Phorm/Second Phase of European Commission Infringement Case 64/08/INSO

Dear Cabinet Office,

Concerning the second phase of the European Commission Infringement
case 64/08/INSO, arising from the covert mass
surveillance/industrial espionage trials by BT/Phorm in 2006, 2007
and 2008... Please could you disclose for me,

- the date on which the response to the second stage of
infringement proceedings was submitted to the EC (the deadline
being 29 December 2009)
- the department that lead the preparation of that response
- the full response that was submitted to the EC

- any correspondence between the Cabinet Office/Prime Minister's
Office and the EC concerning the case since 1 October 2009
- the dates/agenda/minutes of meetings between the Cabinet
Office/Prime Minister's Office and the EC to discuss the case since
1 October 2009

- any correspondence between Cabinet Office, and Home
Office/BERR/BIS/MoJ/Foreign Office concerning the case since 1
October 2009
- the dates/agenda/minutes of meetings between the Cabinet Office
and Home Office/BERR/BIS/MoJ/Foreign Office concerning the case
since 1 October 2009

- a report of all records concerning 64/08/INSO from the case
management system which is being used by the Cabinet Office to
track this case

ICO FoI guidance states "There will often be a private interest in
withholding information which would reveal incompetence on the part
of or corruption within the public authority or which would simply
cause embarrassment to the authority. However, the public interest
will favour accountability and good administration and it is this
interest that must be weighed against the public interest in not
disclosing the information".

In the interest of public accountability and good administration, I
would also be grateful if you would now disclose to me the two
earlier responses to the EC concerning the same matter, on or about
15 September 2008, and the second on or about 13 June 2009, which
were rejected by the European Commission. I believe you are
withholding information in those responses which would reveal
incompetence, corruption, or embarrassment (grounds which are
specifically excluded by ICO FoI guidance).

many thanks
Yours faithfully
Mr. P. John

Dear Cabinet Office,

I am surprised (once again) by the your evasion, and can only
assume you are mistaken.

In total, over the past year, you have received 5 requests from me.
4 of those relate to Phorm. Of those 4 you've answered only 1 with
requested information. Prior to this request, the last enquiry from
me was 10 July 2009... now over 6 months ago.

One of only two things happened in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Either

1) British Security Services (who are responsible for Counter
Espionage) spectacularly comprehensively failed to detect and
prevent a notorious 'spyware tsar' with links to the Russian
Military engaging in covert nationwide industrial espionage and
personal surveillance... not once, not twice, but three times

and/or

2) the Prime Minister or one of his Cabinet Ministers permitted
that espionage/surveillance to occur.

Given the circumstances of 2008, particularly the complete failure
of the UK Police and Regulators to act against the criminals who
conducted those trials... I can only assume the Prime Minister
authorised the trials in 2008 and also earlier trials in 2006 and
2007.

I studied politics, briefly. Richard Nixon might wonder where he
went wrong in August 1974, when he said 'I hereby resign the Office
of the President of the United States'. Nixon's conduct attracted a
great deal of criticism, but at least he had the common decency to
resign office when it became obvious he had failed the American
electorate.

I would like to think there was an alternative explanation that did
not suggest incompetence by the Security Services, or Cabinet level
corruption... but I can't imagine what that explanation might be
until you answer the Freedom of Information requests put to you in
a spirit of openness and transparency.

I think the UK electorate are long overdue an explanation from the
Prime Minister. And the criminals who were responsible for those
trials should be in prison.

Please conduct an internal review, and please do it without further
unnecessary delay.

A full history of my FOI request ('Phorm/Second Phase of European
Commission Infringement Case 64/08/INSO') and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ph...

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Cabinet Office,

thank you for recent note.

Sorry to record that the 'Propriety & Ethics Team' would not think
it important to provide a transparent account for the Government's
response to an EC infraction process.

Particularly given the evident impropriety and corruption involved
in this matter.

And especially so on a day when the Prime Minister is reportedly
assuring the country that you will "ensure transparency is
recognised as a key operating principle".

Judging by your handling of this request, that's simply not true is
it?

Yours faithfully,

P. John