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

Dear University of Cambridge,

I would like under the FOI act to get a copy of all the processing notes associated to FOI 2018 369.

Yours faithfully,

Paul-Olivier Dehaye

FOI, University of Cambridge

This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for information. Your reference number is given in the subject line of this email. We will respond on or before 23 August 2018.

Regards,

Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]

show quoted sections

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

Further to your request for information, please find attached the University’s response.

Regards,

Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]

show quoted sections

Paul-Olivier Dehaye

Dear University of Cambridge,

I would like to appeal this decision.

Since you tie the decision concerning this request to ongoing efforts over the past two years, I would also like to point out that the University has been vexatious in the handling of my FOI requests over that period (hence my request, in this particular case, for processing notes).

Also, the University’s handling of personal data for research purposes has been highly problematic over the past many years, which is the root cause of my ongoing FOI requests, part of larger work since early 2017 on uncovering the Cambridge Analytica scandal. I note that the ongoing investigations by the ICO into personal data practices by political organizations has expanded to include activities at the university, and that these investigations were started a few days after an article I researched together with Carole Cadwalladr in the Observer.

So while I would contest the labeling as “vexatious”, there is no doubt in my mind that my FOI requests have been uncomfortable for the University. Indeed that’s part of the point: finding out, in the public interest, when private interests or the interests of the University itself have overtaken public interest in understanding how their personal data is used by researchers (academic, commercial, or in the nether-world of yet-to-be-monetized-intellectual-property-generates-by-academics).

I hope the University will come to its senses in prioritizing its values when evaluating my request for review. Otherwise rest assured I will appeal to the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Paul-Olivier Dehaye

FOI, University of Cambridge

This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for a review of our handling of request number FOI-2018-469. We will respond on or before 24 September 2018.

Regards,

Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]

show quoted sections

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

Further to your request for a review, please find attached the University’s response.

Regards,

Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]

show quoted sections

FOI, University of Cambridge

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    FOI 2018 469 Dehaye materials disclosed following ICO investigation.pdf

    816K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Dehaye,

As you know, an ICO Case Officer has been investigating your complaint concerning this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ('the Act'). The University has reconsidered its position, as recommended by the ICO, and has concluded that it no longer wishes to claim the exemptions cited (both at the point of initial refusal and at the point of internal review) to withhold the information in question. We are accordingly willing to disclose the information to you and it is duly attached. The information has been redacted under section 40(3A)(a) of the Act because the release of the redacted information would breach the first data protection principle (the fair, lawful and transparent processing of personal data) as set out in the General Data Protection Regulation. This part of section 40 confers absolute exemption under the Act. Some of the information self-evidently is your own personal data, and so technically is exempt from FOI disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act, but we have not redacted that information as you would be entitled to it through the separate right of subject access under data protection legislation.

We discussed our proposed course of action with the ICO Case Officer before replying to you and, as requested by her, we have copied this email to the ICO's casework email address.

Regards,

Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary's Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]

show quoted sections

Paul-Olivier Dehaye

Dear FOI officer at Cambridge University,
Thank you for your re-consideration and the documents you have just sent. This is indeed helpful to better understand what happened around FOI 2018 369. Among other things it does clarify that the University holds documents falling under the scope of FOI 2018 369, which I hope the ICO will take an interest in for their investigations. You might consider proactively showing them such documents.
I regret that the process for FOI 2018 369 has been so difficult, and that the process for answering this request (meta-FOI) has taken so long and been so difficult. I do realise, as I read your response here, that parts of the difficulty for FOI 2018 369 was in my phrasing of "psychometric database". Please be aware that I did my best with the information I had. I wouldn't have been able to be more precise, and tried to calibrate the scope to the best of my ability.
As for the comment about "[the irony] that privacy campaigners like Dehaye have no qualms about using FOI legislation to ask for emails/documents/ about/to/from named individuals -- clearly they think that those people's privacy rights are irrelevant", I would like to clarify:
- I am first and foremost a data protection campaigner, not necessarily a privacy campaigner. I do believe people processing data on tens of millions of people (or people keeping them accountable) should have higher transparency obligations, particularly if their work is paid by public money;
- I do not think their privacy rights are irrelevant, but also do understand that it is your job, as a first filter subject to appeal, to balance their interests against the public's;
- I therefore have no qualm for *asking*, except for costs induced. I do regret the costs generated by CU walling off behind a series of dubiously applicable exemptions for previous requests made, which has had a material impact on the ability of the general public to better understand the role played by employees of Cambridge University in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Yours sincerely,

Paul-Olivier Dehaye

FOI, University of Cambridge

Dear Mr Dehaye,

Thank you for your email which is duly noted.

Regards,

Freedom of Information Office
University of Cambridge
Registrary’s Office, The Old Schools
Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN
T: (01223 7)64142
F: (01223 3)32332
E: [email address]

show quoted sections

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

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org