Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing in relation to a FOI request made to the Identity &
Passport Service.

Ref: FOICR 9526/08

All correspondence in relation to the above can be followed at
<<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pa...>>

Their response indicated that internal reviews were carried out by
the Home Office, so I request that you carry out an internal review
for the above request, on the basis that the FOI exemptions they
have claimed have not been correctly applied in accordance with:

* the Secretary of State’s Code of Practice,

* guidance provide by the Information Commissioner,

* guidance provide by the DCA.

I've outlined below the areas I believe should have been
considered.

____1. Provision of electronic version of Post Office photo
templates____

Section 43(2) exemption was claimed on what seems to be both the
current version of the template and a planned future version
(currently undergoing usability testing). I will cover each item in
turn as I believe they are separate pieces of information.

I'd like to remind you that to claim an exemption under 43(2), both
a prejudice test and a public interest test must be applied.

__A) Current version of the template

* No grounds were given for opposition for release of the current
version of the template in the "against" public interest test - the
only opposition was that the current version "will change shortly".

* This is not a valid reason for withholding the information under
the FOIA, and it should be disclosed.

* No prejudice test was carried out for this exemption.

* An additional reason in favour of disclosure of the current
template is due to the Post Office's current monopoly position in
providing a passport photo check service.

From the ICO's guidance:
<<http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...>>
(p6)

"The level of competition within an industry will effect whether
the release of information will harm someone’s commercial
interests. Where a company enjoys a monopoly over the provision of
the goods or services in question it is less likely that releasing
the information will have a prejudicial impact on that company"

Relating to the prejudice test that should have been applied to
this exemption, the balance should be in favour of disclosure as
release of the current template is not likely to prejudice I&PS'
relationship with the Post Office.

__B) New version of the template

* In order to exempt under Section 43(2), "release of the
information is likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any
person."

From the DCA's guidance:
<<http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance/exgui...>>
"3.1 In order to decide whether or not disclosure could prejudice
commercial interests it is necessary to identify:
- the interests themselves and how disclosure might prejudice them,
and
- whose interests they are"

* The interests have not been defined

* The identity/ies of whose interests they belong to has not been
defined

From the ICO's guidance:
<<http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...>>
(Section G.a, p10)
"In order to determine whether the disclosure of information would
prejudice a commercial interest, a public authority should, in
accordance with the Secretary of State’s Code of Practice, consult
with the parties likely to be affected by any disclosure."

* If your reply there was no mention of consultation with third
parties to allow publication of the information.

* In addition there was no mention of the words "public interest
test" as required in the Code of Conduct

* There is no overall assessment of balance of public interest.

____2. Provision of technical specifications for photo measurements
____

To clarify you appear to be claiming under exemptions 31.1.a the
prevention or detection of crime, and 31.1.e the operation of the
immigration controls.

I'd again like to remind you that to claim an exemption under
31(1), first a prejudice test and then a public interest test must
be applied.

From my previous email to yourselves, the information I am asking
for is for the technical specification for your implementation of a
publically available, international ICAO Standard for how the I&PS
measures scanned photographs during the passport application
process in order to build up a biometric.

Your arguments in favour of withholding the information:

You say:
"On the other hand, disclosure of any one of the security features
of passports would, if the information fell into the wrong hands,
provide criminals with guidance on the features they need to defeat
in order to commit identity fraud or aid illegal immigration. This
would result in putting the public in greater danger of becoming
victims of identity crime."

* The photo scanning process is not a "security feature" as it is
the mathematical conversion of a facial biometric (scanned-in
photo) into a encoded representation of this, based on a public
ICAO Standard.

* I have not asked for details of any "security features", and
these should be redacted in any information you provide.

You say:
"We have carefully considered the balance of the public interest
test and concluded that, in this case it is in favour of
non-disclosure. The information should be restricted to those who
need to check passports as part of their duties in investigating
crime or operating the immigration controls"

* I have not asked for information on checking of passports in
investigation of crime

* I have not asked for information on methods of operating the
immigration controls.

* These points are therefore not relevant for your reasons for
witholding the information.

* An additional reason in favour of disclosure is that publication
of your technical implementation will allow its independent
scrutiny to ensure it did in fact meet the ICAO Standard.

____Summary____

From the ICO:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
(p2)

"The ICO has emphasised the importance of clear and fully explained
refusal notices. A poor notice that does not fully explain an
authority’s decision may indicate that a request has not been dealt
with seriously"

I believe that my requests have been incorrectly turned down based
on incorrect interpretation of the legislation and that official
Code of Conduct, guidance and best practices have not been
followed.

I therefore formally request that you review the decision to
withhold the information and disclose the requested documents
without further delay.

I would also be very grateful if you could acknowledge your receipt
of this request.

Yours faithfully

Alex Skene

Dear Mr Skene,

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review
of a Freedom of Information request you made about the details of passport
photographs received here on the 23 June 2008. Our unit has been asked to
carry out that review and can confirm that we were not involved with the
handling of your initial request.

We have a 40 working day target to reply to requests for an internal
review and I hope to reply to you no later than 18 August 2008.

Yours sincerely,

Gareth Wyn Hazzelby | Information Access Performance Supervisor |
Information Rights Team

Information Management Service | Shared Services Directorate | 4th Floor |
Seacole Building | 2 Marsham Street | SW1P 4DF

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Alex Skeene,

Please find attached an update to your Internal Review request.

Thanks
Oliver Lendrum

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Sir or Madam,

ref FOICR 9526/08

It is 6 months since I requested an internal review of my FOI
requests to I&PS, well in excess of your target 40 working days,
and there have been no further updates since your mail of 20
October 2008.

A complaint has been submitted to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Skene

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please provide an update on the current status of the FOI internal
review you are carrying out ref FOICR 9526/08 - I have not received
any further communications from yourselves since your letter of 20
October 2008.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Skene

Dear Sir or Madam,

Ref FOICR 9526/08

Please could you provide an update on the status of your internal
review of my request. It's nearly ONE YEAR since I requested the
review, and still no sign of completion.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Skene

Mr Skene
please find attached a response to your request for an internal review of
the above named FOI request

Diana Pottinger Information Access Consultant
Information Management Services, Shared Services Directorate
4th Floor, Seacole Building, Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

[1]www.homeoffice.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

Dear Diana,

Your ref: FOICR 9526/08

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Many thanks for your belated reply sent to me on 25 September
("9526 Alex Skene IR 2009 25 09 Final response.doc").

In the attachment, you said: "Further information about the
application of these exemptions can be found in the Annex to this
letter."

Compounding the lengthy delay I've already experienced, it
unfortunately appears that you forgot to add the explanatory
"Annex" to the letter. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this was
a simple administrative oversight which can be turned around the
same day as you receive this?

Yours sincerely,

Alex Skene

Mr Skene
Annex A as requested

Diana Pottinger Information Access Consultant
Information Management Services, Shared Services Directorate
Ground Floor, Seacole Building, Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Tel 020 7035 1046

www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Fax no: 0207 035 tbc

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Skene

Please find attached a letter and further information relevant to the
above case.

I am also sending a copy of this email to the ICO.

Regards,

Oliver

Oliver Lendrum

Information Access Team

Information Management Service | Shared Services Directorate | Home Office
| Ground Floor | Seacole Building | 2 Marsham Street | London | SW1P 4DF

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.