Theresa May's recent internet history

Chris Gilmour made this Freedom of Information request to Home Office This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Home Office.

Dear Home Office,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I hereby request the
following information from and regarding the Rt Hon Theresa May MP
(Con), Secretary of State for the Home Department (the "Home
Secretary"):

1) The date, time, and recipient of every email sent by the Home
Secretary during October 2015.

2) The date, time, and sender of every email received by the Home
Secretary during October 2015.

3) The date, time, and recipient of every internet telephony call
(e.g. "Skype" call) made by the Home Secretary during October 2015.

4) The date, time, and sender of every internet telephony call
(e.g. "Skype" call) received by the Home Secretary during October 2015.

5) The date, time, and domain address of every website
visited by the Home Secretary during October 2015.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Gilmour

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request.

This has been assigned to a caseworker (case ref 37408). We will aim to send you a full response by 2/12/2015 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request.

If you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you,

FOI Requests
Home Office

show quoted sections

Rob Smith left an annotation ()

Can I make the same request here or do I need to file my own FOI request?

Chris Gilmour left an annotation ()

Rob Smith - When there is a response it will appear here so anyone can read it. There shouldn't be any need to file duplicate FOI requests.
There was a similar request a few years ago asking for twelve months worth of internet history, The Home Office refused the request because it would have been too much work to compile, so I have put in a request for only one month's worth.

Matt Dodd left an annotation ()

I see you've borrowed the request I made back in 2012 ;-) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...

Sadly I expect it will be rejected just like mine was :-(

Matt Dodd left an annotation ()

(I wish you could edit annotations!)

Ah. Good point about the more limited time frame, though.

Only asking for one month should cut down on the Home Office's excuses for refusal.

Marcin Musial left an annotation ()

...And, as usual, they didn't stick to the legal deadline.

FOI Responses, Home Office

1 Attachment

Please find enclosed the response to your FoI requests, if you have any
further queries please e-mail FoI requests.

 

Regards  

 

FoI Requests

show quoted sections

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

Chris Gilmour left an annotation ()

The Home Office have refused this request and a similar one asking for November's email metadate and websites on the grounds that it is vexatious, (14(1) of the FOIA), which is useful to know.

I'll now submit a further information request for just the website list, and not email metadata.

Dr James Allen-Robertson left an annotation ()

"it has adopted a scattergun approach and seems solely designed for the purpose of ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed"

Sounds like a commentary on the snoopers charter.

Mark Goodge left an annotation ()

That doesn't sound like valid grounds to declare a request vexatious. I'd strongly suggest appealing this to the ICO.

James Blessing left an annotation ()

ICO have confirmed to review the use of clause 14(1) in this case

S Orr left an annotation ()

Any response from the ICO? When you hear back, please let us know here.

Calling this request vexatious is disingenuous at best. It also drips with Irony that a subset of one month's data is considered vexatious while scooping up all data for everyone for a year is apparently deemed acceptable.

Disgraceful behaviour and I can't wait to see what the ICO think of it.

M Deutsch left an annotation ()

James - did the ICO ever rule on this?