2009/6/19 Francis Irving <[email protected]>: > 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. >
A bizarre (though in context nothing seems odd) remark from an article in the Telegraph: "Amid widespread confusion over who was ultimately responsible for the blacking out of claims, backbench MPs said that they had been warned off publishing their own uncensored information by the Commons authorities, who said they could breach data protection laws. Sally Keeble, a Labour MP, said: “We were sent this disgraceful letter saying if we did [publish the information uncensored] we risked getting into trouble and if that happened we would be on our own.” Link here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5572160/Blackout-the-great-MPs-expenses-cover-up.html [with my "I am a lawyer" hat on - the idea that publishing information about yourself can somehow breach the DPA shows just how much the act is used as an excuse, there is of course nothing to stop an individual publishing personal data about themselves and indeed frequently little to stop them publishing personal data about others] The Telegraph have a slightly less redacted form of the invoices for the cabinet: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/cabinet-expenses/ They claim its "in full" but it isn't quite. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
