The Open University Relevant Knowledge programme is here.

B2fxxx

By Ray Corrigan
 


RSS Feed

Atom Site Feed




Arabic German Portuguese Chinese Italian Russian Japanese Spanish French Korean (About)


Aaron Swartz
Abusable tech ATAC
Academic Copyright
AdviceNow UK Advice service
A copyfighter's musings
Alex Salkever's Security Net
American Prospect
Andrew McLaughlin
Ariadne
Atlantic Monthly
Ananova
ARCH
ALA Info-Commons blog
Bag and baggage
BALII
Balkanization
Battle Searchblog
BBC
Berkeley IP Blawg
Berkman Center
beSpacific
Bhopal Justice Campaign
Bitlaw
Blawg Republic
Blogbook
Blogs at Harvard
Blogscript
Blogzilla Ian Brown
BNA net news
BNA Web Watch
Boingboing
Censorware Project
CDT
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
Chronicle of Higher Education
CIA Factbook
City of Sound
Cluebot
CNN
CNet News
Consensus at Lawerpoint
Copyfight
Copyfutures
Copyright Colloquium
Copyright Readings blog
Cornell's LII
Corner House
Creative Commons
Criminal waste of space
Crypto-gram
Current bytes in brief
CyberRights UK
Cyberspace law
Daily Whirl
Dan Gillmor
Darknet J.D. Lasica
David Isenberg
disLEXia
Doc Searls
Don't link to us
Drew Clark
Economics of Privacy
Economist
Ed Techie
EDDix top 50 blawgs
E-evidence
EFF
EFF Deeplinks
EFF Minilinks
Elizabeth Rader
EPIC
Ernie the Attorney
Electronic Telegraph
Equal vote blog
Ethical Spectacle
EU Law Web Log
EUpolitix
Euractiv news
EUR Lex index
http://Euro-Copyrights.org/
Europa
EU Commission Pressroom
Europemedia
Evoting-experts.com/
Feedmelegal
footnotes
Fravia web searchlore
Freedom to Tinker
First Monday
Financial Times
Findlaw
FIPR
Froomkin
Froomkin blog
Furdlog - Frank Field
Gigalaw
GILC
Global Voices
GovNet newsfeed
Greplaw
Groklaw
Harvard Jolt
How Appealing
Ian Clarke's blog
ICANN Watch
Ideal e-government
ID theft protection blog
Importance of
INDICARE on drm
INDUCE Act blog
Infolaw
Inforlaw What's New blog
Infosoctech Alan Cunningham
Instapundit
International Herald Tribune
Internet censorship explorer
Internet Legal Resource Grp
Internet Scambusters
IP Central weblog
IPKat
IP Matters
IPRsonline portal
IP Watch
ITN
James Boyle
Jennifer Granick
Jessica Litman
JILT
Jurist
Jurist Paper Chase
Justice Talking
Kim Cameron's Identity blog
Kuro5hin
Law.com
Lawmeme at Yale
Law Society Gazette
Legal Affairs
Legal Theory (Solum) Blog
Lessig weblog
Lex Ferenda
Lex in the city iNews
Librarians' Internet Index
LibraryLaw blog
Linux Journal
Madisonian Theory
Martin W
Mercury News
Memex
Mindjack
MIT Technology Review
MSNBC
Napsterization
Newsforge
No2ID
Nolo Law Center
The Ndiyo Project
New York Times
NTK
Ofcomwatch
OneWorld
Online Journalism Review
On Lisa's Radar
Once upon a time...
On the Commons - Bollier
On the Identity Trail
Open Access News
Open Rights Group
O'Reilly
OUseful
Overlawyered UK
Pangloss Lilian Edwards
P2P policy course Berkeley
Policy Power Tools
Politech
PLoS
Posner & Becker Blog
Privacy & economics
Privacy Journal
Privacy Policy
Walt Mossberg
Phil Agre
Public Knowledge
Quicklinks
Reason
Red Herring
Reporting Civil Rights
RIP archive at FIPR
Roger Clarke
Ross Anderson
Rufus Pollock
Salon
Samuelson's cyberlinks
SANS Computer Security
Sarah Carter's lawlinks
ScadPlus Activities of the EU
SCOTUS blog
Scripting News
Shifted Librarian
Shirky
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Siva Vaidhyanathan Googlization
TalkLeft
Village Voice
Volokh Conspiracy
SciDev Network
Security Focus
Seltzer blog
Seth Finkelstein
Shifted Librarian
Silicon Valley
Slashdot
Slate
Snopes Urban legends
Spyblog
Stephen Fry
STLR
Susan Crawford
American Prospect Weblog
Tech Law Journal
The CATO Institute
The Blog of Doom
The Corner House
The Green Bag
The Guardian
The Industry Standard
The Nando Times
The New Republic TNR
The Register
The Times
The RISKS Digest
The Trademark Blog
Tony H
Townhall
UCLA Cyberspace Law
UEA law blog
UK Court Service
UK Criminal Justice blog
UK FOI blog
UK Human Rights Archive
UNESCO copyright site
Urban Legends
USACM blog
VUNet
Weatherall's law
Wikipedia
WIPO
WIPO CLEA
WJIN
xkcd
ZDNet


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Sitemeter count:

One click on a button helps feed the hungry



      Tuesday, October 07, 2008

 
ORG have had a response to their FOI request on the UK government's interception modernisation programme (IMP), the objective of which, according to a Home Office minister, "to maintain the UK's lawful intercept and communications data capabilities in the changing communications environment." What exactly that means is another question. In keeping with government through obscurity the response to ORG basically says 'we're thinking about getting back to you but we're not sure we should; and just because we're thinking about getting back to you doesn't mean that we're admitting to having the information you're fishing for'

" Back in August, we submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Home Office, asking them to shed light on the Intercept Modernisation Programme (IMP). Over the Summer, a number of news reports had claimed that as part of this programme a new national database would be created containing the electronic communications data of the entire population. You can read more about the IMP here.

The Home Office have now got in touch to say they are extending the 20 working day response period (which ended today) in order to consider whether our request meets the public interest test. They write:

We are considering your information request. Although the Freedom of Information Act carries a presumption in favour of disclosure, it provides exemptions which may be used to refuse to confirm whether or not we hold information, or where we do, to withhold that information in specified circumstances. Some of these exemptions are subject to a public interest test. These exemptions are known as qualified exemptions. The public interest test is used to balance the public interest in openness against the public interest in favour of applying exemptions. Section 10(3) of the Act allows us to exceed the 20 working day response target where reasonably necessary to consider the public interest test fully. This is subject to us telling applicants when we expect to conclude our deliberations and provide a full response.

We are currently assessing the public interest in saying whether or not we hold the information you have requested, and should we do so, in providing the information you have requested. We are doing so under the exemptions contained in Sections 23(5) and 24(2) (national security), 35(3) (formulation of government policy, 31(3) (prevention and detection of crime) and 43(3) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act.

This letter should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or does not exist."