Statistics on Cybersafety Help Button downloads
Dear Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy,
I am seeking any documents, reports and statistics relating to how many times the Cybersafety Help Button application has been downloaded.
If possible, a breakdown of the statistics by each platform would be appreciated.
Yours faithfully,
Sam Silvester
Dear Mr Silvester
Freedom of Information Request No. 39-1314
I refer to your correspondence received by the Department on 20 February
2014 seeking access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI
Act), to:
‘Any documents, reports and statistics relating to how many times the
Cybersafety Help Button application has been downloaded.
If possible, a breakdown of the statistics by each platform would be
appreciated’.
The statutory period for processing your request is 30 days, which
commences from the date it was received.
Please note that processing charges may be imposed and that consultation
with third parties may be required. If it is necessary to seek agreement
to pay charges or to consult with third parties, additional processing
time is provided under the FOI Act. You will be advised of any charges as
well as any need to consult third parties in relation to your request.
Information Publication Scheme
In accordance with section 11C of the FOI Act, where the Department gives
access to a document under section 11A of the FOI Act, the Department must
publish that information on its website within 10 working days after the
day an applicant is given access to the documents.
Please see [1]www.oaic.gov.au for more information about the Information
Publication Scheme.
Please contact the FOI Team at [2][Department of Communications and the Arts request email] or on 02 6271
1741 if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely
FOI Officer
FOI Unit | Legal Division
Phone +61 2 6271 1741
[3]www.communications.gov.au
Department of Communications
Level 3, 38 Sydney Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
GPO Box 2154 Canberra ACT 2601
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all
copies of the original message.
This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.oaic.gov.au/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.communications.gov.au/
Dear Mr Silvester
Freedom of Information Request No. 39-1314 – Decision on Access
Please find attached the following documents relating to your FOI request:
· Decision on Access – Statement of Reasons
· Document being released to you
· OAIC FOI Fact Sheet 12 - Applicant Review Rights
Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
FOI Officer
FOI Unit | Legal Division
Phone +61 02 6271 1741
[1]www.communications.gov.au
Department of Communications
Level 3, 38 Sydney Avenue, Forrest ACT 2603
GPO Box 2154 Canberra ACT 2601
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all
copies of the original message.
This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. http://www.communications.gov.au/
Locutus Sum left an annotation ()
This is an annotation to reply to questions asked by Mr Steven Roddis (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...).
(1) The "nice round numbers" have a look of strangemess but they repercuss from how the estimates have been made. In the spreadsheet that is shown in the PDF, it is possible to read "Estimated downloads ... IDs x 100", so it is naturally a result that many of the estimated numbers are "rounded" to a closest 100.
(2) I think that there is nothing left-handed about the redaction. It is a repercussion of the specific words in the request, and a repercussion of what the applicant did not ask for, exactly so much as it is a repercussion of what he did request. The request does not ask for information about who made the downloads. So, then one must read section 22(1)(a)(ii) and section 22(1)(b) of the FOI Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c...). In substance, the sections say that a document should be edited to remove information that was irrelevant to the request. This is what the decision maker has done.
You can ask, "Why does it matter; what do they want to hide?" but it is the wrong question. By making the deletions, the decision maker has saved himself or herself time by not having to consider if the deleted information was "exempt" information or "conditionally exempt" information. It is possible that if the applicant had asked for the information which is redacted, he would have got it.
Brian left an annotation ()
To add to the annotation above, now you know the document name you could simply ask for it in full.
If you do go down that line, ask for the most recent statistics.
Steven Roddis left an annotation ()
Anyone else wondering why the list of government departments + schools is redacted.
The use of nice round numbers is suspicious.
To me the vast majority (almost all) are estimates of the number of machine under government control that have it installed.