katska
commented
8 months ago hmm looking at this again after more of these, it seems right to respond without a right to reply spelled out in this circumstance (wrong type of request not supported by the site) but find myself swinging back to something more formal, while still having
- a more empathetic tone specific to their need of making a personal request, not just being polite although that's important too
- guidance on appropriate channels for personal requests,
- not directly referring to their personal details, because it may be about someone else eg. a family member and also including a brief yet firm note on potential consequences for not adhering to the platform's guidelines, so they take this seriously.
- keeping the name is also more human/e rather than simply Right to Know admin
However I like the friendly tone and succinct earlier suggestion and maybe good to discuss with others.
Dear
Your recent request 'REQUEST NAME' (LINK) sent on to the AUTHORITY via Right to Know has been brought to our attention. We're committed to helping people make public interest Freedom of Information requests.
For the safety and privacy of all, Right to Know focuses solely on public interest requests. As a result, your recent information request related to personal circumstances has been hidden from others. It remains visible only to you when logged in.
Please be aware that making repeated requests for personal information will lead to suspension or a ban. For future personal requests, kindly approach the respective AUTHORITY directly.
Warm regards,
The current standard notice for hiding requests on Right to Know in the admin interface includes an invitation to discuss the decision, which is generally not applicable for the majority of hidden requests. This issue is about responding to requests that are personal in nature and should not be on Right to Know in the first place.
Current Message: "We do not allow requests for information via Right to Know about your personal circumstances. We have therefore hidden your request from other users.
You will still be able to view it while logged in to the site. Please reply to this email if you would like to discuss this decision further."
Suggested Change: Instead of inviting users to discuss the decision, the notice should inform them that their request is hidden as a kind exception and contacting the authority directly for future personal requests.
Alternative Wording to address this might be: "Your request has been flagged as seeking personal information. Please note that Right to Know is intended solely for public information requests, and because all requests are public, we cannot accommodate requests for personal information.
We've made your request invisible to the general public and other site users. While you'll still be able to see this request when logged into the site, in future, make sure you apply directly to the relevant authority for future information requests that pertain to personal matters."