I Know Something You Don't Know...

Many people often feel that all information (from private or public sources) should be published and be available for the world to see. Though, as it always is with the law, there is the prominent need to establish a healthy balance between the legitimate need for an organisation to gather information on people and the right of an individual's respect for privacy of their personal details. The problem that a court often sees, is that once sensitive information has been released to the public eye, it can be disseminated at the speed of light, ultimately leaving no way of retrieving it. It may be easy to state that all openness is good and that secrecy is bad, however, who is to claim that secrecy does no good for society? In fact, secrecy in diplomacy is a very effective tool for governments around the world. For instance, the UK uses the Official Secrets Act 1989 to prohibit the leaking of classified information.

Consider this point; if information held by the intelligence, such as, MI5 was to be disclosed publicly, this may be damaging because of the possibility of endangering British citizens (under s.3(2)(a) Official Secrets Act 1989) to terrorist and other international threat. Surely, in these situations, the public would regard secrecy as vital because it would be within the public interest.

Image courtesy of jeffschuler on Flickr

Data Protection Act 1998

The DPA 1998 has established a framework of rights and duties which are designed to safeguard personal data belonging to all of us (unfortunately, if information belongs to the deceased, it cannot be protected). Data protection specifically applies to the handling and processing of information (through a very wide spectrum - from manual through to electronic systems); so if a company processes this data publicly, then it must comply with the provisions of this Act.

So here is a little bit of information on how data is collected.

When an organisation collects or holds personal data, this is classed as processing data. For example, for those of who have signed up to the social media world of Facebook, the site itself would have requested numerous personal details when signing up (as you can see in the image below). 

If a person then proceeded to 'Get Facebook Mobile' (see arrows) then additional information would be processed by Facebook, such as, location and access to mobile phone contacts providing agreement has been made to its terms. It is likely that the DPA 1998 has required data handlers/controllers, such as, Facebook, to register with the Information Commissioner's Office. Many of us tend not to read through these seemingly pointless terms carefully enough, so do we really agree with what we are signing up for? If we do not agree with them, then is there a way to sign up without this information being handled or do we simply give up on this aspect of social media?

Everyone has the right to find out what information data controllers hold regarding themselves and can do so through making a subject access request via writing or email. It may not be commonly known, but students can actually conduct this process with their universities. Once a student requests information, the university would have 40 days to reply to this request and may have to provide documentation such as the following:

- A break down of all academic grades;

- Attendance records;

- Any CCTV footage of the student (and the list goes on...)

What is the nexus between DPA 1998 and FOIA 2000?
Since the FOIA came into force, it became clear that there were grey areas within both statutes. The Information Commissioner now handles both data protection and freedom of information requests. Whilst the DPA 1998 sets out the rules to ensure that personal information is handled appropriately by data controllers, the FOIA 2000 covers the right to know about public authorities and the information that they hold about individuals.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Do not be deceived by the stated date - the FOIA actually came into force in 2005! The Act requires public bodies to provide information when they are asked for it. As the Preamble says, this is an act to make provisions for the disclosure of information by public authorities or by persons providing information to them.

Any person who makes a request for information from a public authority is entitled:
- To be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds the information requested, and;
- If so, then the person should have that information communicated to them
- Where the public authority reasonably requires further information in order to identify and provide the person with what they originally requested, then the public authority does not need to do the above (providing it has notified the applicant of this).

Expenses, More Expenses & an 'Unsung Hero'

The steps required in FOIA were put to the test with the enrichment of Members of Parliament in the 'expenses scandal' of 2009.

Image courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin

The unsung hero, Heather Brooke (Journalist), played a major role in exposing the scandal that occurred, although she may not have received full credit for her investigative work. She first contacted the House of Commons in 2004, with an interest in the opacity of the UK parliamentary expenses system. When she spent time in the USA, she found that they have a relatively transparent system whereby anyone can access local politicians' receipts very quickly. At the time, she was told by the Commons that the expenses would be published in October of that year and so they were, but in suspicious bulk figures under categories named, travel, staff and second homes. As any journalist would, Brooke wanted to know the details, but the Commons would not allow this.

She filled in her freedom of information requests, knowing that if the Commons did refuse the information then she could appeal internally and then to the so-called 'outside' regulator - namely, the Information Commissioner. I say 'so-called', because the Information Commissioner is appointed by and has his salary paid for by the government. As expected, her requests in 2006 for details were all rejected and the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, also refused the publication.

In the High Court, Andrew Walker (the Head of the House of Commons Fees Office) described the expenses system that he oversaw on a daily basis, stating 'Transparency will damage democracy' and 'Public confidence is not the overriding concern per se...'. Tribunal members said the system 'constituted a recipe for confusion, inconsistency and the risk of misuse'.

The Commons presented two key arguments:
- Privacy - it was an invasion of privacy for the public to know what MPs spent public money on during their course of public duties.
- Security - MPs were likely to be 'shot in their beds' if their second home addresses were to be made public (but no evidence was adduced to demonstrate that these threats were imminent and not just a conspiracy theory).

Eventually, the judges ruled in Brooke's favour and the Commons was ordered to produce the expenses in a publication in October 2008, October and December went by but the information still had not been published, more and more taxpayers' money being spent in legal proceedings by this point. By the end of this, the information was published through illegitimate means, despite Brooke's years of hard work.

The Commons committed unforgivable acts repeatedly during this process of gaining transparency and an accountable government. MPs felt morose, though they had many opportunities to do right by those who had elected them as representatives.

Brooke's argues that in order for there to be a clean slate, those who created the mess need to be eradicated.
"Only then can we have a parliament of which we are proud." - Heather Brookes