Information Commissioner's response to complaint by Privacy International , NO CCTV & Big Brother Watch

The request was refused by Information Commissioner's Office.

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Privacy International , NO CCTV & Big Brother Watch sent a letter of complaint on the subject of Royston ANPR “ring of steel” to the Information Commissioner on 7th June 2011 , a copy of the letter is at the link below

http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/materials/docs...

I require a copy of the Information Commissioner's reply to the letter of complaint

I am unable to find the Information Commissioner's response on the Information Commissioner's website or on the websites of the senders of the letter

I did find the Information Commissioner's response to Privacy International's complaint about google streetview on your website and note that you replied in full within 7 days , therefore I suspect that you have replied to the letter I am enquiring about

The Information Commissioner appears to be providing a superior level of service to Privacy International , you do not reply to complaints from the public within the same timescales , nor do you allow ordinary members of the public to complain to you without complaining to the Data Controller first and even then you do not accept complaints where the Data Controller has rectified the matter (in respect of the complainant) regardless of how serious the breach was and whether other people are affected

Can you explain why you dealt with Privacy International's complaint in a different manner to complaints from the public and state how you would deal with this type of complaint if the complainant was a member of the public ?

Did you treat Privacy International's complaint as a request for assessment of compliance with the Data Protection Act , if so what were your findings (eg upheld , not upheld , partially upheld) ?

Yours faithfully,

Barbara Whittle

Information Commissioner's Office

20th January 2012

Case Reference Number IRQ0431759

Dear Ms Whittle

Request for Information
 
Thank you for your e-mail sent earlier today,  in which you have asked us
to provide you with information relating to the ICO's response to the
letter of 7 June 2011 from No CCTV/Privacy International/Big Brother
Watch. 
 
Your request has been passed to the Internal Compliance Department, and is
being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
under the reference number shown above.  We will therefore respond to your
request by 17 February 2012, which is 20 working days from the day after
we received your request.
 
Should you wish to reply to this e-mail please be careful not to amend the
information in the ‘subject’ field. This will ensure that your reply is
added directly to your case. However, please be aware that this is an
automated process; the information will not be read by a member of our
staff until your case is allocated to a request handler.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Antonia Swann      Lead Internal Compliance Officer
 
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire SK9 5AF.
T. 01625 545894  F. 01625 524510  [1]www.ico.gov.uk
 

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. blocked::http://www.ico.gov.uk/
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Information Commissioner's Office

1 Attachment

4th February 2012

Case Reference Number IRQ0431759

Dear Ms Whittle

Request for Information
 
Further to our acknowledgement of 20 January 2012 we are now in a position
to provide you with a response to your request for information dated 20
January 2012.
 
As you know we have dealt with your request in accordance with your ‘right
to know’ under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA),
which entitles you to be provided with a copy of any information ‘held’ by
a public authority, unless an appropriate exemption applies.
 
Request
 
In your e-mail of 20 January 2012 you asked us to provide you with the
following information:
 
‘Privacy International , NO CCTV & Big Brother Watch sent a letter
of complaint on the subject of Royston ANPR "ring of steel" to the
Information Commissioner on 7th June 2011 , a copy of the letter is
at the link below

http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/materials/docs...

I require a copy of the Information Commissioner's reply to the
letter of complaint’
 
As well as this you made further enquiries as to how a previous matter
with Privacy International had been dealt with
 
Information Not Held
 
Having reviewed the case to which Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big
Brother Watch’s complaint relates I can confirm that it is still on-going
and being investigated. As this is the case, no conclusion has yet been
reached and therefore no reply to the complaint has yet been written. I
cannot therefore provide you with a copy of the ICO’s letter of response
as this information which is not held by us.
 
With regards to your query as to why Privacy International’s enquiry
regarding Google Streetview was dealt with differently to others and how
it was dealt with, we do not consider these to be requests for information
and therefore do not fall under FOIA. However, in order to provide advice
and assistance I have discussed this with our Strategic Liaison and
Complaints Resolution departments in order to provide an answer.
 
Strategic Liaison (SL) dealt with Privacy International’s enquiry but it
was not dealt with as case work (as an individuals complaint would be).
Privacy International were raising concerns they had about a particular
issue and asking for our view and, given that (SL) had already been
liaising with Google regarding Streetview, it seemed appropriate for them
to provide the response. As this was not treated as a case work complaint
and SL had the capacity to respond quickly to the matter, it was dealt
with faster than most individuals complaints would be.
 
I have also spoken to our Complaints Resolution department as to why
certain complaints or enquiries may be dealt with differently and have
been provided with the following response:
 
‘Individuals have the right to approach the information commissioner if
they have a concern about how their personal data has been processed.
Under section 42 of the Act the Commissioner will make an assessment
whether compliance with the Act is likely or unlikely in the circumstances
described. The assessment decision is in connection with that actual
processing.
 
When concerns are raised that are more general in nature, for example
asking for the Commissioners view or line on actual or intended activity,
then the individual complaints process is less applicable and matters may
be handled by those more involved in the formulation of policy or those
with more in depth knowledge of the issues at hand.
 
Ultimately the raising of concerns with the Commissioner, depending of
course on the substance of those concerns, will be considered seriously
and if warranted, then further regulatory action can be instigated.’
 
 
Review Procedure
 
I hope that this provides you with the information you require.  However,
if you are dissatisfied with this response and wish to request a review of
our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been handled
you should write to the Internal Compliance Department at the address
below or e-mail [1][email address]
 
Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response.  Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.
 
If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please write
to our First Contact Team, at the address given or visit the ‘Complaints’
section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act or
Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.
 
A copy of our review procedure is attached.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
 
Richard Sisson
Lead Internal Compliance Officer
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
[2]www.ico.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

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

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

As the complaint from Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch had not been concluded at the date of your reply , I am writing to establish whether it has now been concluded and for a copy of your response to NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch

If the complaint has not yet been concluded , I request copies of all the correspondence in the matter

If you are refusing to provide copies of the correspondence then I still require details of the correspondence eg dates and brief descriptions of the correspondence

I wish to know which matters raised by Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch you are investigating and which requirements of the legislation you deal with have been identified as relevant (if any) and whether you consider it is likely that the complaint will be upheld (if this is something you have already recorded)

I am seeking a chronological list of events in respect of the complaint from Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch

I wish to know which method you are using to deal with the complaint from Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch , I am familiar with "requests for assessments" but I do not think you are using that procedure for this complaint

Are the general public permitted to use the procedure that you are using for Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch when they have a complaint about the general conduct of an organisation in respect of data protection ? (eg the organisation's published policy is not compliant)

If so , what is the procedure for raising these matters with an Information Commissioner whose staff treat the public like ignorant rubbish ?

Finally the No CCTV website encourages the general public to;

"Write to the ICO in support of No CCTV, Privacy International and Big Brother Watch's complaint" if they live in or near Royston

or
"Write to the ICO in support of No CCTV, Privacy International and Big Brother Watch's complaint if they do not live in or near Royston"

http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/campaigns/roys...

So I wish to know how many have written to the Information Commissioner about this and the outcomes , also confirm whether they have been treated as a request for assessment or something else
Yours faithfully,

Barbara Whittle

casework,

Thank you for emailing the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).  This
is an automatic acknowledgement to tell you we have received your email
safely.  Please do not reply to this email.

 

If your email was about a new complaint or request for advice it will be
considered by our Customer Contact Department.  One of our case officers
will be in touch as soon as possible. 

 

If your email was about an ongoing case we are dealing with it will be
allocated to the person handling your case.

 

If your email was about a case you have already submitted, but is yet to
be allocated to one of our case officers your email will be added to your
original correspondence and will be considered when your case is
allocated.

 

If you require any further assistance please contact our Helpline on 0303
123 1133 or 01625 545745 if you prefer to use a national rate number.

 

Thank you for contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office

 

Yours sincerely

 

ICO Customer Contact Department

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Information Commissioner's Office

20th March 2012

Case Reference Number IRQ0441051

Dear Ms Whittle

Request for Information
 
Thank you for your correspondence dated 16 March 2012, which followed on
from your previous request (IRQ0441051) and asking for further information
regarding enquiries to the ICO.
 
Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  We will respond promptly, and no later than 18
April 2012, which is 20 working days from the day after we received your
request taking into account public holidays.
 
Should you wish to reply to this email, please be careful not to amend the
information in the ‘subject’ field. This will ensure that the information
is added directly to your case. However, please be aware that this is an
automated process; the information will not be read by a member of our
staff until your case is allocated to a request handler.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Richard Sisson
Lead Internal Compliance Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Information Commissioner's Office

2 Attachments

18 April 2012
 
Case Reference Number IRQ0441051
 
Dear Ms Whittle
 
Further to our acknowledgment of 20 March 2012 we are now in a position to
provide a response to your request.
 
Your request read:
 
“As the complaint from Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big
Brother Watch had not been concluded at the date of your reply , I
am writing to establish whether it has now been concluded and for a
copy of your response to NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch

If the complaint has not yet been concluded , I request copies of
all the correspondence in the matter

If you are refusing to provide copies of the correspondence then I
still require details of the correspondence eg dates and brief
descriptions of the correspondence

I wish to know which matters raised by Privacy International, NO
CCTV and Big Brother Watch you are investigating and which
requirements of the legislation you deal with have been identified
as relevant (if any) and whether you consider it is likely that the
complaint will be upheld (if this is something you have already
recorded)

I am seeking a chronological list of events in respect of the
complaint from Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch

I wish to know which method you are using to deal with the
complaint from Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch
, I am familiar with "requests for assessments" but I do not think
you are using that procedure for this complaint

Are the general public permitted to use the procedure that you are
using for Privacy International, NO CCTV and Big Brother Watch when
they have a complaint about the general conduct of an organisation
in respect of data protection ? (eg the organisation's published
policy is not compliant)

If so , what is the procedure for raising these matters with an
Information Commissioner whose staff treat the public like ignorant
rubbish ?

Finally the No CCTV website encourages the general public to;

"Write to the ICO in support of No CCTV, Privacy International and
Big Brother Watch's complaint" if they live in or near Royston

or
"Write to the ICO in support of No CCTV, Privacy International and
Big Brother Watch's complaint if they do not live in or near
Royston"

http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/campaigns/roys...

So I wish to know how many have written to the Information
Commissioner about this and the outcomes , also confirm whether
they have been treated as a request for assessment or something
else”
 
As previously stated your request has been considered under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
 
We can confirm that this matter has not yet been concluded. Therefore, we
can not consider a final response for disclosure.
 
However, as you have requested we have considered the existing
correspondence for disclosure but find that it is exempt under section 31
(1) (g) FOIA. Following, we also find that any recorded information about
‘which matters…you are investigating and which requirements of the
legislation you deal with have been identified as relevant (if any) and
whether you consider it is likely that the complaint will be upheld (if
this is something you have already recorded)’ is also exempt information.
 
The information is exempt from disclosure due to section 31(1)(g) of the
Freedom of Information Act.
 
The exemption at section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA refers to circumstances
where the disclosure of information “would, or would be likely to,
prejudice – … the exercise by any public authority of its functions for
any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).” 
 
The purposes referred to in sections 31(2)(a) and (c) are –
 
“(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply
with the law” and
 “(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would
justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise
…”    
 
These purposes apply when the Information Commissioner is determining
whether or not there has been a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and
whether any action is appropriate.
 
However, this exemption is not absolute.  When considering whether to
apply it in response to a request for information, there is a ‘public
interest test’.  That is, we must consider whether the public interest
favours withholding or disclosing the information.   
 
In this case the public interest factors in disclosing the information
within the scope of the request are –
 

* increased transparency in the information exchanged in this case to
date
* increased transparency in the way in which the ICO conducts its
investigations

 
The factors in withholding the information are –
 

* the public interest in enabling the ICO to engage in open discussion
concerning any matters it considers relevant  
* the public interest in the ICO being able to assess whether any action
is required fairly and without undue influence
* the public interest in the ICO being able to obtain information from
organisations, without these parties being concerned that their
comments will be made public prematurely or, if appropriate, at all.
* the public interest in maintaining an organisations’ trust and
confidence that their replies to the ICO’s enquiries will be afforded
an appropriate level of confidentiality while the investigation is
continuing.

 
It is also necessary to consider the prejudice or harm that disclosure may
cause, and its likelihood. As already discussed, it is probably that any
disclosure at this stage would discourage open discussion between
organisations involved, may damage our ability to conduct the
investigation fairly and proportionately and jeopardise the ICO’s ability
to obtain information either relating to this case or others in the
future. This may result in a reluctance to engage with the ICO in the
future.
 
 
However, we are able to provide brief details of the
correspondence/chronological list of events exchanged until the date of
receipt of your request – please see below.
 

* Complainants to ICO – 07/06/11
* ICO – Herts Police – 29/07/11
* ICO – Herts Police – 30/08/11
* Herts Police – ICO – 26/08/11
* ICO – Herts Police – 13/09/11
* Herts Police – ICO – 22/09/11
* ICO – Herts Police – 15/11/11
* ICO – complainants – 15/11/11
* Herts Police – ICO – 25/11/11
* ICO – Herts Police – 09/12/11
* Herts Police – ICO – 05/01/12
* ICO – complainants – 26/01/12
* Complainants – ICO – 27/01/12
* ICO – Herts Police – 03/02/12
* ICO – Herts Police – 06/02/12
* Herts Police – ICO – 07/02/12
* ICO – Herts Police – 07/02/12
* Herts Police – ICO – 13/02/12
* ICO – Herts Police – 14/02/12
* ICO – Herts Police – 17/02/12

 
With regard to how we are dealing with this complaint. Please see attached
copy of a note on arrangements that has been designed with this type of
matter in mind. Whilst it was not in existence at the time of the receipt
of the complaint you refer to it reflects how we are dealing with this
issue. The arrangements are ones we use for dealing with certain high
profile cases and we decide when they need to be called into play. They
could be used for cases brought to us by individuals – ‘the general
public’ – they could bring a case via the usual complaint channels. It is
just more likely that we will use them for cases brought by civil society
or similar organisations. They could apply to matters we are looking at
under either section 42 or section 51 of the DPA. Whatever the case they
are only likely to be used exceptionally.
 
Finally, I have searched our case management system for any cases in which
this matter has been addressed by individuals since the complaint was made
by No CCTV, Big Brother Watch and Privacy International and have not been
able to locate any. I have also checked with relevant staff in our
Complaints Resolution and Strategic Liaison departments and they are
unaware of any cases. 
 
Whilst we have not been able to provide all of the information you are
seeking I hope this response is of some assistance. However, if you are
dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to request a
review of our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been
handled you should write to the Internal Compliance Department at the
address below or e-mail [1][email address]
 
Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response.  Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.
 
If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please write
to the First Contact Team, at the address below or visit the ‘Complaints’
section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act or
Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.
 
A copy of our review procedure is attached.
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
Helen Ward
Lead Internal Compliance Officer 
 
 
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Barbara Whittle

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Information Commissioner’s Office's handling of my FOI request 'Information Commissioner's response to complaint by Privacy International , NO CCTV & Big Brother Watch'.

review required

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

Yours faithfully,

Barbara Whittle

Information Commissioner's Office

PROTECT

29th May 2012

Case Reference Number RCC0450405

Dear B Whittle

Thank you for your correspondence dated 29 May 2012. 
 
This correspondence will now be treated as a request for review of your
recent request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
concerning case reference IRQ0441051.
 
We will respond by 27 June 2012 which is 20 working days from the day
after we received your recent correspondence.  This is in accordance with
our internal review procedures.
 
If you wish to add further information or evidence to your case please
reply to this email, being careful not to amend the information in the
‘subject’ field. This will ensure that the information is added directly
to your case. However, please be aware that this is an automated process;
the information will not be read by a member of our staff until your case
is allocated to a request handler.

Yours sincerely

Jolyon Stone
Lead Information Governance Officer

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Barbara Whittle

Dear Information Commissioner’s Office,

Firstly the letter from No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch claims that it is a complaint on behalf of a number of people and has made it's letter available to the public via it's website

I also have the same complaint as raised by No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch , however I did not wish to write separately because I am aware that No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch have already written

As my complaint is identical to the complaint dated 7 June 2011 from No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch (and that letter in the public domain with the consent of the author) I would expect to receive the same response if I raise the complaint directly , so I assume that I can contact the Information Commissioner directly and receive the same response that you sent to No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch

So I require

ICO – complainants – 15/11/11
ICO – complainants – 26/01/12

(with redactions if necessary)

As far as your correspondence with No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch is concerned , I doubt that you placed a restriction on disclosure of the correspondence by them - it would be most interesting to learn that No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch wish to keep this information from the public bearing in mind the type of organisation they are

In any event the reasons given for withholding the correspondence ; the public interest in the ICO being able to obtain information from organisations, without these parties being concerned that their comments will be made public prematurely or, if appropriate, at all. and
the public interest in maintaining an organisations’ trust and confidence that their replies to the ICO’s enquiries will be afforded an appropriate level of confidentiality while the investigation is
continuing.
are not pertinent to No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch as they are not organisations you require cooperation from - they are merely campaigning organisations / busybodies raising complaints on behalf of the "public"

The term "organisations" means Data Controllers - so you seek to mislead in respect of the No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch correspondence

I do accept that you are entitled to use that exemption in respect of Herts Police correspondence , therefore I would still expect disclosure of redacted correspondence

I note that the Information Commissioner has disclosed template letters in respect of a previous Freedom of Information request and I would expect disclose of template letters if used here

You refused to provide the following requested information ;

‘which matters…you are investigating and which requirements of the legislation you deal with have been identified as relevant (if any) and whether you consider it is likely that the complaint will be upheld (if this is something you have already recorded)’

stating that is also exempt information

I consider that providing details of the relevant parts of legislation that you enforce (section , subsection etc) applicable to this complaint is not exempt from disclosure as you would simply be educating the requester and general public of the legislation applicable to the issues mentioned in complaint dated 7 June 2011 from No CCTV , Privacy International and Big Brother Watch and the information would be recorded information rather than asking for advice

It appears that you are refusing to tell the public which parts of the legislation you enforce applies to ANPR covering all entry points to a town

I would wish to know the relevant parts of the legislation in case a similar scheme is introduced in my local area

Yours faithfully,

Barbara Whittle

Yours faithfully,

Barbara Whittle

Information Commissioner's Office

PROTECT
21 June 2012

Case Reference Number IRQ0453370

Dear Ms Whittle 

Thank you for your email of 12 June 2012 in which you have asked us to
provide you with:

"So I require

ICO - complainants - 15/11/11
ICO - complainants - 26/01/12

(with redactions if necessary)"

 
Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 under the reference number shown above.  We
will therefore respond to your request by 10 July 2012 which is 20 working
days from the day after we received your request.
 
If you wish to add further information to your case please reply to this
email, being careful not to amend the information in the ‘subject’ field.
This will ensure that the information is added directly to your case.
However, please be aware that this is an automated process; the
information will not be read by a member of our staff until your case is
allocated to a request handler.
 
Yours sincerely

Helen Ward
Lead Information Governance Officer

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Information Commissioner's Office

1 Attachment

PROTECT
27 June 2012

Case Reference Number RCC0450405

Dear Ms Whittle

Please see the response to RCC0450405 attached.

Thank you

Helen Ward
Lead Information Governance Officer

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk