UK govt's "What to do about fraud" page "withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act"

The HM Revenue and Customs (UK) web-page for "What to do if you suspect or discover fraud" with National Insurance Numbers consists of the phrase "(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)" repeated over and over again, including indented bullets, new paragraphs, etc.

You know the Orwell Was Right stickers? Someone needs to make one that reproduces this webpage under the legend, "Orwell was an optimist."

NIM39140 - National Insurance Numbers (NINOs): Format and Security: What to do if you suspect or discover fraud

(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

(This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

* (This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)
* (This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

lINK (Thanks,

• [certron]

  Interestingly enough, while reading the linked article about George Orwell’s tea preferences, I noticed an amazon link to a book mentioned elsewhere on BB, “When You Are Engulfed In Flames”, as well as what I can only assume to be the inspiration for the title of Cory’s book, Orwell’s “Down and Out In Paris and London”. Amazon must be crunching those cookies extra hard today.

  What I had started posting as a mere curiosity perhaps is one of the best examples of how, yes, Orwell was right. Big Brother is watching, he just may not always work in/for the government.

  I also noticed (This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000).

• [Absent]

  If you do a search for the phrase on site, loads of pages come up with the real text completely censored. Even pages relating to: “Particular Occupations: Football Clubs”

• [Absent]

  Interestingly, on some pages even the title had been (This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000). But the censored titles are still in the meta tags, maybe meta tags are exempt from exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

• [Cory Doctorow]

  Absent@2: You should compile a list of the metatags!

• [Simon Bradshaw]

  Going through that site’s parent pages, it turns out that it is hosting internal staff manuals, not aimed-at-the-public guidance:

  “These manuals contain guidance which has been prepared for HMRC staff. It is being published for the information of taxpayers and their advisors in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.”

  I’d guess that the page linked to is advising HMRC staff how to recognise and report fraud, so it’s hardly surprising that it’s been redacted.

• [danegeld]

  The front page of the Sunday Telegraph had a story about the UK Home Office webservers, which were hacked into and used to host phishing scams.

  These are the same people who want compulsory ID cards and who think they pose no risk to privacy.

  The prime minister is pushing for police powers to hold people without charges being brought for up to 42 days. None of the security services have asked for such a move, but now the Prime minister is asserting it’s needed and should it fail it’s a vote of no confidence in the government, thus stifling debate on the matter.

  The UK government seems to be woefully incompetent, but unlike a regular company they can’t go bankrupt. They have to improve or we have to vote them out.

• [Psymiley]

  Just on a whim, I checked the ‘way-back-when machine’. Interestingly, we can see (from our point of view) the page has been updated with more of those lines.

  So what Simon states above about being for ‘internal’ staff makes complete sense – the ‘page’ exists, but the data is internal. View the page on a whitelisted address/computer/login, and the true content appears.

  Possibly.

• [coldspell]

  The Wayback Machine shows that this particular page appears to have only existed in its present form (2006 – today):

  http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/nimmanual/NIM39140.htm

  If that is the case, why did someone even bother to create it in the first place?

  This incident seems more like a bug in their web site’s backend. Why would they censor information about reporting fraud? Big Brother *wants* you to tattle on your neighbors.

• [Kieran O’Neill]

  To be fair, this page (and all the manuals) seem to internal instructional materials, and not intended for public consumption.
  See the root url:

  “Below is a list of former Inland Revenue Manuals used by Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC). These manuals are published in line with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.”

  It is interesting to see just how much has been withheld from the public on their website, though.

  The policy on fraud prevention measures seems to be to keep them secret, presumably with the logic that if fraudsters knew about them, it would be easier to defraud the system.

  I have a feeling Bruce Schneier had a solid counter-argument to this…

• [PeaceRant]

  Re: “Orwell was an optimist”

  I’m glad to see this phrase appear on Boing Boing.

  I and a friend have been producing a video series called Orwell Was An Optimist for well over a year now — 38 episodes worth. http://orwellwasanoptimist.blip.tv or http://www.youtube.com/user/orwelloptimist

  Also, as the director of a grassroots activist organization, I do a lot of public speaking. It was in January 2002 that I first gave a talk titled “Orwell was An Optimist.” It turned out to be the first of many talks with the same title.

  The phrase first came to me while watching former Attorney General John Ashcroft testify before the Senate in support of the Patriot Act. You know, the infamous “phantoms of lost liberty” speech.

  I’m not trying to lay a claim to the phrase. No doubt others also thought of it well before. I was just glad to see it on Boing Boing. I appreciate BB’s vigilance on civil liberties issues.

• [Antinous]

  How about just Orwell ≤ UK for bumper stickers.

• [Takuan]

  well then Peacerant, lets move your link up to the more current items

• [MrWeeble]

  I’m actually quite happy about this because it means that their system tags blocks of text with security attributes and delivers them to only authorised people, suggesting that there is somewhere a proper system of security in place.

  This is better than, oh I don’t know, saving it as an office document with password protect and burning it to a CD, and throwing it in the post hoping it will get to the intended recipient. Not that anyone would be so stupid as to … oh … right …

• [Takuan]

  thank you Beanolini, that was a good reminder. Firstly of how to make proper tea. Secondly, of how miserable my own command of English is. Thanks a lot. (bleedin’ Orwell toff and his fancy-pantsy ability to write…grumblegrumble)

• [RevEng]

  Perhaps I’m missing something, but if these documents are being made public as an accountability measure, how does censoring the majority of their content (and sometimes even the title) leave them accountable? Yes, I can see that they used many manuals, but I have no idea what they are or what they contain. Were they a good use of money? I have no idea.

  Though, I must applaude them for doing this anyway. It does give some accountability — it shows just how much they hide from the people.

• [Beanolini]

  Didn’t know about those ‘Orwell was right’ stickers, but he was- especially on the crucial matter of warming the pot before putting in the tea.

  (I already knew he was right because a graffito in Heaton, Newcastle told me so in about 1995).