Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There is 1 person following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Correspondence between MoJ and BERR/DBIS concerning Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 11 July 2009
Copies of letters sent to BT and Phorm informing them of government letter to EU
To Home Office by Phillip Main 5 December 2009
Correspondence between Min. of Justice and Prime MInister's Office concerning Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 5 June 2009
Meetings and correspondence between MoJ and Phorm in 2005
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 5 August 2009
Correspondence between Min. of Justice and Prime MInister's Office concerning Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 20 July 2009
Dates of meetings between MoJ and Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 16 July 2009
Correspondence between Min. of Justice and Home Office concerning phorm/121media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 5 June 2009
Communication between MoJ and ICO regarding Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Steve Hankin 17 July 2009
2005 Correspondence between Home Office and BERR/DBIS concerning 121Media/Phorm
To Home Office by Phillip Main 27 August 2010
Correspondence between MoJ and ICO on Phorm/121Media
Phillip Main made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice
The request was successful.
From: Phillip Main
11 July 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Dear Sir or Madam, Please supply copies of all correspondence
concerning Phorm/121Media between Ministry of Justice and
InformationCommissioners Office
within the period 1st Jan 2006 to 11th July 2009
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Main
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice
16 July 2009
Dear Mr Main,
Please find attached your acknowledgement to your Freedom of Information
request.
Yours sincerely
Katie Dimon
Data Access and Compliance Unit
Zone 6B
Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: Patel, Roshnee
Ministry of Justice
10 August 2009
Annex A.PDF.pdf
2.2M
Download
View as HTML
FOI Main 60410 MoJ BIS ICO 10 August final.DOC.doc
74K
Download
View as HTML
Dear Mr Main,
Please find attached the response for your recent FOI Request.
Roshnee Patel
Policy Advisor | Data Protection Team
Information Policy Division | Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France | SW1H 9AJ
T: 020 3334 5231
E: [email address]
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Phillip Main left an annotation (16 July 2009)
1. DBIS/BERR
2. ICO
were sent seperately as the ICO has no jurisdiction over the RIPA legistlation. Therefore there may have been information that referred to the ICO which may not have been disclosed. The MoJ have chosen to aggregate the two requests as being requests for similar information and thus becoming one request for the purposes of time and expense. Which may then fall foul of the limit imposed for each request. A familiar tactic used by this government. In a previous request to the Home Office I was told that two requests one of which asked about meetings with BT and the other about meetings with Phorm a software company were the same questions and therefore the request was refused. This request is now the subject of an internal review. Now unless this government know something I don't BT and Phorm are two completely seperate companies.
Why is it that requests for information about this government's dealings with Phorm bring on this reaction of circling the wagons?
Link to this