Facebook Group

[mc2fool]

I meant just the agony with the council, I'd ignore them.

I'm not sure I see what agony there is with the council, but ignoring their letter (agreed) and putting in an FOI serve different purposes and aren't exclusive. Ignore the letter, 'cos it's not worth responding to. Put in a FOI to try and pin down the much more serious side of the matter, the breach of trust from the FB group.

I doubt FOI would answer those questions, they'll just say that it's individual information given in confidence that they cannot release.

Err...the information is stuff from the FB group that the OP has already seen! What's to know is what of it the council has been sent, and while the council may try and squirm out of it, it costs nothing to put in an FOI and while they may not get the info they want they certainly won't if they don't put one in.

You made a strong case earlier about breach of trust and said if you found anyone had copied posts outside of the group those people would be chucked out. So what's your suggestion on how to find out who has copied what to the council, in order to do that?

[melonfool]

I know the person who sent it has already seen it, what the council probably say is that they cannot disclose WHO sent it. But, you're right, they may agree to send you the stuff they got so at least you know how extensive/limited it was. Though they may say they destroyed it (which they should as they have no right to it).

Remember also that if the council do comply with the FOI request and send you the screen shots or whatever, then they also have the right to put that information in the public domain - for this reason, I don't think they will send it to you.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gu ... e-foi-act/

Actually, what you could do, is get every member of the group to do a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act (GDPR) and ask for any personal data the council holds on them. Or tell the council you plan to do this - facing 1000 SARs might focus their minds and encourage them to be more sensible. Them even just having someone's name is Data and affected by the Act. Also, if anyone refused to be involved you could add them to the 'might be the person who did it' list

The only way you can find out who did it is to ask everyone in the group, and even then of course they may not own up.

In your shoes, I would write a pinned post saying what has happened so that everyone knows (they do have a right to know really) and asking that it doesn't happen again, explaining that you will remove anyone who does that in future.

Or, close the group, start a new one and be really careful with vetting people who you allow to join.

Mel

[mc2fool]

I know the person who sent it has already seen it, what the council probably say is that they cannot disclose WHO sent it. But, you're right, they may agree to send you the stuff they got so at least you know how extensive/limited it was.

As I've said a couple of times already they'll almost certainly redact personal identifying info, however despite that there's a good chance you'll be able to figure out who sent in what, and in regards to the "three unknowns", An FOI will answer the last two of the above and there's a fair chance they'll be able to figure out the first. I.e. the council won't disclose who sent it but the group may be able to deduce that from what was sent.

Actually, what you could do, is get every member of the group to do a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act (GDPR) and ask for any personal data the council holds on them. Or tell the council you plan to do this - facing 1000 SARs might focus their minds and encourage them to be more sensible. Them even just having someone's name is Data and affected by the Act. Also, if anyone refused to be involved you could add them to the 'might be the person who did it' list

I think SARs are only practical if the group already has some idea of who was mentioned in the posts sent to the council, as trying to convince everyone, or even a sizeable number, to put them in is, I'd suspect, unlikely to succeed, esp. as a SAR costs £10. And I'm not sure how useful a small-subset SAR would be in deducing who the culprit(s) were....

In your shoes

None of my footwear is involved here, I'm not a member of the group, just a TLFer trying to offer some constructive suggestions

[melonfool]

A SAR does not cost £10, that was removed under GDPR.

Mel