Barrier Busting Website - follow on from Derek Tickles and Amy Fisher

I have written to ICO to lodge my own concerns regarding DCLG's policy of requiring evidence of many requestors of their real name when requesting FOI requests which is contemptible and, I think, a disproportionate invasion of privacy - which is a shame as their general level of compliance with FOI is pretty good.

If they think a request is out of order they already have a course of action in s. 14 of the Act (vexatious) and if the information is repeated then the info is likely to be in the public domain and hence exempt anyway. If DCLG think more's needed then they should lobby for changes in the current consultation of FOI with the Cabinet Office. They should not instead invent powers which the Act does not accord them on a whim.

On the other hand, this does have all the hallmarks of a series of sock puppets, and any organisation is perfectly entitled to decline to respond on those grounds.

It really doesn't help things when people mess around with the system like this. If an organisation fails to respond appropriately, then there are channels for appealing that. Alternatively, if the original request is reasonable, there are plenty of WDTK users who can offer advice in how best to proceed. Deliberately gaming the system only makes it harder for other, legitimate requesters to get answers to their questions.

I agree completely with Mark. Responding to FOI requests takes the time of both the FOI officers and specialist staff who FOI teams liaise with very closely to provide comprehensive accurate answers to requestoers

I understand the concerns (genuinely i do - as i said above DCLG are generally good at meeting the FOI obligations - a case in point is my recent request to them: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/me...) I think some of the requests are legitimately requests that should be refused on vexatious grounds. However, it seems to me notwithstanding the tone of some requests the actual information requested are consistently requests for legitimate information in which there is a public interest. So, if DCLG refuse a request from 'Mr Pickles' and someone (not the same person) makes a request for the same information because they want the information Pickles requested then the chances are that DCLG on current policy will refuse to consider until proof of indentity and the concomitant invasion of privacy (albeit not a terrible one) has been provided.

Therefore, such a person would have to prove the right to request information which is in fact theirs in statute (irrespective of nationality or location - and hence quite possibly without access to the information DCLG demand which would result in a person being deprived of their rights in UK law). That in my view is an unlawful gatekeeping of the FOI democratic rights which the Act never accorded to DCLG.

Notwithstanding that, Information Tribunal caselaw makes clear that the real name requirement (personhood)in s.8 is not synonymous with individual identity in any case, so a request made in the name of someone other than an individual identity may nontheless be a valid request for information under the legislation.

Rant over but hopefully not "ranty politics" :-)

Perhaps one route would be for WDTK to censor all requests of Mr Tickles - request the actual information requested but not the "fluff" (albeit fluff that can be pretty funny - however inappropriate) since that seems to be DCLG's major gripe.

It probably wouldn't change much - Mr Tickle's would i'm sure switch to email rather than WDTK - but the offence (if there is any on DCLG's part) would be less public.

It's the sort of thing that was somewhat funny the first time, but - like the zombie invasion requests - wears thin very quickly when repeated.

At some point Mr Pickles morphed into Mr Tickles in my comments, i'm not sure how that happened. On the zombie front this request (or rather the answer) does takes some beating: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr... but by and large I agree it's far from helpful.

A person who randomly shows up at the embassy asking to prove their identity for a UK FOI request will very likely be turned away by guards before they even get to the front door.

If the department is serious about requiring the applicant to show ID, they should specify exactly who should be contacted in the embassy, and in which department. Is it consular services (not likely since this is not a British citizen)? The ambassador's office? Where and who exactly?

This is a bit of a farce, even if the original applicant is quite possibly made up.

"Turn up at the embassy"? Surely with this response they've already got a urine sample?