Robin Wilton's esoterica

Following on from my earlier post about the ruling in favour of release of the DWP study into ID cards as a fraud prevention technique, here's a link to the transcript of the decision, on the Information Commissioner's website. If that whets your appetite, here's the page with links to other Decision Notices.

The Oaten/DWP decision includes the following very interesting comment, on the matter of non-disclosure on grounds that it would predjudice the DWP's ability to get value for money in a subsequent procurement exercise:

"The DWP also argues that the release of the requested information would prejudice the Home Office s commercial interests. The Commissioner has examined the requested information in detail. He is not convinced that the commercial interests of the Home Office would, or would be likely to, be prejudiced by its release. The information does reveal the possible effect of the introduction of identity cards on the operation of the benefit system.

Technology suppliers could use this information to make their own products more attractive once a formal tendering exercise in relation to identity cards and systems connected with their use is launched. However, release of the information is likely to result in the Home Office obtaining better, rather than worse, value for public money, because suppliers will be able to tailor their systems to the needs of major identity card-users such as the DWP."

A few months ago I submitted my first request citing the UK Freedom of Information act (FOIA). It was for a copy of the KPMG report into the cost estimates for UK ID Cards.

My request was turned down - first on the grounds that the information in it "was commercially sensitive, and disclosure could prejudice any subsequent procurement exercise", and second on the grounds that the report was "being used as input to a government policy which was still being defined".

Exactly the same grounds were used to refuse publication of a report by the Department of Work and Pensions into the potential impact of ID Cards on identity fraud. (That in itself is worth a news item, as it was DWP employees' identities which were, even then, being abused in the multi-million pound Tax Credit fraud). That request was by Liberal Democrat Mark Oaten back in 2004 when he was the party's Home Affairs spokesman.

Yesterday I learned that the Information Commissioner has overturned the DWP's decision not to disclose. He agreed that the document was covered by exemptions from the FIOA obligation to publish, but concluded that the public interest was nevertheless better served by disclosure than by non-disclosure.

That's interesting for two reasons: first, it clarifies that the exemptions under the Act are not 'immutable'; they only say which reasons it may be legitimate to cite if refusing to release a document. The real test must then be whether an exemption truly serves the public interest - and in this case Mr Thomas was clear that it did not.

The second interesting point is this: I strongly suspect that most people who submit an FOI request, and receive the kind of refusal which I received, would naturally conclude that that was that. An exemption has been claimed, case closed. Give up. There is clearly scope for it to be made clearer to the public that that is not necessarily the end of the process. Then there's the question of 'awareness/intent' on the part of those who hold the documents. There was no indication, in the refusal I got, that I might have any further recourse. That might be because it suits some public sector bodies to keep information behind a veil of obscurity if not confidentiality, or it might (more charitably) be because some public servants believe it's sufficient to claim an exemption.

The bottom-line test must be the public interest. And that's as it should be.

Over at ZDNet, Phil Becker has a very interesting emerging series of blogs on the 'Top 5 Identity Fallacies'. He's currently on #3 of 5, and given his track record for spotting the significant themes, it's probably a good one to be keeping an eye on.

More comment here later, as appending to his blogs requires one of those rather irritating 'subscriptions' (aka implicit invitation for ZDNet to send you unsolicited emails).

Every so often I have one of those days when everything seems to be linked, and yesterday was one of them.

On my way back from taking part in the CAiSE06 conference on Trusted Information Systems, in Luxembourg, I called Conn Crawford of Sunderland City Council to talk about next week's 'I.T. Works' event there. Sunderland, incidentally, have recently joined the Liberty Alliance, thanks in large part to the work Conn has been doing on their role in the NERSC smart-card consortium.

Conn turned out to be at the SunLive roadshow event in Leeds, showcasing that work as part of the Public Sector strand. Having spoken to Conn, I called my colleague Brian Woodford to keep him in the loop, and guess what... not only was he also at SunLive, but he was shortly to chair the session in which Conn would be speaking.

Leaving them to it, I headed for London and a data privacy meeting with, among others, Microsoft's UK NTO, Jerry Fishenden. We talked of this and that, and the challenge of how to ensure that when your face appears in the mainstream press, the caption under the photo is what you wanted. Perhaps predictably, when he's quoted in the press, it's all too often over a caption which says something like "Microsoft slams x", which may or may not be closely related to what he actually said in the first place.

Fast forward an hour or so to Heathrow Airport, the bus queue for business parking, and I step aside to let someone onto the bus only to realise that it's another colleague, Chris Atkins. He's been up at the SunLive roadshow, in his role as Customer Insight Manager in the UK marketing team. We naturally picked up the thread of how to make the best out of the strangely symbiotic role between technologists and the press...

There are days when it's all too easy to get the impression that the world is a small place.