Dear Sir or Madam,

please could you disclose for me

- the names of officials on the secretariat of the UK Council for
Child Internet Safety (UK CCIS) from Home Office, Becta and DCSF

- the application for membership of UK CCIS made by Phorm and the
reponse to that request, or invitation supplied by UK CCIS and
response to that invitation

- the date on which UK CCIS were first advised that Phorm
previously traded under the name 121Media

- the date when UK CCIS were advised that 121Media supplied the
application known as 'Apropos', classified as 'high risk spyware'
by Symantec.

- the date on which UK CCIS were first advised that BT had
conducted covert trials in 2006 and 2007 of communication
interception and profiling technology supplied by 121Media/Phorm,
called PageSense/ ProxySense/ NetSense/ Webwise

- the date on which Beverley Hughes MP was first advised that BT
had conducted covert trials in 2006 and 2007 of communication
interception and profiling technology supplied by 121Media/Phorm

- dates, agenda, and minutes of any meeting between the UK CCIS
secretariat and Phorm/121Media since 1 January 2006

- dates, agenda, and minutes of any meeting between the DCSF and
Phorm/121Media since 1 January 2006

- all correspondence between the UK CCIS and Phorm/121Media since 1
January 2006

- all correspondence between the DCSF and Phorm/121Media since 1
January 2006

- all correspondence between the DCSF and other Government
Departments (BERR/Home Office/DCMS/Cabinet Office/Prime Ministers
Office) concerning Phorm/121Media since 1 January 2006

- any advice therefore given to Phorm/121Media concerning
membership obligations of UK CCIS, Human Rights of children, and
protection of childrens private telecommunications

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Mr/Ms john

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2009/0031289.

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr John,
Thank you for your email dated 03 April 2009 about Phorm's memberships of
the UK Council for Child Internet Safety. The information that you
requested is provided below.

1) The names of officials on the secretariat of the UK Council for Child
Internet Safety (UK CCIS) from Home Office, Becta and DCSF

Stephanie Williams - Home Office

Charlotte Aynsley - Becta

Judith Grant - DCSF

Jason De Bono - DCSF

William Longhill - DCSF

James Ashbridge - DCSF

2) The application for membership of UKCCIS made by Phorm and the response
to that request, or invitation supplied by UK CCIS and response to that
invitation

Phorm applied by e-mail to join the council on 30^th January 2009
providing details of their company's work in relation to child internet
safety. After consideration the secretariat notified Phorm that their
application had been successful.

3) The date on which UKCCIS were first advised that Phorm previously
traded under the name 121Media.

The Council has not been advised that Phorm previously traded under the
name 121 Media.

4) The date when UKCCIS were advised that 121Media supplied the
application known as 'Apropos', classified as 'high risk spyware' by
Symantec.

The Council has not been advised that 121 Media supplied the Apropos
application.

5) The date on which UK CCIS were first advised that BT had conducted
covert trials in 2006 and 2007 of communication interception and profiling
technology supplied by 121Media/Phorm, called
PageSense/ProxySense/NetSense/Webwise

The Council has not been advised of any trials of this nature.

6) The date on which Beverley Hughes MP was first advised that BT had
conducted covert trials in 2006 and 2007 of communication interception and
profiling technology supplied by 121Media/Phorm

The Minister has not been advised of any trials of this nature.

7) Dates, agenda, and minutes of any meeting between the UK CCIS
secretariat and Phorm/121Media since 1 January 2006

A single informal meeting was held on 7 November 2009 at DCSF offices to
give Phorm information on the work of the council and its aims. No agenda
or minutes were produced for the meeting.

8) Dates, agenda, and minutes of any meeting between the DCSF and
Phorm/121Media since 1 January 2006

No meetings have been held between the DCSF and Phorm/121 Media since 1
January 2006.

9) All correspondence between the UKCCIS and Phorm/121Media since 1
January 2006

With the exception of the e-mail application for membership of the council
mentioned at (2) above and an e-mail from Phorm requesting the meeting
referred to at (7), no further correspondence has been entered into.

10) All correspondence between the DCSF and Phorm/121Media since 1
January 2006

No correspondence has been entered into.

11) All correspondence between the DCSF and other Government Departments
(BERR/Home Office/DCMS/Cabinet Office/Prime Ministers Office) concerning
Phorm/121Media since 1 January 2006

In answering this question, an assumption has been made that this is
specifically in relation to Phorm's membership of UKCCIS. No
correspondence has been entered into on this subject.

12) Any advice therefore given to Phorm/121Media concerning membership
obligations of UK CCIS, Human Rights of children, and protection of
children's private telecommunications

At the time of application Phorm were advised that all members of the
council are expected to take an active interest/role in the work of the
Council, act as voluntary ambassadors for children's internet safety and
support the decisions and outputs of the Council in line with the findings
of the Byron Review. No further advice has been provided to Phorm.

Yours sincerely,

James Ashbridge
Child Safety Unit
[email address]
[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0031289.

show quoted sections

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

References

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

Dear Mr. Ashbridge,

thank you for your prompt reply.

Please will you address a few minor queries for me, before I can
close this request.

The date of the meeting you quote is 7 November 200[9]. I assume
that should be 7 November 200[8]?

Please could you disclose the full correspondence items (request
and reply) referred to in your answer to item (9), both concerning
the application for membership of UKCCIS on 30 January 2009 and
notification of acceptance by UKCCIS, and the request for a meeting
on 7 November 2008 and the acceptance to that request.

regards
Pete.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Mr John

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2009/0037166.

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

as requested on 23 April, please will you address a few minor
queries for me, before I can
close this request.

The date of the meeting you quote is 7 November 200[9]. I assume
that should be 7 November 200[8]?

Please could you disclose the full correspondence items (request
and reply) referred to in your answer to item (9), both concerning
the application for membership of UKCCIS on 30 January 2009 and
notification of acceptance by UKCCIS, and the request for a meeting
on 7 November 2008 and the acceptance to that request.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Mr John,
Thank you for your further email dated 23 April 2009 about Phorm's
membership of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety.

To answer your points in order -

The date of the meeting between Phorm and DCSF was 7 November 2008. Please
accept my apoligies for the earlier error.

The details provided by Phorm in their applicationis is being withheld
under sections 40 and 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section
43 provides for information to be exempt from disclosure where disclosure
under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial
interests of any person. Phorm's application contains details of the
company that would fall into this category. Section 40 provides for
personal information about employees to be exempt where there is a
legitimate expectation by a third party (Phorm in this instance) that this
information would remain confidential.

Though I am unable to provide a copy of the application form that Phorm
completed, I have attached a blank copy of the form so that you are aware
of the type of information that we requested from the company.

I have also attached a transcript of the e-mails sent in relation to the
meeting with Phorm on 7 November 2008. As you will read, a lot of the
initial discussions were by telephone and I believe that Phorm were
notified that their application had been success ful by phone as well.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number in any future communications. If
you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your FOI
request and wish to make a complaint, or request a review of this
decision, you should write to me within two calendar months of the date of
this letter.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally,
however, the Commissioner cannot make a decision unless you have already
exhausted the Department's complaints procedure.
Yours sincerely,

James Ashbridge
Child Safety Unit
[email address]
[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0037166.

show quoted sections

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

References

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

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 Department for
Children, Schools and Families handling of my FOI request 'UK
Council for Child Internet Safety'.

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

I would be grateful if you would reconsider the application of
section 43 to this (or indeed any other) application to join the
UKCCIS.

It is important that the organisations who join an organisation
promoting children's safety adhere to the highest standards of
ethical and legal business conduct.

Thus it is impossible to imagine that addressing the question
"please describe your organisation and its work" or "please
describe your particular areas of knowledge, interest and expertise
in child internet safety" could give rise to any cause for
commercial concern unless the organisation were particularly
unsuitable to be a member of UKCCIS, or knowingly provided false or
misleading information to UKCCIS.

In which case it is certainly in the public interest, and the
overriding interest of children, that such information is made
public immediately. (Section 43 of the Freedom of Information act
is subject to a public interest test).

In the course of your review, please would you confirm or deny that
a copy of Phorm's application for membership of UKCCIS does indeed
exist. It being the case that the document does exist, please
redact any personal information (according to section 40) and
publish the remainder.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Sir or Madam,

further to the request for internal review, please could I ask you
to also reconsider disclosing the UKCCIS response to Phorm's
application for membership.

It seems odd that the correspondence concerning the meeting in
November 2008 should be disclosed, yet not the UKCCIS
correspondence concerning Phorm's application for membership.

Again, please could you confirm or deny that such correspondence
exists, and review the reasons for failing to disclose it.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Mr John,

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible (where a response is required). For information, the
departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses
should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are
requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0042680

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr John,

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible (where a response is required). For information, the
departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses
should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are
requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0042686

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr John
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 12 May
2009. You requested that we provide "the UKCCIS response to Phorm's
application for membership" and to "confirm or deny that such
correspondence exists, and review the reasons for failing to disclose
it". I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

After a further check of our records, I am pleased to be able to attach a
copy of the UKCCIS secretariat's response to Phorm's application. In
addition I have also attached two further documents that accompanied the
response at the time.

The information supplied to you is protected by the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. Any documents produced by government officials will be
covered by Crown Copyright. You are free to use the information for your
own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for
the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for example commercial
publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder and is
regulated by the Reuse of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. You
can find details on the arrangements for re-using Crown Copyright at:

Office of Public Sector Information
Information Policy Team
Kew
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 4DU

Email: [1][email address]

Any information which is not subject to Crown Copyright continues to be
protected by the copyright of the person, or organisation, from which the
information originated. You must ensure that you gain their permission
before reproducing such information.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled, you should
make a complaint to the Department by writing to me within two calendar
months of the date of this letter. Your complaint will be considered by
an independent review panel, who were not involved in the original
consideration of your request.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint to the
Department, you may then contact the Information Commissioner's Office.
Yours sincerely,

James Ashbridge
Child Safety Unit
[email address]
[2]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0042686.

show quoted sections

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/

Dear Mr Ashbridge,

I am puzzled why this Internal Review was not conducted by an
independent reviewer (as is generally the case with an FoI internal
review).

I asked that the Internal Review reconsider the decision to conceal
Phorm's application for membership of the UKCCIS given the public
interest. It appears from your reply that the public interest has
not been considered.

Further I asked that you confirm or deny that a copy of Phorm's
application for membership of UKCCIS does indeed exist. You haven't
done so.

Please will you place this internal review in the hands of an
independent colleague?

To recap in the original request for an internal review I stated;

"Thus it is impossible to imagine that addressing the question
'please describe your organisation and its work' or 'please
describe your particular areas of knowledge, interest and expertise
in child internet safety' could give rise to any cause for
commercial concern unless the organisation were particularly
unsuitable to be a member of UKCCIS, or knowingly provided false or
misleading information to UKCCIS.

In which case it is certainly in the public interest, and the
overriding interest of children, that such information is made
public immediately. (Section 43 of the Freedom of Information act
is subject to a public interest test).

In the course of your review, please would you confirm or deny that
a copy of Phorm's application for membership of UKCCIS does indeed
exist. It being the case that the document does exist, please
redact any personal information (according to section 40) and
publish the remainder."

If you are not willing to progress this Internal Review as
requested, I will place the matter in the hands of the Information
Commissioners Office.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Mr John,

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible (where a response is required). For information, the
departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses
should be sent within 15 working days or 20 working days if you are
requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0052987

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Mr John,
I refer to your request for a review of the decision to withhold Phorm's
completed application for membership of the UK Council for Child Internet
Safety, which was received on 11 May 2009. I have dealt with your request
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act").

The Department has now completed its internal review process and has
carried out a thorough review of the case, chaired by a senior officer who
was not involved with the original request. The Department has decided to
disclose some but not all of the information that has been requested.
Please see the attached copy of Phorm's application to join the Council.

The Department holds the remainder of the information you requested, but
it is being withheld because it falls under the following sections of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000:

Section 40 provides for personal information about third parties to be
exempt from disclosure where disclosure under the Act would contravene the
data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998.

Section 43(2) provides for information to be exempt from disclosure where
disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
commercial interests of any person. After careful consideration, the
Department felt that section 43(2) of the Act applies to some of the
information for the reason that disclosure would weaken Phorm's position
in a competitive environment by revealing market-sensitive information or
information of potential usefulness to its competitors.

This exemption is subject to consideration of the public interest, to
determine whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption
outweighs the public interest in the release of the information. The
Department has considered whether the public interest lies in disclosing
or withholding the information in part or in its entirety.

The Department recognises that the following factors weigh in favour of
disclosing the redacted information:

. There should be transparency in the accountability of public
funds and decisions

. That the public are reassured that members of the council are
appropriate and that each member has a valued contribution to make to the
council's work
. The importance of proper scrutiny of government actions
. The way in which the Government engages with outside
organisations, in particular where advisory committees are established,
are conducted in an open and honest way

However the Department felt the above factors were outweighed in this case
by the following issues:

. Disclosure would make it less likely that companies or
individuals would provide the department with commercially sensitive
information in the future and consequently undermine the ability of the
department to achieve its objectives

. Companies and individuals would be less likely to become involved
in public affairs if it is felt that discussions which included
commercially sensitive information would be subsequently disclosed by the
Government
. Disclosure could adversely affect the amount of trust between
government and commercial organisations

The Department concluded that the information considered to be
commercially sensitive should be redacted in accordance with the Act, and
it has been redacted in the attached document which has been annotated to
show which section of the Act applies in each instance.

The information supplied to you is protected by the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. Any documents produced by government officials will be
covered by Crown Copyright. You are free to use the information for your
own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for
the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for example commercial
publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder and is
regulated by the Reuse of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005. You
can find details on the arrangements for re-using Crown Copyright at:

Office of Public Sector Information
Information Policy Team
Kew
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 4DU

Email: [1][email address]

Any information which is not subject to Crown Copyright continues to be
protected by the copyright of the person, or organisation, from which the
information originated. You must ensure that you gain their permission
before reproducing such information.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you may
contact the Information Commissioner's Office.
Yours sincerely,

James Ashbridge
Child Safety Unit
[email address]
[2]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0042680.

show quoted sections

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/

Dear John,
Thank you for your email dated 13 June 2009 about your request to have an
internal review of your freedom of information request about Phorm's
application to the UK Council for Child Internet Safety .
Please may I refer you to the result of the internal review which was sent
to you on the 24th of June which I have attached. The review was completed
with impartiality and independence following following departmental
procedure.

Yours sincerely,

William Longhill

William Longhill
Child Safety Unit
[email address]
[1]www.dcsf.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0053015.

show quoted sections

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

References

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

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your reply, I regret this request will now be placed
in the hands of the Information Commissioner.

I don't believe the review was impartial, and I am dissatisfied
with the redactions in the few documents disclosed. I do not
believe the public interest is served by hiding the details of
Phorm's application in this way.

If Phorm are to remain members of a body established to promote the
safety of children, I see no reason why their background and
expertise should not be made public.

That the limited information disclosed by you appears to confirm
that Phorm concealed their background distributing rootkits/spyware
as 121Media prior to 2006, and neglects to mention the conduct of
covert mass trials of communication surveillance/profiling systems
in 2006, 2007 and 2008 is completely unacceptable.

What confidence can any UK parent have in the selection process
which governs membership of UKCCIS, and your ability to
discriminate between companies on the basis of their application to
UKCCIS?

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear P John

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number
2009/0064503.

Thank you.

Central Allocation Team

Public Communications Team

Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk

show quoted sections