Should people be allowed to make requests anonymously?

Under the Freedom of Act 2000 a valid request requires an address for correspondence and a real name. The ICO accepts that an email address is a valid address.

The law is unfair in several respects:

1. a person writing on behalf of a company can give the company name and not their own name.


2. a man with a common English surname e.g. Smith can make a valid request under the name "Mr Smith" and has a much lower chance of being identified than a person with a less usual foreign name.


3. a rich person might be able to pay a researcher or a lawyer to make the request in their name. This is perfectly legal.

I would support a change to the law so that anonymous requests had to be accepted by default with a provision to allow authorities to ask for a name to be provided where they can show they have a good reason to think a request might be vexatious.

What do you think? (please comment)

Transparency Questionnaire

The idea:

twelve questions to ask every MP in the UK about transparency/FOI

this blog entry is a work in progress - I will keep editing it as ideas come to me.

possible ideas:

see transparency questionnaire

The Lancaster Experiment

Is the Duchy of Lancaster (headed up by the Queen) subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004?

Only one way to find out...

I have made a request: Policies and minutes

I would welcome any suggestions you might have as to how best to make the argument that the Duchy does have environmental responsibilities and/or public functions. You can use the comments feature to do this.

Keep inquests in the open

The Government is putting forward plans for parts or the whole of an inquest to be heard in secret on the grounds of national security or the need to protect intelligence sources.

One of the main reasons for having inquests is to make sure there has been no misconduct leading to a death. When people die in the custody of the state e.g. prison or hospital there is a good chance that if misconduct did take place then public authorities were aware or involved. Without public scrutiny the chance of a cover up is unacceptably high. The same argument applies to deaths in the service of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Coroners and justice: new year, newish Bill

Stop draconian data plan

"The Information Sharing Orders would remove data protection restrictions that mean information can only be used for the purpose it was taken. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7852480.stm

Government told to release minutes of Iraq decision

Information tribunal today ordered publication of cabinet minutes from 2003.

Government must release cabinet minutes on lead-up to Iraq war

Suggestions for next campaign

The petition has now closed... but the work goes on.


Please comment if you have any ideas for the next campaign to improve access to information in the UK. It could be a petition, a pledge, a new resource or something totally different.