We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Robert Hurd please sign in and let everyone know.

Open Source Intelligence Surveillance Narrowed

Robert Hurd made this Freedom of Information request to Sheffield City Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

We're waiting for Robert Hurd to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Sheffield City Council,

Steve Eccleston Assistant Director Legal Services has said in a letter:

"Following the Judge’s judgement this week, could you please inform your supporters by social media prior to August 23 2017 that the council will continue to view STAG & protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence in case of breach of the Court Orders"

Can you identify:

1. The number of staff whose role includes monitoring and viewing STAG & protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence.

2. What department the staff whose role is to monitor and view STAG & protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence report and belong to.

3. The start of the record collection exercise to monitor and view STAG & protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence.

4. The number of records retained by SCC from STAG & protesters’ social media postings. Both collected in the gathering evidence exercise and any other monitoring exercise.

5. Any policy documents or guidance issued to staff regarding viewing STAG & protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence.

6. Could you please ask the Councillor Bryan Lodge, Paul Billington from the
Management Team and Steve Eccleston Assistant Director from Legal Service to identify public records they hold or have been sent, cc'd on that contains Information sourced from Open Source Intelligence from the Facebook Platform from 2016-present. Or if they know members of staff who will hold records relevant to this FOI request. For open source public records which are found please disclose.

In a previous request you couldn't fulfill a similar search of records for as there are around 140 staff would be subject to the request and any attempt to collate this information would involve a manual trawl exceeding the cost limi. The request has been amended to three named individuals and staff identified by those three, one of which has penned a letter stating activities pursuant to this FOI are taking place.

Yours faithfully,

Robert Hurd

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI /773
 
Dear Robert Hurd
 
Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Open Source
Intelligence Surveillance which we received on 19/08/2017.
 
This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act.  The reference number for
your request can be found above.
 
The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to you within
20 working days, therefore, you should expect to hear a response from us
by 18/09/2017.
 
In the meantime, if you have any queries please contact us on the number
below.
 
Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Resources Business Support
Moorfoot Level 8 West Wing
Sheffield S1 4PL
Tel : 0114 20 53478
E-mail : [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
? Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: Robert Hurd [[2]mailto:[FOI #426151 email]]
Sent: 19 August 2017 04:26
To: FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Open Source Intelligence
Surveillance Narrowed
 
 
Dear Sheffield City Council,
 
Steve Eccleston Assistant Director Legal Services has said in a letter:
 
"Following the Judge’s judgement this week, could you please inform your
supporters by social media prior to August 23 2017 that the council will
continue to view STAG & protesters’ social media postings for the purpose
of gathering evidence in case of breach of the Court Orders"
 
Can you identify:
 
1. The number of staff whose role includes monitoring and viewing STAG &
protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence.
 
2. What department the staff whose role is to monitor and view STAG &
protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence
report and belong to.
 
3. The start of the record collection exercise to monitor and view STAG &
protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence.
 
4. The number of records retained by SCC from STAG & protesters’ social
media postings. Both collected in the gathering evidence exercise and any
other monitoring exercise.
 
5. Any policy documents or guidance issued to staff regarding viewing STAG
& protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence.
 
6. Could you please ask the Councillor Bryan Lodge, Paul Billington from
the Management Team and  Steve Eccleston Assistant Director from Legal
Service to identify public records they hold or have been sent, cc'd on
that contains Information sourced from Open Source Intelligence from the
Facebook Platform from 2016-present. Or if they know members of staff who
will hold records relevant to this FOI request. For open source public
records which are found please disclose.
 
In a previous request you couldn't fulfill a similar search of records for
as there are around 140 staff would be subject to the request and any
attempt to collate this information would involve a manual trawl exceeding
the cost limi. The request has been amended to three named individuals and
staff identified by those three, one of which has penned a letter stating
activities pursuant to this FOI are taking place.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Robert Hurd
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #426151 email]
 
Is [4][Sheffield City Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Sheffield City Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
 
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
 
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
 
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
 
 

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI /773
 
Dear Robert Hurd
 
Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Open Source
Intelligence Surveillance which we received on 19/08/2017.
 
Please find below, Sheffield City Council’s response to your request:
 

 1. No member of staff has this as a formal role, it is a task identified
as necessary pursuant to the court orders. Street force & legal
department staff will carry out this task as and when required.

 

 2. Please see above

 

 3. The necessity to undertake this activity has been identified and it
will take place on an ad hoc basis when deemed necessary.

 

 4. In the run up to the court hearings 58 records were logged. Since the
injunctions were granted no formal logging has been judged necessary. 
Ad hoc checks of social media have taken place as was indicated in the
communication to protesters.  The injunctions clearly prohibit Social
Media activity which would encourage protests which prevent the
construction of safety zones.

 

 5. An evidence gathering protocol was drafted as part of the preparation
for court – please see attached. Any other material is legally
privileged, which means it is therefore exempt under [1]Section 42 of
the Freedom of information Act.  Section 42 is a qualified exemption
which means that we need to consider the public interest in disclosing
the information.

 
There is always a strong public interest for the Council, wherever
possible and lawful, to disclose the information it holds to demonstrate
openness, transparency and accountability and disclosure would demonstrate
the rationale and serious consideration that the Council have given to
this issue.  However, the clear public interest in a public authority
being able to take confidential legal and litigation advice is a
fundamental necessity in a democratic society and this clearly outweighs
the public interest in disclosure. More so where a case is contentious, as
this one has been.
 

 6. While a literal response to your question could be framed as “yes we
have asked them”. We recognise our obligation under Section 16 of the
Freedom of Information Act to assist people making requests and have
interpreted your question as being a request that Steve Eccelston,
Paul Billington, Councillor Lodge trawl through emails, electronic
records and paper records with a view to disclosing what they hold. 
As explained before, to try and collate this information would involve
a manual trawl of these.  As you can appreciate, the seniority of
these individuals indicates the vast amount of correspondence that
they deal with on a daily basis.  To even trawl through records for
one individual would exceed the 18 hour time frame reviewing what
information would fall within the scope of your request..  For this
reason, as stated before, this information is exempt under [2]Section
12 of the Freedom of Information Act – exemption where cost of
compliance exceeds appropriate limit.  For ease of reference, the cost
limit (18hours or £450) is specified in the Freedom of Information and
Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004
No. 3244).

 
The log created for evidence gathering (see 4 above) links to an appendix
with screen shots of Social Media for use in court evidence if necessary.
We don’t consider it appropriate to disclose this to you because it
contains personal information of a third party, additionally, identifying
those who have been subject to court proceedings, which would be exempt
under the Freedom of Information Act under [3]Section 40 – personal
information.  As releasing this would be in breach of the Data Protection
Act, this is an absolute exemption and we do not need to consider the
public interest in disclosing this to you.
 
 
I hope the information we have provided is of help to your enquiries.  If
you have any queries about this response, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
 
If you are unhappy with the response you have received in relation to your
request, you are entitled to have this reviewed.  You can ask for an
internal review by either writing to the above address or by emailing
[4][Sheffield City Council request email].
 
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you
can contact the Information Commissioners Office. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF, telephone 0303 123
1113, or for further details see their website [5]www.ico.org.uk
 
Kind Regards,
 
Resources Business Support
Moorfoot Level 8 West Wing
Sheffield S1 4PL
Tel : 0114 20 53478
E-mail : [6]FOI @sheffield.gov.uk
? Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
 
 
_____________________________________________

Dear FOI,

In response to my request, you state " 5. An evidence gathering protocol was drafted as part of the preparation
for court – please see attached"

There is no attached document.

Can you please re-attach, and re-send.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Hurd

FOI, Sheffield City Council

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    1043004 non RIPA surveillance doc 03.04.17 final PB signed Redacted.pdf

    489K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Hurd,

I've had a look at this case and seen that the attachment was missed when the final response was being pulled together. I've located the relevant document and attached to this message; sorry this this was missed in the initial disclosure.

Please find attached the relevant document which as noted is an evidence gathering protocol rather than specific guidance to staff. On review of this document I have redacted Mr Billington's signature under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as this considered his personal data; and as such disclosure under FOI would be a breach of Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 that information will be processed fairly and lawfully.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Knight
Information Management Officer
Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)
Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council
Email: [email address]
Postal Address: Sheffield City Council, PO Box 1283, Sheffield S1 1UJ

Dear Sheffield City Council,

Thank you for following up withe the document.
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Sheffield City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Open Source Intelligence Surveillance Narrowed'.

My original questions are included in the letter; with notes added for the purpose of the review request.
  
1. The number of staff whose role includes monitoring and viewing STAG & 
protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence. 

RESPONSE: No member of staff has this as a formal role, it is a task identified 
as necessary pursuant to the court orders. Street force & legal 
department staff will carry out this task as and when required.

NOTE: Sheffield Council has not 
complied with Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to confirm 
or deny if information is held.

The request did not ask about “this as a formal role” rather “whose role includes”.
  
3. The start of the record collection exercise to monitor and view STAG & 
protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence. 

RESPONSE: The necessity to undertake this activity has been identified and it 
will take place on an ad hoc basis when deemed necessary.

NOTE: Sheffield Council has not complied with Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to confirm or deny if information is held. The request did not ask about “the purpose” nor “the necessity”, rather “The start of the record collection”.

Ad hoc monitoring is a type of sampling, such like quota monitoring or continuous monitoring. They all have a start time. I.E the time before there was no monitoring, in this case before ad-hoc monitoring.

The request for information was not about how the monitoring is conducted, but when it started.
  
4. The number of records retained by SCC from STAG & protesters’ social 
media postings. Both collected in the gathering evidence exercise and any 
other monitoring exercise. 

RESPONSE:  In the run up to the court hearings 58 records were logged. Since the 
injunctions were granted no formal logging has been judged necessary.  
Ad hoc checks of social media have taken place as was indicated in the 
communication to protesters.  The injunctions clearly prohibit Social 
Media activity which would encourage protests which prevent the 
construction of safety zones.

NOTE: In response to question one Sheffield City Council States “it is a task identified 
as necessary pursuant to the court orders.”, however in this response Sheffield City Council states “:  In the run up to the court hearings 58 records were logged.”.

In response to question 1 Sheffield City Council States monitoring takes place by “Street force & legal department staff” Surely there is approval, moderation, filtering of data before been logged and submitted for the court hearings.

As such, what about the records not used for the court hearing. Are the records retained that were not used for court hearings, but have been reviewed? How many records does the council retain not used in court hearings, collected under this ad hoc monitoring exercise and similar monitoring exercise.

Records may have been captured that are not a result of “formal logging”.

Example. On 13th of September, the Star published 3 photographs, that had been supplied to the Sheffield City Council Press Office by Amey. These photos were posted to a public group subject to “Ad hoc checks of social media”. The time between photos been published by the Star and time they were posted by the author was less than 5 hours.

6. Could you please ask the Councillor Bryan Lodge, Paul Billington from 
the Management Team and  Steve Eccleston Assistant Director from Legal 
Service to identify public records they hold or have been sent, cc'd on 
that contains Information sourced from Open Source Intelligence from the 
Facebook Platform from 2016-present. Or if they know members of staff who 
will hold records relevant to this FOI request. For open source public 
records which are found please disclose. 
  
In a previous request you couldn't fulfill a similar search of records for 
as there are around 140 staff would be subject to the request and any 
attempt to collate this information would involve a manual trawl exceeding 
the cost limi. The request has been amended to three named individuals and 
staff identified by those three, one of which has penned a letter stating 
activities pursuant to this FOI are taking place. 

RESPONSE:  While a literal response to your question could be framed as “yes we 
have asked them”. We recognise our obligation under Section 16 of the 
Freedom of Information Act to assist people making requests and have 
interpreted your question as being a request that Steve Eccelston, 
Paul Billington, Councillor Lodge trawl through emails, electronic 
records and paper records with a view to disclosing what they hold.  
As explained before, to try and collate this information would involve 
a manual trawl of these.  As you can appreciate, the seniority of 
these individuals indicates the vast amount of correspondence that 
they deal with on a daily basis.  To even trawl through records for 
one individual would exceed the 18 hour time frame reviewing what 
information would fall within the scope of your request..  For this 
reason, as stated before, this information is exempt under [2]Section 
12 of the Freedom of Information Act – exemption where cost of 
compliance exceeds appropriate limit.  For ease of reference, the cost 
limit (18hours or £450) is specified in the Freedom of Information and 
Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 
No. 3244).

NOTE: Sheffield Council has not complied with Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to confirm 
or deny if information is held.

I am not asking “Steve Eccelston, Paul Billington, Councillor Lodge trawl through emails, electronic 
records and paper records with a view to disclosing what they hold.” As noted in Sheffield City Council’s Standard operating procedure for handling FOI requests:

“The Service Contacts are the main point of contact within their 
Service and they are required to search or coordinate the search for the 
requested information held within their Service.” 

The usage of the word trawl infers some onerous burden. The answer to the request omitted by Sheffield City Council to Question 3 would narrow the time span considerably. Further more, the standard electronic means of communication which would provide this form of audit log details enabling retrievable of requested information.

Using parameters known about records also would narrow this further the file type would be an image attachment, as highlighted in 07 November 2016 09:52 ‘Questions at Council’ email where those above were sent a screen shot / screen grab.

Also as a result of your response that: -

“As you can appreciate, the seniority of 
these individuals indicates the vast amount of correspondence that 
they deal with on a daily basis.  To even trawl through records for 
one individual would exceed the 18 hour”

Sheffield City Council has entered a zone were information retained by members of staff is put out of reach for Freedom Of Information Requests based solely on their position. I will refer this issue to the Information Commissioners Office for their consideration if it is resolved adequately in the internal review. This has a chilling effect on information disclosure.

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

Yours faithfully,

Robert Hurd

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI/773
 
Dear Robert Hurd,
 
Thank you for your recent request for a review of the Freedom of
Information response provided to you.  Your response related to
information regarding Open Source Intelligence Surveillance.
 
We are sorry to hear that you are not happy with your response.
 
I am writing to acknowledge your request for a review, which we received
on 02/10/2017.  This has now been logged and will be carried out by a
member of the team.
 
We will endeavour to provide a response within 20 working days, in this
case, by 30/10/2017.
 
In the meantime, if you have any queries please contact the team on 0114
2734567.
 
Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Resources Business Support
Moorfoot Level 2 North Wing
Sheffield S1 4PL
Tel : 0114 20 53478
E-mail : [1]FOI @sheffield.gov.uk
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: Robert Hurd [[2]mailto:[FOI #426151 email]]
Sent: 02 October 2017 07:31
To: FOI
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Open Source
Intelligence Surveillance Narrowed
 
Dear Sheffield City Council,
 
Thank you for following up withe the document.
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.
 
I am writing to request an internal review of Sheffield City Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Open Source Intelligence Surveillance
Narrowed'.
 
My original questions are included in the letter; with notes added for the
purpose of the review request.
  
1. The number of staff whose role includes monitoring and viewing STAG &
protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence. 
 
RESPONSE: No member of staff has this as a formal role, it is a task
identified as necessary pursuant to the court orders. Street force & legal
department staff will carry out this task as and when required.
 
NOTE: Sheffield Council has not
complied with Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to confirm
or deny if information is held.
 
The request did not ask about “this as a formal role” rather “whose role
includes”.
  
3. The start of the record collection exercise to monitor and view STAG &
protesters’ social media postings for the purpose of gathering evidence. 
 
RESPONSE: The necessity to undertake this activity has been identified and
it will take place on an ad hoc basis when deemed necessary.
 
NOTE: Sheffield Council has not complied with Section 1 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 to confirm or deny if information is held. The
request did not ask  about “the purpose” nor “the necessity”, rather “The
start of the record collection”.
 
Ad hoc monitoring is a type of sampling, such like quota monitoring or
continuous monitoring. They all have a start time. I.E the time before
there was no monitoring, in this case before ad-hoc monitoring.
 
The request for information was not about how the monitoring is conducted,
but when it started.
  
4. The number of records retained by SCC from STAG & protesters’ social
media postings. Both collected in the gathering evidence exercise and any
other monitoring exercise. 
 
RESPONSE:  In the run up to the court hearings 58 records were logged.
Since the injunctions were granted no formal logging has been judged
necessary. Ad hoc checks of social media have taken place as was indicated
in the communication to protesters.  The injunctions clearly prohibit
Social Media activity which would encourage protests which prevent the
construction of safety zones.
 
NOTE: In response to question one Sheffield City Council States “it is a
task identified as necessary pursuant to the court orders.”, however in
this response Sheffield City Council states “:  In the run up to the court
hearings 58 records were logged.”.
 
In response to question 1 Sheffield City Council States monitoring takes
place by “Street force & legal department staff” Surely there is approval,
moderation, filtering of data before been logged and submitted for the
court hearings.
 
As such, what about the records not used for the court hearing. Are the
records retained that were not used for court hearings, but have been
reviewed? How many records does the council retain not used in court
hearings, collected under this ad hoc monitoring exercise and similar
monitoring exercise.
 
Records may have been captured that are not a result of “formal logging”.
 
Example. On 13th of September, the Star published 3 photographs, that had
been supplied to the Sheffield City Council Press Office by Amey. These
photos were posted to a public group subject to “Ad hoc checks of social
media”. The time between photos been published by the Star and time they
were posted by the author was less than 5 hours.
 
6. Could you please ask the Councillor Bryan Lodge, Paul Billington from
the Management Team and  Steve Eccleston Assistant Director from Legal
Service to identify public records they hold or have been sent, cc'd on
that contains Information sourced from Open Source Intelligence from the
Facebook Platform from 2016-present. Or if they know members of staff who
will hold records relevant to this FOI request. For open source public
records which are found please disclose. 
  
In a previous request you couldn't fulfill a similar search of records for
as there are around 140 staff would be subject to the request and any
attempt to collate this information would involve a manual trawl exceeding
the cost limi. The request has been amended to three named individuals and
staff identified by those three, one of which has penned a letter stating
activities pursuant to this FOI are taking place. 
 
RESPONSE:  While a literal response to your question could be framed as
“yes we have asked them”. We recognise our obligation under Section 16 of
the Freedom of Information Act to assist people making requests and have
interpreted your question as being a request that Steve Eccelston, Paul
Billington, Councillor Lodge trawl through emails, electronic records and
paper records with a view to disclosing what they hold. As explained
before, to try and collate this information would involve a manual trawl
of these.  As you can appreciate, the seniority of these individuals
indicates the vast amount of correspondence that they deal with on a daily
basis.  To even trawl through records for one individual would exceed the
18 hour time frame reviewing what information would fall within the scope
of your request..  For this reason, as stated before, this information is
exempt under [2]Section
12 of the Freedom of Information Act – exemption where cost of compliance
exceeds appropriate limit.  For ease of reference, the cost limit (18hours
or £450) is specified in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection
(Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 3244).
 
NOTE: Sheffield Council has not complied with Section 1 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 to confirm or deny if information is held.
 
I am not asking “Steve Eccelston, Paul Billington, Councillor Lodge trawl
through emails, electronic records and paper records with a view to
disclosing what they hold.” As noted in Sheffield City Council’s Standard
operating procedure for handling FOI requests:
 
“The Service Contacts are the main point of contact within their Service
and they are required to search or coordinate the search for the requested
information held within their Service.” 
 
The usage of the word trawl infers some onerous burden. The answer to the
request omitted by Sheffield City Council to Question 3 would narrow the
time span considerably. Further more, the standard electronic means of
communication which would provide this form of audit log details enabling
retrievable of requested information.
 
Using parameters known about records also would narrow this further the
file type would be an image attachment, as highlighted in 07 November 2016
09:52 ‘Questions at Council’ email where those above were sent a screen
shot / screen grab.
 
Also as a result of your response that: -
 
“As you can appreciate, the seniority of these individuals indicates the
vast amount of correspondence that they deal with on a daily basis.  To
even trawl through records for one individual would exceed the 18 hour”
 
Sheffield City Council has entered a zone were information retained by
members of staff is put out of reach for Freedom Of Information Requests
based solely on their position. I will refer this issue to the Information
Commissioners Office for their consideration if it is resolved adequately
in the internal review. This has a chilling effect on information
disclosure.
 
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[3]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/o...
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Robert Hurd
 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #426151 email]
 
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
 
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
 
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
 

Dear FOI,

I would also like some more context around the issues you raised regarding question 6 and my subsequent comments.

If Sheffield City Council wishes to engage and uphold exemptions for the information about Question 6, can I please direct Sheffield City Council to the notes The Information Commissioner made in the decision against Sheffield City Council in FS50637180:

Other Matters:

40. The section 46 code of practice provides guidance on effective record
management policies and why this is of benefit for both public authorities and requesters alike. The following extract comes from paragraph 9.3 and deals with what record systems should be held:

“9.3 Records systems should be designed to meet the authority’s
operational needs and using them should be an integral part of business
operations and processes. Records systems should have the following
characteristics:

a) They should be easy to understand and use so as to reduce the
effort required of those who create and use the records within
them. Ease of use is an important consideration when developing
or selecting a system;

b) They should enable quick and easy retrieval of information. With
digital systems this should include the capacity to search for
information requested under the Act;

h) They should enable an audit trail to be produced of occasions on
which selected records have been seen, used, amended and
deleted."

I note the scepticism of The Information Commissioner regarding the timelines presented by Sheffield City Council regarding how long it takes to review records. See references 32, 33, any denial regarding estimates of time will be immediately sent to The Information Commissioner for review.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Hurd

Dear FOI,

FOI/773

According to ICO guidelines an internal review should take no longer than 20 working days in most cases, or 40 in exceptional circumstances.

The request for an internal review was submitted 35 working days ago.

Can you advise if you will not be adhering to the code and guidance, and as a result not producing the internal review within the 40 days timeframe.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Hurd

FOI, Sheffield City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Hurd

Please find attached a copy of my internal review of your Freedom of Information request. Please accept my apologies for the protracted delay in response to this review, as noted in the response we have unfortunately been significantly delayed in providing internal review responses.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Knight
Information Management Officer
Business Change and Information Solutions (BCIS)
Resources Portfolio, Sheffield City Council
Email: [email address]
Postal Address: Sheffield City Council, PO Box 1283, Sheffield S1 1UJ

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Robert Hurd please sign in and let everyone know.