Iris Imaging

Dear Sir or Madam,

Some UK opticians have recently publicised new service regarding
Iris Imaging.

I would like to know if any communication has taken place between
the government and such organisations regarding their use of this
technology - particularly in respect of the use for this data in
relation to ID cards and associated databases.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Perrin

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's
handling of my FOI request 'Iris Imaging'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ir...

On the deadline the initial response, I was told that information
did exist, but an it was being reviewed regarding a possible
extension which could take up to 20 days.

Exactly 20 days later I received another response saying that no
information was held.

I would like a full explanation of the sequence of events.
Including what information was subject to the exclusion review, and
precisely what the outcome was.

I would also question why the responses I have received have in
this case (as in many others) have always been at the latest
possible moment within the legal requirements. Is work always left
until the last possible moment? or are responses 'sat on' until the
due date comes around? I would suggest that neither state of
affairs would seem to be within the purpose of the time limits in
the act.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perrin

Dear Information Access,

This response is in no way acceptable.

You substantially restate a sequence of events that was already
known and acknowledged by yourselves.

I expected an internal review to explain *how* and *why* it came
about that an inappropriate extension was claimed - you merely
acknowledge that it was inappropriate, an acknowledgement that the
department had already given - you provide no explanation.

As regards the fact that the case had been marked in your
statistics as 'within a reasonable extended period' is truly
disgraceful and a blatant lie - the final response from yourselves
had already acknowledged that the extension was in appropriate -
how was this allowed to happen, and what confidence can there be in
any home office stats?

I expect you to undertake a proper review of the case to answer the
questions of *how* and *why* the inappropriate extension came to be
claimed.

Also how and why your departmental statistics were falsified.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perrin