Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There is 1 person following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Phorm's Membership of UKCCIS
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by J Dowling 13 May 2009
UK Council for Child Internet Safety
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by P. John 2 April 2009
Correspondence between DFE/UKCCIS and Phorm
To Department for Education by Phillip Main 31 January 2011
Freedom of Information Requests labelled as VEXATIOUS
To Home Office by Phillip Main 23 December 2010
Correspondence Between UKCCIS and Phorm
To Department for Education by P. John 24 January 2011
Correspondence between Home Office and PM's Office concerning Phorm/121Media
To Home Office by Phillip Main 5 June 2009
Claim made on investor forum that Phorm shares are 'government backed'
To Home Office by Phillip Main 20 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
UK council for Child Internet Safety
To Department for Children, Schools and Families by Phillip Main 30 April 2009
UKCISS Phorm application
Phillip Main made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Children, Schools and Families
The request was successful.
From: Phillip Main
13 May 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please could you disclose the correspondence between Phorm and
UKCISS concerning the application for membership of UKCCIS by
Phorm/121Media on 30 January 2009 and notification of acceptance by
UKCCIS. Specifically the information provided by Phorm on its
application and UKCISS's acceptance along with any other
correspondence between the two parties
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Main
Department for Children, Schools and Families
14 May 2009
Dear Mr Main,
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 2009/0043637
Thank you.
Central Allocation Team
Public Communications Team
Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk
show quoted sections
From: Phillip Main
12 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Your reply is now overdue and you are now in breach of the act.
Please resond asap
Yours sincerely,
Phillip Main
From: Phillip Main
22 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are in breach of the law by not replying. The Act states that a
reply should have been forthcoming no later than the 11th June
2009,
Yours sincerely,
Phillip Main
From: Phillip Main
24 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm still waiting. This is a disgraceful and insulting state of
affairs. I expect your reply immediately.
Yours sincerely,
Phillip Main
Department for Children, Schools and Families
25 June 2009
UKCCIS application form redacted.pdf
824K
Download
View as HTML
E mail transcript Reply to Phorm s application.doc
47K
Download
View as HTML
Dear Mr Main,
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 13 May
2009. You requested:
. The correspondence between Phorm and UKCISS concerning the
application for membership of UKCCIS by Phorm/121Media on 30 January 2009
. Notification of acceptance by UKCCIS. Specifically the
information provided by Phorm on its application and UKCISS's acceptance
along with any other correspondence between the two parties
I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
("the Act"). The Department has decided to disclose some but not all of
the information that has been requested.
The Department can confirm that Phorm submitted an application for
membership of UKCISS. Please see the attached copy of Phorm's application
to join the Council and the secretariat's response to the application. No
other correspondence in relation to the application was entered into.
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 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 2009/0043637.
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/
From: Phillip Main
25 June 2009
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's handling of my FOI request 'UKCISS
Phorm application'.
How redacted information from Phorm's application could damage
their commercial interests I am at a loss to understand.
I quote from a Reuter's article,
"They said they would gladly welcome a UN weapons “Hans Blix”-type
inspector who could verify their promise of anonymity, but without
that, would continue to answer as many questions as were put to
them."
http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2009/04/...
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/uk...
Yours sincerely,
Phillip Main
Department for Children, Schools and Families
26 June 2009
Dear Mr Main,
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 2009/0058459
Thank you.
Central Allocation Team
Public Communications Team
Tel: 0870 0002288
www.dcsf.gov.uk
show quoted sections
Department for Children, Schools and Families
16 July 2009
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0058459.
Dear Mr Main
Thank you for your request for an internal review of the Department's
handling of your Freedom of Information request surrounding the
application of Phorm to the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which
was received on 25 June. I am dealing with your request under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
Yours sincerely
William Longhill
Department for Children, Schools and Families
[1]http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/index.htm
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/index.htm
Department for Children, Schools and Families
19 August 2009
Dear Mr Main,
Thank you for your letter dated 25 June 2009 about Phorm's application to
join the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS).
I refer to your request for an internal review which was received on 25
June. You requested the correspondence between Phorm and UKCISS concerning
the application for membership of UKCCIS by Phorm/121Media.
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
uphold the original decision not to disclose the information concerned,
for the same reasons set out in the letter of 25 June
The review considered your assertion that the information contained in
the application would not be likely to prejudice the commercial interests
of any person. After careful consideration, the Department felt that
section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act") does
apply to some of the information as was originally indicated. This is 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.
Although you did not specifically ask the Department to reconsider the
information withheld under s40, the review panel did so for reasons of
thoroughness and concluded that the Department should continue to withhold
the information for the reasons given in the letter dated 25 June.
If you are unhappy with this decision, you have the right to appeal
directly to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can
be contacted at:
The Case Reception Unit
Customer Service Team
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Further information about the Information Commissioner's complaints
procedure can be found on the Information Commissioner's Office website:
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
Yours sincerely,
Will Longhill
William Longhill
Child Safety Unit
[email address]
[2]www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0058459.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
2. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/
From: Phillip Main
23 December 2010
Dear Department for Children, Schools and Families,
I draw your attention to the findings of the ICO regarding the
information withheld by you from Mr. P. John and myself in the
matter of Phorm's application to yourselves.
my request is dated 19th August2009
80. It is clear from the correspondence that has been put before
the Commissioner that the Department consulted Phorm with regard to
the request for information at issue. The Commissioner recognises
the need for such consultation to take place. However, in this
case, the Commissioner is concerned that the Department appears not
only to have consulted Phorm, but to have delegated its
decision-making responsibilities regarding the request to Phorm.
This is evidenced by the comments concerning the proposed
application of section 14(1) to the request and the fact the
Department asked the Commissioner to decide whether it held the
requested information, despite having reached its own conclusion
that it did so.
81. The Commissioner would like to take this opportunity to remind
the Department that it is responsible for requests for information
made to it under the Act and whilst it should consult with third
parties where appropriate, decisions about how to handle requests
ultimately rest with the Department.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the
following steps to ensure compliance with the Act: To disclose to
the complainant the information previously withheld that does not
relate to the product under development by Phorm.
Please forward the information asap
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Main
From: Phillip Main
23 December 2010
Dear Department for Children, Schools and Families,
Correction my original request is dated 13th May 2009
The response to my request(sent 25th June 2009) for an internal
review was dated 19th August 2009
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Main
Department for Children, Schools and Families
18 January 2011
Dear Mr Main,
Thank you for your email of 23rd December 2010 regarding the ICO findings
in relation to information requested by Mr. P. John and yourself in the
matter of Phorm's membership application for the UK Council for Child
Internet Safety.
As you mention in your email, the ICO has upheld the Department's decision
to withhold information of a commercially sensitive nature relating to
Phorm's products (under section s43(2) of the FOI act (commercial
interests)) - but has ordered that other information regarding third
parties should be disclosed.
The Department is therefore ordered to disclose the information about
third parties in the expertise paragraph, and must do so within 35
calendar days of the notice (i.e. by Monday 24th Jan 2011).
I am writing now to let you know that the Department is intending to
comply with the ruling. Officials are currently in the process of
redacting the relevant paragraph, which will be sent out to yourself and
Mr John within the timeframe specified by the ICO.
Regards,
Helen Parnham
Helen Parnham
UKCCIS Project Team
Sanctuary Buildings
London SW1P 3BT
[1]http://www.education.gov.uk/ukccis/
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.education.gov.uk/ukccis/
http://www.education.gov.uk/ukccis/
Department for Children, Schools and Families
21 January 2011
Dear Mr Main,
I am writing in regard to a ruling we have received from the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) stating that the Department is required to
release information held on a company called Phorm, in relation to a
Freedom of Information Act complaint made by yourself in 2009.
The ICO has upheld the Department's decision to withhold information of a
commercially sensitive nature relating to one of Phorm's products (under
section s43(2) of the FOI act (commercial interests)) - but has ordered
that other information regarding third parties should be disclosed. DfE is
therefore ordered to disclose the information about third parties in the
expertise paragraph within 35 calendar days of the ICO notice (i.e. by
24th Jan 2011).
Below is the information DfE has been instructed to disclose:
Regards,
Helen Parnham
UKCCIS Project Team
Sanctuary Buildings
London SW1P 3BT
[1]http://www.education.gov.uk/ukccis/
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.education.gov.uk/ukccis/
http://www.education.gov.uk/ukccis/
Phillip Main left an annotation (21 January 2011)
Why is the vendor of one of the most notorious rootkits ever perpetrated on the web a member of UKCCIS?
Media121 = Phorm
OCSlabs of Russia were involved with the rootkits scam
The Phorm debacle is the subject of a legal dispute between the UK and the European Court of Justice
A three year investigation by the CPS into BT and Phorm
STILL PHORM IS A MEMBER OF UKCCIS. WHY?
Department for Children, Schools and Families
4 March 2011
image001.gif
3K
Download
image002.gif
7K
Download
110214 FOI Request Correspondence between Phorm and UKCCIS.pdf
11.5M
Download
View as HTML
Dear Mr Main,
Thank you for your email dated 1 February in which you made a request
under the Freedom of Information Act. In response to your request, we have
conducted a search and can confirm that DfE does hold information within
the terms of the request which we are releasing.
With the aim of being as open as possible, officials considered for
release all correspondence held between the Department and PHORM (29
documents). In summary:
- Two documents are being withheld completely under section 41 of the FOIA
(information provided in confidence), and section 42 of the FOIA (legal
professional privilege).
- All other 27 documents are set out in the attached pdf document, and
have had personal details (names, contact details) of DfE officials, Phorm
employees and third parties redacted under section 40 (2) of the Act.
- There are also instances where correspondence refers to information that
the ICO confirmed the Department was right to withhold, (in a Decision
Notice dated 20/12/2010) and redactions have therefore been made under
section 43 of the Act.
- There is also a redaction made under section 42 (legal privilege) on
document number 6 in the attached pdf.
I hope you find this helpful and clearly laid out.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Parnham
Child Safety Unit
[email address]
[1]www.education.gov.uk
Helen Parnham
Child Internet Safety Team
Sanctuary Buildings
London SW1P 3BT
Tel: 0207 783 8038
[2]http://www.education.gov.uk/ukccis/
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.education.gov.uk/
2. http://www.education.gov.uk/ukccis/
Phillip Main left an annotation ( 5 March 2011)
See
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
This is where the reply should have gone to.
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 (23 December 2010)
66. The Department has explained that during its consultations Phorm raised the possibility of section 14(1) being applicable. Phorm provided arguments to the Department to explain why this request from a particular individual who was known to it should be considered vexatious.
67. The Department explained to Phorm that it had identified the wrong individual. Phorm contacted the Department again, citing the name of a different individual and explaining why it considered the request to be vexatious. The Department contacted the Commissioner to put the arguments before him, however it stated that:
"for the avoidance of doubt, the Department would like to confirm that this specific request has not been more burdensome than many others it routinely answers, but is aware that Phorm draws attention to a further 77 requests made to a range of public authorities and which in the main relate to Phorm. The Information Commissioner may wish to consider this, alongside other evidence provided in [Phorm's letter to the Department of 19 February 2010] which has been submitted in support of Phorm's suggestion that the request is vexatious."
68. Again, the Department sought to raise these arguments at a late stage of the investigation. Further, the Commissioner does not consider that there is clear evidence to suggest that the Department believes the request is vexatious; instead it is clear that it was Phorm rather than the public authority that purported to apply section 14(1). For these reasons the Commissioner has not considered whether the request is vexatious.
80. It is clear from the correspondence that has been put before the Commissioner that the Department consulted Phorm with regard to the request for information at issue. The Commissioner recognises the need for such consultation to take place. However, in this case, the Commissioner is concerned that the Department appears not only to have consulted Phorm, but to have delegated its decision-making responsibilities regarding the request to Phorm. This is evidenced by the comments concerning the proposed application of section 14(1) to the request and the fact the Department asked the Commissioner to decide whether it held the requested information, despite having reached its own conclusion that it did so.
81. The Commissioner would like to take this opportunity to remind the Department that it is responsible for requests for information made to it under the Act and whilst it should consult with third parties where appropriate, decisions about how to handle requests ultimately rest with the Department.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the Act: To disclose to the complainant the information previously withheld that does not relate to the product under development by Phorm.
Link to this