Introducing a flag for confidential data

[timgdavies]

From the API thread at https://github.com/openreferral/api-specification/issues/21

There are cases when addresses, locations (and contact details?) should not be disclosed to protect a service or service users.

Whilst this information may exist within a source providers database, they would not want to publish it as part of open data.

Including a field to indicate where data should be, or has been, redacted, could be useful to:

(a) Indicate to data users the reason for any missing data;

(b) Support validation before data publication, but ensuring that all records with a 'confidential/redacted' flag have had the information removed;

(c) Enable use of HSDS to exchange data between trusted organisations (i.e. not via open publication) without losing important information about security controls that should be applied before data is released;

(d) Support those using HSDS as a model for designing schema to consider the importance of recording when information should be protected.

[dan-odsc]

Relevant issue on the archived API Repo - https://github.com/openreferral/api-specification/issues/78

[dan-odsc]

Related conversation on the forum - https://forum.openreferral.org/t/handling-confidential-addresses-in-hsds-3-0/243/27

Suggestion from Skyler - 'I would recommend that we add a new location.location_type of “redacted” in a future, minor update.'

Given a 'proposed' status.

[dan-odsc]

Related issue #194

[kathryn-ods]

Proposal went ahead but technical committee agreed it needs more work

This was the proposal https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sec-BXVkl6sUETm3q4ngxzX4-1cNqmEZzWFcpa7VztU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ye0dggmm63xe