similarity information? Saying that A = B is different from saying what > > A and B are. Not knowing much legally, or the details, maybe this could > > be clarified from the wording of both - or more probably in a ruling. > > > > Practically I'm sure it wouldn't happen for cost reasons anyway, and as > > Matthew has just pointed out the Telegraph will hopefully be releasing > > the information anyway - but it might be useful to clarify anomyizing > > techniques for FoI requests in the future when a convenient leak doesn't > > happen. > > > > Thanks, > > Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
