Dear Katherine, I am catching up on old mails as I was away on vacation ans have returned to my desk only recently. I sent you an email on another topic a few minuets ago and then spotted this one. Many thanks for sending this decision. This really will help my case. You may like to know that the Information Commisisoner has not yet written the decision in this case. I think the thick wad of papers I sent to them citing practice in various jurisdictions has put a spanner in the works. if not the decision to reject would have been given by now. For strategic reasons I will keep this decision from the UK in reserve for use when the litigation goes to the next level. Thanks a ton for sending this as our courts do look at decisions from the UK seriously. regards Venkat
_____ From: Katherine Gundersen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 8:01 PM To: Venkatesh Nayak Cc: Foianet Subject: Fwd: [foianet] request for information on guidelines for classifying and maintaining classified documents Dear Venkatesh, This is probably too late to be of use now, but I thought you may be interested to know that the UK Information Commissioner has recently ruled on a FOI request for the Cabinet Office's Manual of Protective Security. Case Ref: FS50085720 Date: 22/12/2009 Public Authority: Cabinet Office Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for a copy of the Cabinet Office's Manual of Protective Security. The public authority provided some sections of the Manual but withheld other parts, citing the exemptions contained in sections 21(1), 23(1), 24(1), 27(1)(a), 31 and 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ('the Act'). After the Commissioner's intervention the public authority released some further information. The Commissioner decided that the public interest test under section 24(1) of the Act required that a small amount of the information which the public authority continued to withhold should be disclosed. He also decided that information for which section 21(1) had been claimed was not reasonably accessible to the applicant and should specifically be disclosed. The Commissioner's decision is here http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50085720.pdf Best wishes, Katherine Katherine Gundersen Research Officer ************************************* Campaign for Freedom of Information Suite 102 16 Baldwins Gardens London EC1N 7RJ Tel: 020 7831 7477 Website: http://www.cfoi.org.uk FOI Blog: http://foia.blogspot.com/ Email: katherine at cfoi.demon.co.uk ************************************* Begin forwarded message: From: Katherine Gundersen <[email protected]> Date: 9 December 2009 12:22:34 GMT To: Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh at humanrightsinitiative.org> Cc: Foianet <foianet at foiadvocates.info> Subject: Re: [foianet] request for information on guidelines for classifying and maintaining classified documents Venkatesh, The Cabinet Office publishes the UK Government's Security Policy Framework - http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/spf.aspx What is the Security Policy Framework? The Manual of Protective Security (MPS) was the primary source of protective security policy advice and guidance for government. It set out the government's policy on its own internal security and contained some specific security controls and procedures which meant it was a RESTRICTED document and therefore was not publicly available. However, this has been superseded by the Security Policy Framework and much of the framework has been made publicly available for the first time. However, it has clearly been necessary to restrict access to some technical and procedural material on security grounds to avoid introducing or increasing vulnerability. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/spf/faqs.aspx Security Policy 2 of the Framework contains information about The Government Protective Marking System and the criteria that are used in assessing information against each protective marking. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/spf/sp2_pmac.aspx Best wishes, Katherine Gundersen Research Officer ************************************* Campaign for Freedom of Information Suite 102 16 Baldwins Gardens London EC1N 7RJ Tel: 020 7831 7477 Website: http://www.cfoi.org.uk FOI Blog: http://foia.blogspot.com/ Email: katherine at cfoi.demon.co.uk ************************************* On 9 Dec 2009, at 06:51, Venkatesh Nayak wrote: Dear friends, I am litigating before India's Central Information Commission for the disclosure of the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions which contains the criteria and process for classifying documents 'secret', 'top secret', 'confidential' and 'restricted'. This manual is commonly used across the federal and provincial governments since 1965. But the manual istelf is a confidential document and is not accessible in the public domain despite a requirement of proactive disclosure of all manuals and instructions used by a public authority. I have argued that rules, procedures and executive instructions cannot be kept secret. The public authority in charge of issuing such instructions is arguing that disclosure will amount to revealing 'strategy' of the government to keep things secret in the public interest. I have argued that rules and instructions ordinarily do not constitute 'strategy' as they are commonly used across departments. Strategy is unique to tackling a specific case or problem. The public authority is also agruing that nowehere in the world are such instructions made public. I do not think that is true. I have the theoretical arguments in support of disclosure but I also need to a few examples of international practice. I would be grateful if you could send me the links to the English version of rules and procedures that govern classification of documents in your countries. Please treat this as an urgent request as I have only 6 days to file my rejoinder. regards Venkatesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.foiadvocates.info/private.cgi/foianet-foiadvocates.info/attachments/20100219/d6ad5a08/attachment-0001.htm>
