Mandated Access To Jobcentre IAD's

The request was partially successful.

Dear Department for Work and Pensions,

I require clarification of the following

1) Under what conditions or regulations would a JSA registrant who has set up an UJ account with a profile and a public CV, but who has refused to grant DWP access to their UJ account, be required to use a DWP IAD to access their UJ account in a Jobcentre given that the JSA registrant has demonstrated that they possess suitable access to the Internet outside their Jobcentre.

2) Some JSA registrants have claimed that their Jobcentres have installed keylogging software on their DWP IAD's in order to obtain their UJ account details ,i.e. user IDs and passwords. Given the above concern in addition to that of a personal adviser attempting to view a JSA registrant's UJ account on a DWP IAD under supervision where DWP access has been denied as in part 1) above, both of which concerns are violations of the Data Protection Act and the regulations of the UJ Toolkit, on what grounds can a JSA registrant who declines to use a DWP IAD for the purposes of accessing their UJ account be subjected to a sanction.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Manley

DWP freedom-of-information-requests, Department for Work and Pensions

This is an automated confirmation that your request for information has
been accepted by the DWP FoI mailbox.
 
By the next working day your request will be forwarded to the relevant
information owner within the Department who will respond to you direct. 
 
If your email is a Freedom of Information request you can normally
expect a response within 20 working days.
 
Should you have any further queries in connection with this request do
please contact us.
 
For further information on the Freedom of Information Act within DWP
please click on the link below.
 
[1]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/freedom-of-informa...

Operations FOI Requests, Department for Work and Pensions

1 Attachment

Please see attached response to your Freedom of Information request.
 
DWP Freedom of Information Team.
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Nigel Manley left an annotation ()

They have not provided any real answers to my two questions. Does anyone following my request think it is worth my while to complain ? This is the first FOI request I have made, though I have visited the site before.

Nigel Manley.

Gazz left an annotation ()

Nigel, you might ask if any risk assessments have been carried out in the use of these devices and the wi-fi frequencies they use.
You may find this video explaing the risks associated with these frequencies useful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z99_SzoXZdY

Gazz left an annotation ()

You might also ask if no risk assessment has been carried out, whether sanctions would apply should claimants choose not to put their health at risk in using these devices.

Billy fisher left an annotation ()

No. As they say this is about recorded info your two questions were just that. I don't think that they are being evasive they are just giving you the guidance that would be used by a decision maker. I think they've done their best.

Billy fisher left an annotation ()

Gaze, I think it's clear that sanctions would be considered. Given the proliferation of wifi stations that are prevalent in evrery day life its likely that they'd regard that as an excuse.

Where to start on the scientific inaccuracies in your video? There's no evidence, and I mean peer reviewed not tinfoil loony, evidence that wifi increases any risk. I assume that any laggards would not possess smart phones, avoid Starbucks,tesco,asda, morrissons.... In fact walk around in a portable faraday cage to avoid 'risk'.

Gazz left an annotation ()

They may very well sanction claimants for requesting a risk assessment be done before they use the devices. Whether that is 'lawful' is another matter.

Claimants would be wise to establish who the liable party is concerning any adversary health issues should claimants suffer, and amend their JS agreement or what ever the latest label the 'contract' carries now to reflect their concerns, this I believe would be within the law. Do correct me should you know different.

What the video shows is a professional man giving his professional opinion. If claimants have concerns about such frequencies, then measures should be taken to alleviate those concerns. If you have concrete evidence that the information given in the video is incorrect, then feel free to point claimants to it.

Sitting in a jobcentre office within close range of these devices for up to 30+ hours a week is a little different than passing particular 'hot spots' in public areas.

Gazz left an annotation ()

It is also possible any adverse reaction will be delayed, and not immediate. No doubt there will be 'expert' opinion 'out there' somewhere regarding this. However, if no risk assessment is carried out when clearly there is professional opinion stating there is a risk, DWP have a duty of care to insure claimants are safe if they are being forced under threat of destitution to use their facilities.

Call me old fashioned, but I like to think those working as public servants accept a degree of responsibility/liability for what they introduce the public to.

Billy fisher left an annotation ()

Gaze. Given that the effect of wifi and radio frequencies have been the subject of the largest experiment ever conducted in the history of mankind. That is several billion people over a period of thirty years and there's been no correlation never mind causal link identified then fear of wifi is wholly irrational.

You could of course find a friendly lawyer and launch a claim but chances of success - pretty much nil. I fear that if you stated that fear of wifi as a reason it would be regarded as an excuse - which it probably would be.

What you could do is address a foi to the hse or rpb asking for any papers that address the risk of wifi to human health. You'd need to be very careful though as the amount of literature available is so vast you may fall foul of the cost limit. Perhaps you could ask for any studies that show a positive correlation between wifi and risk to health?

If anything appears you may be in a stronger position. At the moment asking for a risk assessment on using iAd makes as much sense as risk assessing the flying spaghetti monster.

Gazz left an annotation ()

Billy Flasher, it is not my business to examine the work involved in these frequencies, only to have assurance that if claimants are being forced to use them, which they seemingly are, they will have protection/redress.

There is ambiguity, why take the risk? Claimants should be made aware of the 'potential' risk and until it can be unequivocally shown they are safe, claimants should have a choice whether or not they take the risk without penalty. That is the issue.

Alf Denning left an annotation ()

Gazz,

What about the risk from air pollution or vehicle accidents or being attacked by a "crazed axe man" when claimants have to travel to JCP buildings?

We mustn't forget the risk of building collapse due to earthquake or structural faults.

You've forgotten the biggest source of radiation in any JCP building. What about the mains 240V electricity supply?

Any Court / Tribunal would quite rightly treat your argument as someone trying to play silly games and dismiss them.

Gazz left an annotation ()

Alf, kindly enlighten viewers if you have evidence of these things :)

Perhaps you have forgotten who introduced the 'work camps' into the 'civilised' world.

Any court my friend, would first have to show unequivocally their impartiality before anything else.

Work that out and come back to me by all means :)