Phorm/Second Phase of European Commission Infringement Case 64/08/INSO

The request was refused by Cabinet Office.

Dear Cabinet Office,

Concerning the second phase of the European Commission Infringement case 64/08/INSO, arising from the covert mass surveillance/industrial espionage trials by BT/Phorm in 2006, 2007 and 2008... Please could you disclose for me,

- the date on which the response to the second stage of infringement proceedings was submitted to the EC (the deadline being 29 December 2009)
- the department that lead the preparation of that response
- the full response that was submitted to the EC

- any correspondence between the Cabinet Office/Prime Minister's Office and the EC concerning the case since 1 October 2009
- the dates/agenda/minutes of meetings between the Cabinet Office/Prime Minister's Office and the EC to discuss the case since 1 October 2009

- any correspondence between Cabinet Office, and Home Office/BERR/BIS/MoJ/Foreign Office concerning the case since 1 October 2009
- the dates/agenda/minutes of meetings between the Cabinet Office and Home Office/BERR/BIS/MoJ/Foreign Office concerning the case since 1 October 2009

- a report of all records concerning 64/08/INSO from the case management system which is being used by the Cabinet Office to track this case

ICO FoI guidance states "There will often be a private interest in withholding information which would reveal incompetence on the part of or corruption within the public authority or which would simply cause embarrassment to the authority. However, the public interest will favour accountability and good administration and it is this interest that must be weighed against the public interest in not disclosing the information".

In the interest of public accountability and good administration, I would also be grateful if you would now disclose to me the two earlier responses to the EC concerning the same matter, on or about 15 September 2008, and the second on or about 13 June 2009, which were rejected by the European Commission. I believe you are withholding information in those responses which would reveal incompetence, corruption, or embarrassment (grounds which are specifically excluded by ICO FoI guidance).

many thanks
Yours faithfully
Mr. P. John

Cabinet Office

CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE: FOI271911

Dear Mr John,

Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received on
29/12/2009 and is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, I will
let you know the likely charges before proceeding.

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,

FOI Team
Cabinet Office
E: [1][Cabinet Office request email]

The Cabinet Office computer systems may be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded to secure the effective operation of the system
and for other lawful purposes.

show quoted sections

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cabinet Office request email]

P. John left an annotation ()

Register publishes claims the deadline to respond to the EC was missed;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/...

Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    FOI 271911 Phorm 2nd Phase of Infringement Proceedings CO response 2010.01.27.pdf

    372K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr John,

FOI Reference 271911.

Please find attached the Cabinet Office response to your FOI request.

Regards,

Rachel Clark
Cabinet Secretariat - European and Global Issues
70 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AS

show quoted sections

Dear Cabinet Office,

I am surprised (once again) by the your evasion, and can only assume you are mistaken.

In total, over the past year, you have received 5 requests from me. 4 of those relate to Phorm. Of those 4 you've answered only 1 with requested information. Prior to this request, the last enquiry from me was 10 July 2009... now over 6 months ago.

One of only two things happened in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Either

1) British Security Services (who are responsible for Counter Espionage) spectacularly comprehensively failed to detect and prevent a notorious 'spyware tsar' with links to the Russian Military engaging in covert nationwide industrial espionage and personal surveillance... not once, not twice, but three times

and/or

2) the Prime Minister or one of his Cabinet Ministers permitted that espionage/surveillance to occur.

Given the circumstances of 2008, particularly the complete failure of the UK Police and Regulators to act against the criminals who conducted those trials... I can only assume the Prime Minister authorised the trials in 2008 and also earlier trials in 2006 and 2007.

I studied politics, briefly. Richard Nixon might wonder where he went wrong in August 1974, when he said 'I hereby resign the Office of the President of the United States'. Nixon's conduct attracted a great deal of criticism, but at least he had the common decency to resign office when it became obvious he had failed the American electorate.

I would like to think there was an alternative explanation that did not suggest incompetence by the Security Services, or Cabinet level corruption... but I can't imagine what that explanation might be until you answer the Freedom of Information requests put to you in a spirit of openness and transparency.

I think the UK electorate are long overdue an explanation from the Prime Minister. And the criminals who were responsible for those trials should be in prison.

Please conduct an internal review, and please do it without further unnecessary delay.

A full history of my FOI request ('Phorm/Second Phase of European Commission Infringement Case 64/08/INSO') and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ph...

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Cabinet Office

Dear Mr John,

Thank you for Internal Review request dated 27/01/2010. This is receiving
attention.

Kind Regards,

FOI Team
Cabinet Office
E: [1][Cabinet Office request email]

The Cabinet Office computer systems may be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded to secure the effective operation of the system
and for other lawful purposes.

show quoted sections

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

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cabinet Office request email]

Cabinet Office

1 Attachment

Dear P John,

Please see the attached letter regarding your request for an internal review.

Kind regards,

Zara Smart
PA to Sue Gray
Propriety & Ethics Team
T (020) 7276 3540
Cabinet Office
Room 1.18
70 Whitehall London SW1A 2AS

show quoted sections

Dear Cabinet Office,

thank you for recent note.

Sorry to record that the 'Propriety & Ethics Team' would not think it important to provide a transparent account for the Government's response to an EC infraction process.

Particularly given the evident impropriety and corruption involved in this matter.

And especially so on a day when the Prime Minister is reportedly assuring the country that you will "ensure transparency is recognised as a key operating principle".

Judging by your handling of this request, that's simply not true is it?

Yours faithfully,

P. John