Failure of ICT systems
Ben Fairless made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Taxation Office
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Australian Taxation Office,
Can you please provide all documents created in relation to the ICT incident that occurred today (as reported here: https://thewest.com.au/politics/tax-offi...)
This could include draft incident reports, ICT communications, copies of the Incident in the departments ICT incident management system, communications with the minister and media, and communications internally or with vendors.
I exclude the details of members of public and duplicates of existing documents.
I note this wasn't caused by a denial of service attack, therefore there should be no risk in releasing this information. It's in the public interest as the documents will validate the information provided by the ATO to media, and will provide accountability on the failure of the governments most important ICT system.
This email address is a valid address for notices to be sent. Please process this request informally at first, if you can't provide the data informally treat it as a formal FOI request.
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
Dear Australian Taxation Office,
I refer to the Recommendation of the Information Commissioner in Complaint CP16/01606, which was provided to Jonathan Todd on 5 May 2017.
Can you please confirm when the ATO will begin processing my valid Freedom of Information request?
The details of this request (which were sent to you via email) can be found here: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
Dear FOI Applicant,
Please see attachment.
Regards,
FOI Team
**********************************************************************
IMPORTANT
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended
recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in
severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error
please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation
Office, telephone 1300 661 542 and delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.
*********************************************************************
Dear Australian Taxation Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews and accepts complaints against officers of the Australian Taxation Office.
I am writing to request an internal review and to make a formal complaint of the Australian Taxation Office's handling of my FOI request (made in a strictly personal capacity) 'Failure of ICT systems'.
The document you have provided does not meet the criteria of a decision under s.22 of the Freedom of Information Act. The ATO < redacted > is, in my opinion, acting in bad faith following the recent OAIC recommendation by refusing to respond to me via email and requiring me to complete additional steps in order to access the decision in relation to this request.
In addition to treating this as a formal internal review request, please treat is as a complaint against < redacted > in relation to this request. I allege that < redacted > acted in bad faith in the way the letter was drafted and sent to me. The response is non-compliant with the recent OAIC recommendation handed down recently in relation to FOI requests via Right to Know.
I demand that the ATO cease acting in bad faith and respond to me via this website like the thousands of requests before mine. It is not a simple thing to do and will prevent the ATO from appearing like it does not care about the accountability and transparency that the Freedom of Information Act envisages.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/f...
Yours faithfully,
Ben Fairless
Mr Fairless
The ATO rejects your claim that it, or its decision maker, has acted in
bad faith. The ATO has complied with the IC recommendation that the ATO
process valid requests made via the RTK website. It has also complied with
its obligations under the FOI Act.
No decision has been made in respect of your request, therefore there are
currently no grounds for requesting an internal review. Section 22 of the
FOI Act has no relevance to a notice under s24AB FOI Act.
Complaints may be directed to the ATO at our website:
[1]https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/about-u...
ATO FOI
**********************************************************************
IMPORTANT
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended
recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in
severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error
please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation
Office, telephone 1300 661 542 and delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.
*********************************************************************
References
Visible links
1. https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/about-u...
Dear FOI,
The ATO has not provided a decision or “stopped the clock” with a valid email in over 30 days since the recent OAIC decision.
As the ATO principal officer is deemed to have refused my request after time is elapsed, I’ll be referring the request back to the OAIC to make an IC review decision. I’ll also be making a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to the FOI officer and in relation to the Department.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Fairless
Dear Applicant,
Please see attachment.
Yours faithfully,
FOI Team
**********************************************************************
IMPORTANT
The information transmitted is for the use of the intended
recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in
severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error
please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation
Office, telephone 1300 661 542 and delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.
*********************************************************************
Mark R. Diamond left an annotation ()
The latest reply from the ATO says, "On 23 June 2017, you were issued a notice of intention to refuse your FOI request as a ‘practical
refusal reason’ exists under s 24AA(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act)." That, in fact, is a lie; not an "alternative fact". A lie. Ben Fairless was not "issued a notice of intention to refuse your FOI request". He was in fact sent a brief note telling him that the ATO had sent something that he (Ben Fairless) might be interested in to a place that he could search. That is not at all the same as sending the applicant a notice under the FOI Act.
Mark R. Diamond left an annotation ()
Why is it that no one has complained about the behavior of the ATO. Having refused for 9 months to process requests filed through Right to Know, they now purport to comply with the law but do not do so. The requirement of s 15(2)(c) of the Act is that a request under FOI "... give details of how notices under this Act may be sent to the applicant (for example, by providing an electronic address to which notices may be sent by electronic communication)". But the ATO doesn't appaer to be doing that, no doubt so as to avoid the possibility that anyone might comment about such notices. Instead, they do not send the notices required by the Act to the applicant. Instead, they send a "meta-notice" (i.e., a notice about where you might find a notice) to the applicant. A complaint (in fact multiple complaints) to the Information Commissioner are warranted.