Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • AGO-FOI 2015-08 Documents 20 - 21

    Uploaded by

    bnjmndn
    8 views31 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views31 pages

    AGO-FOI 2015-08 Documents 20 - 21

    Uploaded by

    bnjmndn

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 31
    Document 20 a ee Sg SEES a = ‘eects seatiom: 1258 pot mtbccuon utr oed eeatgat SEED UNCLASSIFIED Dear Me Dean eas ad attached alta from Pau O'Sullvan, Cie of taf in relation to your revised request under the Freedom of hforetion Act 1882 you have any questions, please conte thse on 026277 7300 Kin regards, fice ofthe Attorney-General Document 20 - Att A Office of the Attorney-General 8 May 2015, Denjamin Dean Fellow for Cyber-seeuty and tenet Governance Columbia University, School of Intemational and Pubic Aes By Email only: Bed220@eoLmbia.edu Dear Mr Dean [Freedom of Information Request no, AGO-POI2015/02 ‘The pupose ofthis ete is to sovide you wih decision about access fo documents that you requested under the Freedon of formation Act 1982 (FOI Ae}. 1, Paul O'Sullivan, Chief St, am an office authorised under 8. 23(1) of the FOT Act to ‘make deisions in elation o FOT requests. Background (1) 0027 February 2015 you mada request othe Attomney-General’s Ofee (he (Office) for acess to documents under FOL Act ropading the fast to years of mobile phone metadata, Internet metadata and email ‘metadata relating the governmentprovided mobile phone and email acount Catorn 1a) of Atorney General George Brandis. (@) —Lywoteto you on 23 March 2015 acknowledging your request and advised you that, you should expoot a decision by 30 March 2015. @__On31 March 2015, [te suing that intended to refuse aces othe documents ‘hat you requested as beloved thal the work involved in processing our request would substan and unreasonably interfere with he performance ofthe Attomey= Gera fnetions dato te sre and brad spe, @ 0n7 April 2015 you we to advise that you intended to revise your request. You revised your request include ‘the mobilephone metadata and emails (conten and metadata) relating othe gowrmnent-proxided mobilephone and email account (torn 1) ‘af Attorney General George Brandis onthe following dates an times: Patlasent Hose Cana ACT 2600 Telephone (02) 777300 Facial: (2) ATA Document 20- At A 14 May, 2014 9:02-9: 2am) 22 November, 2014 (4:37-4:49pm) 15 Jamuny, 2015 (12:57: 139m) Summary (5) Ihave identified two documents which fll witha tbe sope of you request. (6) _Inteaton to the documents you requested, Thave desided to grant acess to an version ofthe docuress. More infomation including my reasons for my decision, i setout below. ‘Matera taken into account (7 Live taken the following material nto account in making my decision: (@) the content ofthe document tht fills within the scope of you request; () tho FOL Act pecially ss. 22 and 47); end (6) the guidlines fsued bythe Austaian information Commissioner under s, 934 of the FOL Act ‘Decision and reasons for deesion (6) Inelation tothe documents, Ihave decided to grant access in prt o both documents ‘with: (6) inelevant mate exempt under. 22(1) (Acces fo edited eoptes with exempt or lrvlevant mater dete; Irrelevant tera (22) (0) Seation 22(1) ofthe FOL Act relevant provides: Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted Scope (1 This section applies if (ean agency orMiniser decies: (to refee to pve oes o an exempt document or (Gi) ha give asess to a document would disclose information that ‘would resonubl be regatde as ielevant tothe request fr access and (© tis posible forth agen or Minster to prepare a copy (en eed copy) ‘ofthe document, modified by deletions, ensuring that: 0) Document 20 - AltA (acces tothe ited copy would be required to be given under ITA incest to documents on request) and i the ited copy wuld not dielos any information that would reasonably be regarded as ielevant othe request. 1am sts that somo materi in Document One is nelevant to your request ‘Accordingly, hive omited tis nsterilftom the dacunent and given acess to the eiied copy tinder 114 of the FOL Act Persona privacy exemption (i 47F) ay cr 0) a a5) Section 47F(1) ofthe FOI Act provides: “47F Public interest conditional exermptions—personal privacy General rite (1) document is conditionally exempt fits disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of pesoaa infrmation about any person (Gosling a deceased person, Section 4 ofthe FOI Act proves that ‘personal infrmation’ has the same meaning tin the Privy Act 1688 (Ct (he Privacy Act), Section 6 ofthe Privacy Ast provides that ‘persona information means information or an opinion about an identified individual, ‘ran individual who iereasonaly idetiabe (@) whother the informations true o not; and (b) whether the -nfommation or opinion is recorded ina material form or not, ‘he information that fils within the seope of your request in Document One contains ‘confidential personal normation about an individual's elepone number. also contains related information about that telephone call Ineudng the ie hat he telephone eal was made andthe origin ofthe telephone cll Lam satisfied that his information, ten curaatively wih other information contained in the document ~ such asthe rae and the duration ofthe eal ~ is clearly personal information fr the purposes of. 47F ofthe FOT Act, Furthermore, 1am stifled thata person's ident is easonblyable to be identified fio he persona information contsined inthe document. Examples of information ‘which ve been fondo be personal information include person's telephone ‘number, This wos confimed in Re Green ad Australian and Overseas Telecorimumications Corporation [I9V2} ALA 292, 8 person en is reasonably ascertainable fom their personal telephone number, particularly when combined wih the other extiasic tari asthe ease inthis document ‘Document Two ian al that was adresodt the emai account alomey@a gov. dng the tines tat you have specified. This email contains ‘etsnal information abou the conesponden, including thei name, contac numbers, ‘hysial adress and email ads I also coniins details about the cozespondents| CO) an as) a) en en @ Document 20- Att personal elrcunstanoe. am sisted tha! his consitues persona information for the purposes of 47F ofthe FOL Act el that dielosre ofthe personal information in both document is Seaton 740) oft 01 Actes arr of mates ih) te mak, st ve eps, in deciding whethe the disclosure ofthe Goan! weld ina teaenbl dndeouo penal iforatn Tn Re Chanda and Milter for Immigration and Btnic Afr [1984] AATA 437, the Administative Appeals Teounal sated tht *_.Whetber a delosure is ‘unreasonable requires. consideration ofall the clicumstnce, including the nature ofthe informaen that would be disclosed, the cirumstan in which tho information was obtained, the ikelhood of the information being information that the person concerned would not wish to ‘without consent, and whether the information has ay curent televence, its also necessary in my view to ake ino consideration the pubic interest rcognied by the Actin the discos end to weigh that meet n the balance sganst the publi intrest in proecting the personal privacy of thin pay. In ABCD » Refugee Tuna [2006] FCA 908, Allsop 3 of the Federal Court effinmed the approach in Re Chadha and stated tat there are four factors for determining ‘whether disclosure is uneeaonable in all the Geumstanees, The fou fctrs are whether: (@) the author ofthe dosament is identifiable, (©) the documents contin hid panty ioematon; (6) telease ofthe documents wold cause ste 0 the third party; and (@) no publi pupoce would be achieved through release ter factors consider o be relevant may include commen or disclosure would (6) the nature ofthe intimation, that i, whether result in serious eonsoquoness; (6) how the information was obtained, thats, covertly, in confidence or using {infomation gathering powers; (6) the eurent elevanes or age of the information; and (@) wheter it would she ight on the workings of goverament In Colahoxsk Autralan Telecommunicaions Corp (1991) 29 FCR 429, Hestey J considred that‘. the infomation disclosure were of no demonstrable relevance to the aff of government an was likey todo no more than excite or satisfy the cure of people about the porson whose personal fis Were Aiclosed.selasure would be unreascnable 1am not sated thar public purpose would be achieved trough the release of| the peronal informatio inthe documents. Furthermore, Iam not prstaded that the personel formation is f any demonstrable relevance othe fais of government Document 20 -AttA Indeed, contend that dsslosure ofthe persona information may cause stesso harm (ova numberof third patios (23) On the basis ofthe foregoing considerations, am satisfied hat diselosure ofthe ‘pectonal information both documents is unreasonable. have desided, therefore, that th personal information inthe document is conditionally exempt inde. A7F of the FOL Act Public interes considerations (28) Section 11A(3) ofthe FOI Act provides tha, ifs document is contonally exempt ‘ust be disclosed ‘unless inthe circumstances) acces othe document at tht ime ‘would on balanos, be contay othe pubic nteret. As the Guidelines expla, “[he pro isclosite principe declare in the object ofthe FOL Acti given specific

    You might also like