National Fraud Intelligence Bureau domain suspension requests
Dear City of London Police,
Re: the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau’s policy of making domain suspension requests to Nominet, [1] can you send me:
1 The policy document governing the NFIB’s domain suspension requests policy;
2 Any template for notifications made to Nominet for domain suspension requests;
3 Any graphics, URL or IP address used to show or host notices explaining that a domain has been suspended after a request made by yourselves.
Yours faithfully,
Jim Killock
Dear City of London Police,
Just checking you received this request?
Yours faithfully,
Jim Killock
Open Rights Group
Hello Mr Killock
Please find the response to your recent Freedom of Information request.
Thank you for your interest in the City of London Police.
Regards
Michela Holmes
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Management Services | City of London Police
Email: [1][email address]
Bishopsgate Police Station | 4th Floor | 182 Bishopsgate | London | EC2M
4NP
[2]cid:image001.png@01D23464.DFF7D220
Please consider the environment before printing my email
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/
Dear City of London Police,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of City of London Police's handling of my FOI request 'National Fraud Intelligence Bureau domain suspension requests'.
While I am very grateful to have the domain suspension template, I am concerned that the statement that the NFIB does not have a formal domain suspension policy is misleading.
Perhaps NFIB does not have a single policy document or procedure dealing with these requests. However there may be other documents that contain advice about domain suspensions. As NFIB works with FALCON at the Met, perhaps there is a Memorandum of Understanding between NFIB and other bodies that it acts as conduit for. (See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f... for confirmation of FALCON working with NFIB.)
I would like you to consider again if there are other documents that suggest when to suspend a domain, or govern external requests channelled by NFIB.
If these documents exist, I would like you to consider publishing just those parts relevant to a decision to suspend a domain, rather than the full documents which may have sensitive information relating to investigatory procedures.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...
Yours faithfully,
Jim Killock
Open Rights Group
Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear J Killock,
Thank you for your email.
However unfortunately we cannot accept your internal review.
Our policy states, which is clearly written in the response letter to you, that you have 2 months to request an internal review.
As this time has now passed we will not be considering this.
If you wish to take this matter further you can write to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Dave Tustin
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Management Services | City of London Police
I 0207 601 2287
Email: [email address]
Bishopsgate Police Station | 4th Floor | 182 Bishopsgate | London | EC2M 4NP
Dear Tustin David,
Can you re-examine your refusal:
(1) You responded to the FoI request on 20 February 2018:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...
(2) I requested internal review on 6 April 2018:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/n...
That seems well within the 2 months deadline to me, which presumably would have been on or around 20 April 2018?
Please confirm that you can conduct an internal review.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Killock
Open Rights Group
Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear Mr Killock,
Would you prefer I conduct a review of the original request, or accept your most recent FOI to obtain the data requested?
Dave Tustin
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Management Services | City of London Police
I 0207 601 2287
Email: [email address]
Bishopsgate Police Station | 4th Floor | 182 Bishopsgate | London | EC2M 4NP
Dear David Tustin,
I think it would be much more preferable to run an internal review on the original request.
It is only the first part (policy documents) that needs review, as you supplied the part about template notices to Nominet.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Killock
Open Rights Group
Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear J Killock,
I have added this and will review it myself.
Dave Tustin
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Management Services | City of London Police
I 0207 601 2287
Email: [email address]
Bishopsgate Police Station | 4th Floor | 182 Bishopsgate | London | EC2M 4NP
Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear J Killock,
I just wanted to update you on your request for a review of your FOI request.
I have established that where City of London Police/NFIB do not have a Domain Suspension Policy in place. They do hold a Domain Suspension SOP (Standard Operating Procedures). However this is a draft document, but does after review contain policy aspects.
Due to the above this was not picked up on first request for data. However after review I believe it falls part of your request and should be disclosed.
Due to the nature of the document and the fact it does contain procedure and practices it does require a full review and appropriate exemptions applied.
We are doing this at the moment and hope to have a response to you shortly.
Regards
Dave Tustin
Senior Information Access Officer
Information Management Services | City of London Police
I 0207 601 2287
Email: [email address]
Bishopsgate Police Station | 4th Floor | 182 Bishopsgate | London | EC2M 4NP
Looking for an EU Authority?
You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .
