Freedom of Information Law and Climate Science

[lomiller]

As pointed out elsewhere, nor is it up to him to deliberately obstruct FOI requests.

On the contrary, FOI works both ways, that is when it’s not subject to FOI requests, as this information was, there is a legal responsibility to not release it.

 

[a_unique_person]

As pointed out elsewhere, nor is it up to him to deliberately obstruct FOI requests.

He didn't obstruct FOI requests, he worked openly with the FOI administrators.

 

[BenBurch]

He didn't obstruct FOI requests, he worked openly with the FOI administrators.

The people saying this have never had a FOI requested dropped on their desks.

At best they are ignorant of how its done.

At worst...

 

[jsfisher]

On the contrary, FOI works both ways, that is when it’s not subject to FOI requests, as this information was, there is a legal responsibility to not release it.

Umm, no. For an item not subject to freedom of information laws, there is no responsibility one way or the other.

 

[lomiller]

While they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction FOI laws usually cover both what have to be released on request and what cannot be released at all.

 

[jsfisher]

While they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction FOI laws usually cover both what have to be released on request and what cannot be released at all.

Ok, you've changed your statement from your original. Do you still assert that the data sets in question fell under the "legal responsibility to not release" category under FOIL?

 

[BenBurch]

Ok, you've changed your statement from your original. Do you still assert that the data sets in question fell under the "legal responsibility to not release" category under FOIL?

His statement is not what is operative here.

Can you provide some indication of the legal status of these documents?

Do you have any evidence at all that the FOI request was not honored to the letter of the law?

 

[jsfisher]

His statement is not what is operative here.

It isn't? How so? Be that as it may, he made a statement that doesn't seem to be correct, and he hasn't retracted it. Do you condone false statements?

Can you provide some indication of the legal status of these documents?

Nope, can you? And how is this relevant to lomiller's misstatement?

Do you have any evidence at all that the FOI request was not honored to the letter of the law?

No, do you? And how is this relevant to lomiller's misstatement?

 

[jsfisher]

I was trying to get this on topic. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The OP asserts fraud. I am asking if you can provide any evidence of fraud or illegality, even.

You think lomiller's statement was off-topic? I don't agree. He was attempting to discount any allegation of wrong-doing with respect to FOIL requests. It was on-topic...and so is any challenge of his attempt.

 

[BenBurch]

Be that as it may be, is there any specific evidence that FOIL was violated in the first place? Or is that point moot?

 

[lomiller]

Do you still assert that the data sets in question fell under the "legal responsibility to not release" category under FOIL?

Yes releasing other peoples intellectual property to the public is illegal.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes releasing other peoples intellectual property to the public is illegal.

You have changed your statement yet again. Your claim was that it was illegal under FOIL. Do you still make that claim?

 

[BenBurch]

You have changed your statement yet again. Your claim was that it was illegal under FOIL. Do you still make that claim?

Does FOIL provide a specific exception that allows disclosure of intellectual property?

 

[jsfisher]

Does FOIL provide a specific exception that allows disclosure of intellectual property?

Why don't we address this question to lomiller? He is the one making statements about what FOIL requires and what it prohibits.

 

[BenBurch]

I was asking you. Can we please move this topic forward?

Is there or is there not any specific clause in the operative FOIL that permits the disclosure of intellectual property of third parties?

If there IS and if it was not disclosed, then we got a problem.

If there is NOT any such clause, then no such problem exists.

Which is it? I Am Not A Lawyer, so I can't answer this question.

 

[Reality Check]

Does FOIL provide a specific exception that allows disclosure of intellectual property?

Just to add to the confusion .
The applicable law in the UK for environmental information is not the FOI act. It is the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
This does not seem to have an exception for disclosure of intellectual property. The Information Commissioners Office guidance page includes a link to a PDF listing exceptions to the public rights to access. That includes

Regulation 12(5)(c) Intellectual property rights
An authority may refuse a request for information protected by intellectual property rights. “Intellectual property rights” are rights granted to creators and owners of works that are the result of human intellectual creativity. These works could be in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic domain. Intellectual property rights include copyrights, patents, trademarks and protected designs. They may be in the form of, for example, an invention, a manuscript, a suite of software, or a business name. Intellectual property rights have more protection under the EIR than under the FOIA.
The exception protects the rights of the authority as well as third parties. An authority must be able to demonstrate that there is a real risk that disclosure would undermine the intellectual property rights.

(emphasis added)

The last paragraph implies that an authority like the CRU has to have evidence of IP before refusing disclosure. The CRU has already made over 95% of their collected raw data publicly available. This suggests that requests for the non-publicly available data will run against IP issues.

 

[lomiller]

jsfisher it really looks like you have lost track of what you are even trying to say so at this point I don’t even know which of your arguments I’m supposed to be answering.


Are you claiming FOI laws do not specify what information can and cannot be released?

Are you claiming it would have been legal to release *this* data?

 

[jsfisher]

I was asking you. Can we please move this topic forward?

Sure, but it would really help if you stopped trying to deflect the discussion away from lomiller's statements regarding requirements and prohibitions of FOIL.

Is there or is there not any specific clause in the operative FOIL that permits the disclosure of intellectual property of third parties?

Reality Check addresses this in his post, above. I'll only add that the UK FOIA provides some exemption for intellectual property under limited conditions. It is not a blanket "releasing other peoples intellectual property to the public is illegal" as alleged by lomiller.

If there IS and if it was not disclosed, then we got a problem.

If there is NOT any such clause, then no such problem exists.

Which is it? I Am Not A Lawyer, so I can't answer this question.

These questions seem important to you, and maybe someone is interested in discussing them with you. My interest, at least for now, is challenging the statements made by lomiller regarding requirements and prohibitions of FOIL.

 

[lomiller]

My interest, at least for now, is challenging the statements made by lomiller regarding requirements and prohibitions of FOIL.

Then you should get on with answering my questions and tell us exactly what you are disputing

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher it really looks like you have lost track of what you are even trying to say so at this point I don’t even know which of your arguments I’m supposed to be answering.

I haven't lost track at all. But, since you continue to shift your position, let's review the sequence of variations:

On the contrary, FOI works both ways, that is when it’s not subject to FOI requests, as this information was, there is a legal responsibility to not release it.

Here, you clearly state FOIL either makes something subject to disclosure or completely disallows disclosure. No middle ground.

Do you still maintain this position, or do you retract this statement?

I claim this statement of yours is bogus. When challenged, you softened you statement to this:

While they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction FOI laws usually cover both what have to be released on request and what cannot be released at all.

Now, there does appear to be a middle ground. Only some of the things not subject to FOI requests get a non-disclosure requirement under FOIL.

Do you still maintain this position, or do you retract this statement?

I claim this statement is also bogus. When challenged as it relates to the data sets in question, you completely abandoned any tie to FOIL with this:

Yes releasing other peoples intellectual property to the public is illegal.

By the way, as a general statement, this statement is also bogus.

Do you still maintain this position, or do you retract this statement?