djrscally Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 You aren't interested in Internet habits, but proceed to declare the habits of schools who haven't responded? Do you have a privacy policy for handling the data of those who receive your E-Mail? I'm pretty sure marketing companies are supposed to when they contact you. Are you also making users aware that by reading the E-Mail or clicking on the link that their activity has been tracked? Are you protecting this information that identifies individual schools who are not responding from being stolen or accessed without authorisation? What if an IP address and time is recorded for an employee accessing from home, are you now venturing into personal Internet habits? I know you aren't a public body but can I make a FOI request anyway for this? Let's not get carried away here. He doesn't have to protect the information identifying which schools didn't respond; failure to respond to an FOI (or refusal to respond to one) is a matter of public record - as it should be. He's acting as a private individual, he's no more responsibility here than does someone hosting a private blog. Previous posters saying people need to chill out about this are absolutely right. 1
elsiegee40 Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 Let's not get carried away here. He doesn't have to protect the information identifying which schools didn't respond; failure to respond to an FOI (or refusal to respond to one) is a matter of public record - as it should be. He's acting as a private individual, he's no more responsibility here than does someone hosting a private blog. Previous posters saying people need to chill out about this are absolutely right. And the information being collected is public information subject to FoI ... so what if it gets out? This isn’t GDPR/DPA stuff
minimoo Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 In terms of changes to law, those would obviously need to go through the appropriate process - however, are there things you would like to see schools doing 'now' that you believe schools could be doing now, without falling on the wrong side of existing advice/law. My reason for asking is with the GDPR and school's taking a look at their policies around data, it would be good to hear suggestions... At least, I'm assuming that there is a purpose for a change behind the data collection... I asked the above last night, so just to clarify, there's been no suggestions made today for anything that school could do now ( assuming they are following current guidance from the DfE, which I believe seemed to state that shools should get details of both parents, but that it's not neessary to check birth certificates). I can only assume then that any future improvement/changes here would need to go through a legal loop; something which I'm not familiar with.
bmaloney Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 I asked the above last night, so just to clarify, there's been no suggestions made today for anything that school could do now ( assuming they are following current guidance from the DfE, which I believe seemed to state that shools should get details of both parents, but that it's not neessary to check birth certificates). I can only assume then that any future improvement/changes here would need to go through a legal loop; something which I'm not familiar with. I would like to see schools have details of all known parents. I know that isn't the case. I'd also like them to treat separated parents equally, but from the responses they clearly don't know what that means. There are some serious risks being run by schools who don't get the correct permissions for school trips and medical treatment, it's not sufficient to refer to the "primary carer" that person may not even have parental responsibility. I don't yet know what the full picture is. I'm still collecting data and analysing it, and I don't know where that will lead.
DJ-1701 Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 I don't yet know what the full picture is. I'm still collecting data and analysing it, and I don't know where that will lead. I assume the same place everyone goes to when trying to make any sense of data submitted... the pub. 2
CAM Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 And the information being collected is public information subject to FoI ... so what if it gets out? This isn’t GDPR/DPA stuff Doesn't matter what it is. I am concerned about the sender of the E-Mail carrying out invasive monitoring without the user's knowledge or consent. Wrap it up as much as he wants, it doesn't sit right with me which is why I'm challenging it.
djrscally Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 Doesn't matter what it is. I am concerned about the sender of the E-Mail carrying out invasive monitoring without the user's knowledge or consent. Wrap it up as much as he wants, it doesn't sit right with me which is why I'm challenging it. Even if we ignore the whole load of way, way, WAY bigger fish that are carrying out this monitoring on your personal account...is it really a problem for someone to track if an email sent to a public authority's email account was opened. He could literally send a follow up FoI saying "did you read my previous email" and you would be obliged to answer.
CAM Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 Even if we ignore the whole load of way, way, WAY bigger fish that are carrying out this monitoring on your personal account...is it really a problem for someone to track if an email sent to a public authority's email account was opened. He could literally send a follow up FoI saying "did you read my previous email" and you would be obliged to answer. Who said anything about personal accounts? Does user privacy stop at work accounts all of a sudden?
djrscally Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 Who said anything about personal accounts? Does user privacy stop at work accounts all of a sudden? When you're a public authority, to a certain extent yes it does. People have a right to request information in your emails under the FoI unless one of the exemptions applies (trawl WDTK and you'll see plenty of released emails). If you used your email for personal things then that's obviously exempt, but having read an FoI request is obviously not. As I say, he could literally log another FoI asking if you'd read the first one - your receipt of that request is a matter of public record, so what's the problem?
CAM Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 When you're a public authority, to a certain extent yes it does. People have a right to request information in your emails under the FoI unless one of the exemptions applies (trawl WDTK and you'll see plenty of released emails). If you used your email for personal things then that's obviously exempt, but having read an FoI request is obviously not. As I say, he could literally log another FoI asking if you'd read the first one - your receipt of that request is a matter of public record, so what's the problem? It's not a problem, because I am aware of the request and will happily go "Yes, I have read it" or "No, I haven't got round to reading it yet but it's sitting in my list of unread mails, I'll take a look now and the FOI officer will get back to you." Not "Oh, what do you mean it is being tracked without telling me? What the hell is this creepy mess?" The simple solution is to inform the user that you have collected their information. Is there anything wrong with that? Basic courtesy to the user, you get your tracking information and whilst some might get annoyed at knowing about the tracking anyway, others will be less hesitant to respond to the request instead of just dumping it thinking "Oh hey, not important, it might go away if I leave it and claim it never arrived." Respecting the user and being open about what you do goes a long way to getting your data. Disrespect them and they will make your life a living "one 2 3 four 5 VI seven photocopy" hell.
bmaloney Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 It's not a problem, because I am aware of the request and will happily go "Yes, I have read it" or "No, I haven't got round to reading it yet but it's sitting in my list of unread mails, I'll take a look now and the FOI officer will get back to you." Not "Oh, what do you mean it is being tracked without telling me? What the hell is this creepy mess?" The simple solution is to inform the user that you have collected their information. Is there anything wrong with that? Basic courtesy to the user, you get your tracking information and whilst some might get annoyed at knowing about the tracking anyway, others will be less hesitant to respond to the request instead of just dumping it thinking "Oh hey, not important, it might go away if I leave it and claim it never arrived." Respecting the user and being open about what you do goes a long way to getting your data. Disrespect them and they will make your life a living "one 2 3 four 5 VI seven photocopy" hell. I'm not collecting information about users, they are fetching data from my website and I'm recording the fact they've done that. I don't know who opened the email, even if it was the intended recipient, in any case I could just put a read-receipt on it. Public authorities should never be offended that someone knows they've opened an email, these are not private individuals, they are accountable to the public in whose name they act.
minimoo Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 @bmaloney - thanks for the reply. I will check that our trip/medical forms ask for agreement from someone with parental responsibility - or how we word it. As you say, the medical form should be someone with parental responsibility. Obivously doesn't deal with the case where two parents might disagree (but arguably that might be down to the NHS/equivalent abroad in the advent of a medical issue. In an emergency (A&E) situation, I understand the NHS will treat people without consent for obvious reasons
Popular Post GrumbleDook Posted March 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) I've held off on further responses as it has been interesting to see how the conversation and attitudes have varied throughout the thread. Below are a few constructive items to helpfully make and updates to this request more relevant and accessible to schools and to help focus on what the requests are for / should be about. Like others, I still have reservations about the approach and the use of the webform. As already mentioned, I am a firm believer in using https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ but can understand the difficulties that could cause a bulk requestor in their analysis. When the creator of the software behind the site presented at the Information Commissioners' Internaltional Conference late last year I did listen to a few comments in a post-session discussion talking about how the site could support bulk requestors, but I am not sure how ... personally i would suggest that should be an area to follow up ... for the simple reasons of expediency for other requestors. As a tax payer, I would prefer to see schools only have to respond to requests once, rather than multiple times ... by responding in a public way, subsequent responses can point to the previous response. This is a better use of public monies. If the focus is on better use of public monies, then the requestor should have that in mind when making the request. Any comments about "I am a tax payer and so am entitled to answers" should always be done under the mindset of that those taxes should not then be wasted purely because it makes the requestor's life easier. The focus is on making sure taxes are well spent! Which leads me into my main problem with web forms. They are restrictive. If someone has previously provided answers or the information is already in the public domain, then not allowing for the response to include that means that the response cannot be given. This is often the basis for why responses that take you to web-forms get knocked back. By changing or adding the ability to respond with where information is already published it will make a world of difference. It also allows people to explain about why questions don't work. The request about natural parents is deeply flawed. You cannot make the numbers add up as you have missed that some children have no records of their natural parents on the school systems. Trying to enforce the use of the webform to automate the analysis for you misses out that unless you are clear with the exact information the school needs to define in the MIS report (taking into account all the variances of guardianship and custody of children) then you will get errors in the responses. This is generally not intentional by the school, but based on the flaw in the request. A similar request was made sporadically back in 8 years ago, and had similar issues. I hope these comments are helpful. Edited March 7, 2018 by GrumbleDook 13
djrscally Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 (edited) Main problem is why ask 20000 schools? He's trying to gather an image of how this topic (which is clearly of interest to him) is treated across the country. edit: or do you mean why not just ask a randomly selected sub-set? That would have been a better option probably. Edited March 7, 2018 by djrscally
mavhc Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 Yes, a sample of say 2000 schools would be 10x cheaper, think of all the taxes you'd save yourself from paying 1
GrumbleDook Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 Yes, a sample of say 2000 schools would be 10x cheaper, think of all the taxes you'd save yourself from paying The problem with only asking a sub-set is that you risk profiling and that alters the basis of the analysis. One of my favourite books that I have kept from Uni days (boxed up somewhere at the moment due to shelf shortage) is on Resaech Studies and how to run them correctly. It truly can be a fascinating area, and not just for mathemeticians and statisticians. The political, psychological and ethical areas that it brings up are astounding ... and I wish more about it was covered with children in schools ... it helps prepare you for how you manage questions you are asked in surveys, to understand and spot nudge tactics ... with manipulation of information so crucial to modern life it is digital literacy more than Maths now. 2
Popular Post DJ-1701 Posted March 7, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 7, 2018 The problem with only asking a sub-set is that you risk profiling and that alters the basis of the analysis. One of my favourite books that I have kept from Uni days (boxed up somewhere at the moment due to shelf shortage) is on Resaech Studies and how to run them correctly. It truly can be a fascinating area, and not just for mathemeticians and statisticians. The political, psychological and ethical areas that it brings up are astounding ... and I wish more about it was covered with children in schools ... it helps prepare you for how you manage questions you are asked in surveys, to understand and spot nudge tactics ... with manipulation of information so crucial to modern life it is digital literacy more than Maths now. Reminds me of 7
GrumbleDook Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 Having used that link before to teachs NMs about how to phrase things to SLT ... I didn't really want to bring it up again ;-)
mavhc Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 Sure, you need a random sample, and you can easily show it's random by splitting it in 2 randomly in different ways. Also with a smaller sample you can actually follow up on the missing ones, after all the people with no policy won't be responding as much.
elsiegee40 Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 My earlier warning still stands Can we keep this thread on topic please. The FoI request is its subject. We will not let it diverge into a wider debate on statistical significance which is where we risk it heading.
GrumbleDook Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 Sure, you need a random sample, and you can easily show it's random by splitting it in 2 randomly in different ways. Also with a smaller sample you can actually follow up on the missing ones, after all the people with no policy won't be responding as much. The problem you have is generating that random sample in the first place. It is almost impossible to make a sample random. You can aim for statisically representative so that when scaled it shows equivalence, but that would mean defining what are typical schools ... and then choosing the schools that match that fit ... and at that point, the matching, it is not longer random. This is why most surverys are not aimed abeing random but at targetting demographics. in FoI that is not a good thing to do as it introduces sway and uncontrolled variance into the statistics. For FoI you go big, or go home. It is worth considering the work hours spent on this though. Does anyone here have an approximation of time spent responding to this FoI? I suppose I could always request that of you all as an FoI? ;-) Realistically though, it would be interesting, based on the feedback of the number of schools that have responded, to understand the work hours spent on this. As a school governor I am interested. Whilst an operational issue, strategically I need to know that we have policies that cover it and that we understand impact of requests. - - - Updated - - - My earlier warning still stands Noted, but there is some justification on this which I will explain in due course.
Banjo Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 I tend to screenshot my data in Excel/Word. Copy the image into Adobe Acrobat and then completely lock it down before passing onto the FOI team to send out. I do get pleasure out of this, especially when the requester has asked for the return in a spreadsheet format. We don't do online forms either.
FN-GM Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 I tend to screenshot my data in Excel/Word. Copy the image into Adobe Acrobat and then completely lock it down before passing onto the FOI team to send out. I do get pleasure out of this, especially when the requester has asked for the return in a spreadsheet format. We don't do online forms either. This kind of attitude is childish and unprofessional in my opinion. If you hate FOI requests so much then you're working in the wrong industry. 2
bmaloney Posted March 7, 2018 Posted March 7, 2018 I've held off on further responses as it has been interesting to see how the conversation and attitudes have varied throughout the thread. Below are a few constructive items to helpfully make and updates to this request more relevant and accessible to schools and to help focus on what the requests are for / should be about. Like others, I still have reservations about the approach and the use of the webform. As already mentioned, I am a firm believer in using https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ but can understand the difficulties that could cause a bulk requestor in their analysis. When the creator of the software behind the site presented at the Information Commissioners' Internaltional Conference late last year I did listen to a few comments in a post-session discussion talking about how the site could support bulk requestors, but I am not sure how ... personally i would suggest that should be an area to follow up ... for the simple reasons of expediency for other requestors. As a tax payer, I would prefer to see schools only have to respond to requests once, rather than multiple times ... by responding in a public way, subsequent responses can point to the previous response. This is a better use of public monies. If the focus is on better use of public monies, then the requestor should have that in mind when making the request. Any comments about "I am a tax payer and so am entitled to answers" should always be done under the mindset of that those taxes should not then be wasted purely because it makes the requestor's life easier. The focus is on making sure taxes are well spent! Which leads me into my main problem with web forms. They are restrictive. If someone has previously provided answers or the information is already in the public domain, then not allowing for the response to include that means that the response cannot be given. This is often the basis for why responses that take you to web-forms get knocked back. By changing or adding the ability to respond with where information is already published it will make a world of difference. It also allows people to explain about why questions don't work. The request about natural parents is deeply flawed. You cannot make the numbers add up as you have missed that some children have no records of their natural parents on the school systems. Trying to enforce the use of the webform to automate the analysis for you misses out that unless you are clear with the exact information the school needs to define in the MIS report (taking into account all the variances of guardianship and custody of children) then you will get errors in the responses. This is generally not intentional by the school, but based on the flaw in the request. A similar request was made sporadically back in 8 years ago, and had similar issues. I hope these comments are helpful. Yes and I'm not unaware of the issues - schools keep telling me.
Recommended Posts