6 ms·

Some points to consider: - From the article: “Starting in late 2004, before the FOIA came into force in early 2005, Downing Street implemented an automatic 90-

Some points to consider: - From the article: “Starting in late 2004, before the FOIA came into force in early 2005, Downing Street implemented an automatic 90-day deletion of emails aside from those specifically selected by civil servants as relevant for storage in the National Archives” - Since the invention of the telephone, it's never been an expectation that transcripts of telephone calls between MPs or officials should be recorded and made available under FOI. - Indeed, it's never been an expectation that private face-to-face conversations between MPs/officials be recorded and made available under FOI. - At least according to FOI laws I'm vaguely familiar with (in Australia), an FOI request can only be made for an item of information that is known to exist. People can't go on "fishing expeditions" for, say, all communications between nominated people over a nominated period of time. Thus, if UK FOI is similarly constrained, it's usually going to be unlikely a private messaging app conversation could be sought under FOI anyway. All that considered, I don't think this is that big a deal.

pwc 6y ago
> At least according to FOI laws I'm vaguely familiar with (in Australia), an FOI request can only be made for an item of information that is known to exist. People can't go on "fishing expeditions" for, say, all communications between nominated people over a nominated period of time. Interestingly I don't think this is 100% true - under (for example) the federal FOI Act I think a request framed as asking for "email sent on government systems between Alice and Bob in the last six months" would be facially valid, if Alice and Bob were civil servants (although of course exemptions may apply to individual emails). Here's an (Australian) FOI request that is similar in spirit to your example: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/philip_gaetjens_the_liberal_part https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/philip_gaetjens_the_l... which asks for "any emails contained in all of Philip Gaetjens’ outlook items (including deleted items) that contain any of the following terms (in the body of an email and/or in the addressee fields of an email): “liberal.org.au” or “ipa.org.au”", and the department deemed that a valid request. (Philip Gaetjens is a senior civil servant, the Liberals are a political party and the IPA is a right-leaning think tank; it's reasonable to infer that the fishing here is for evidence of a link between the civil service and a particular side of politics.)
- tomhoward 6y ago
  Thanks for expanding on that (I avoided digging into it for brevity and as I was time-constrained). That aligns with my understanding, that there must be an explicit piece of information you’re looking for or occurrence you’re looking for evidence of, rather than just seeking to dragnet-fish all correspondence to see what’s there. Anyway, it makes sense to me that messenger app conversations are considered ephemeral like phonecalls and can just naturally disappear, whereas more formal material like meeting minutes, official written correspondence, contracts and public service documents are kept on record and made subject to FOI.
t0mas88 6y ago
In the Netherlands (probably more similar laws compared to the UK due to EU influence) you can make a request for all written communications regarding a specific decision by a government agency. That would include the emails about it. I think it's rather sleazy of the UK government to implement a 90 day removal procedure, knowing that they can delay answering a request for longer than that. Totally not in the spirit of the FOI laws.
matthewheath 6y ago
UK FOI isn't constrained by that. The responding party use specific exemptions if something doesn't exist, so you can effectively do fishing expeditions as long as the request isn't excessively burdensome, etc.
easterncalculus 6y ago
It's really not the same to equate using a medium that is standard and normally does not record and using a non-standard medium and also explicitly choosing to not log conversations. The explicit choice can mean a world of difference.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. People will communicate via the most expedient means available. The telephone wasn’t “standard” until suddenly it was. Signal’s use is widespread, and people choose it because it has been designed to be very secure and private. The auto-deletion of messages is a key part of that security and privacy. It seems reasonable that politicians are entitled to use secure and private online communications, just as all other citizens are, and just as they always have via phone and spoken conversation.

pwc 6y ago

> At least according to FOI laws I'm vaguely familiar with (in Australia), an FOI request can only be made for an item of information that is known to exist. People can't go on "fishing expeditions" for, say, all communications between nominated people over a nominated period of time. Interestingly I don't think this is 100% true - under (for example) the federal FOI Act I think a request framed as asking for "email sent on government systems between Alice and Bob in the last six months" would be facially valid, if Alice and Bob were civil servants (although of course exemptions may apply to individual emails). Here's an (Australian) FOI request that is similar in spirit to your example: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/philip_gaetjens_the_liberal_part https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/philip_gaetjens_the_l... which asks for "any emails contained in all of Philip Gaetjens’ outlook items (including deleted items) that contain any of the following terms (in the body of an email and/or in the addressee fields of an email): “liberal.org.au” or “ipa.org.au”", and the department deemed that a valid request. (Philip Gaetjens is a senior civil servant, the Liberals are a political party and the IPA is a right-leaning think tank; it's reasonable to infer that the fishing here is for evidence of a link between the civil service and a particular side of politics.)

tomhoward 6y ago
Thanks for expanding on that (I avoided digging into it for brevity and as I was time-constrained). That aligns with my understanding, that there must be an explicit piece of information you’re looking for or occurrence you’re looking for evidence of, rather than just seeking to dragnet-fish all correspondence to see what’s there. Anyway, it makes sense to me that messenger app conversations are considered ephemeral like phonecalls and can just naturally disappear, whereas more formal material like meeting minutes, official written correspondence, contracts and public service documents are kept on record and made subject to FOI.

t0mas88 6y ago

In the Netherlands (probably more similar laws compared to the UK due to EU influence) you can make a request for all written communications regarding a specific decision by a government agency. That would include the emails about it. I think it's rather sleazy of the UK government to implement a 90 day removal procedure, knowing that they can delay answering a request for longer than that. Totally not in the spirit of the FOI laws.

matthewheath 6y ago

UK FOI isn't constrained by that. The responding party use specific exemptions if something doesn't exist, so you can effectively do fishing expeditions as long as the request isn't excessively burdensome, etc.

easterncalculus 6y ago

It's really not the same to equate using a medium that is standard and normally does not record and using a non-standard medium and also explicitly choosing to not log conversations. The explicit choice can mean a world of difference.

tomhoward 6y ago
That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. People will communicate via the most expedient means available. The telephone wasn’t “standard” until suddenly it was. Signal’s use is widespread, and people choose it because it has been designed to be very secure and private. The auto-deletion of messages is a key part of that security and privacy. It seems reasonable that politicians are entitled to use secure and private online communications, just as all other citizens are, and just as they always have via phone and spoken conversation.