search

mysociety / whatdotheyknow-theme

The Alaveteli theme for WhatDoTheyKnow (UK)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
MIT License
31 stars 26 forks source link

Clearer warning about SARs to Child Maintenance Service #889

Open garethrees opened 2 years ago

garethrees commented 2 years ago

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/child_maintenance_service

Pro user just reported 5 SARs made to this authority. Probably want to add some bold notes – maybe not as bold as the home office – but a bit clearer notice that this is not for making casework requests.

mdeuk commented 2 years ago

It strikes me that we perhaps shouldn't be listing this body as a discrete entity any more, given it is essentially an operating division of DWP, rather than an Executive Agency in its own right (I believe it used to be).

Removing the ability to send new requests to this, and related entities, would allow us to ensure that we've removed a potential risk, and give us space to ensure that the main public body notes are sufficiently strong so as to avoid any unintentional data leaks as a result of users misinterpreting the purpose of our service.

Proposal: Mark bodies 4465 and 57827 as 'defunct' and strengthen the notes on body 24's page so as to note that our service must not be used for casework. It might help to identify an alternative source that individuals can use, if we can find one, and consideration needs to be given to how the message is worded from a literacy perspective.

Linking to https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-theme/issues/745 https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-theme/issues/722

mdeuk commented 2 years ago

Here's a first stab at what the body text for the 'defunct' entities could look like.

I've tried to use relatively simple language, which rates reasonably well on the Flesch reading-ease test; but there is always the risk of over-simplification. Any and all comments gratefully received. The related set of changes for /body/dwp are documented on https://github.com/mysociety/whatdotheyknow-theme/issues/745#issuecomment-954411024.

On the point of tagging as 'defunct' - is there a view on the best tag to use? Both 'defunct' and 'not _apply' will leave some slightly confusing text in the body page, either implying the body doesn't exist in any form, or that FoIA doesn't apply to it.

I did consider simply removing the email address - but this then risks misuse of the change request form to send CSA/CMS related correspondence to the team inbox instead. Help!