|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
MO-1381
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Toronto Police Services Board
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The Toronto Police Services Board (the Police) received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ) from a member of the media for information contained in two specified databases operated by the Police. The requester made it clear that he did not want access to any personal information, and went on to state: Initially, we would like a list of the fields contained in each database. We would also welcome a chance to speak with analysts familiar with the programs. From there, we could determine which fields we seek to access and which ones we do not want. The request can be divided into two parts. The first part is for a list of the field names contained in the two databases: the Repository Integrating Criminal Information computer database (RICI), and the Criminal Information Processing System (CIPS). The second part is for the actual data contained in certain of these fields. The appellant intended to review the list of field names provided in response to the first part of the request in order to identify which fields were of interest. The Police denied access to all information responsive to both parts of the request on the basis of the following exemption claims contained in the Act : sections 10(1)(a) and (b) (third party information) for RICI; and sections 11(a), (b), (c) and (d) (economic and other interests of the Police) for both RICI and CIPS databases These exemption claims apply to the listing of field names in both databases as well as the actual data contained in the databases. The requester (now the appellant) appealed the decision of the Police, and also raised the possible application of the public interest override contained in section 16 of the Act . Because the appellant did not receive the list of field names, he has been unable to identify the scope of the second part. I have decided to initially proceed only with the first part of the request, the list of field names. I sent a Notice of Inquiry to the Police and the company that sold RICI to the Police (the affected party) asking for representations on the application of the exemption claims to the list of fields contained in the two identified databases. I received representations from both the Police and the affected party. I decided it was not necessary to seek representations from the appellant before issuing this order. PRELIMINARY MATTERS: CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RECORDS The records provided to me by the Police regarding the CIPS database consist of 24 pages of screen layouts printed from the database. These records identify only the blank field names for each screen, and contain no data. Similarly, the records provided by the Police concerning the RICI database consist of three pages of blank screen layouts printed from this second database. The appellant described the first part of his request as a "list of fields" in the two databases. He did not ask for screen layouts, and apparently sought the field names in order to fully understand the type of information stored in the databases and to refine the scope of the second part of his request. The records provided to this Office by the Police consist of hardcopy printouts of blank screen layouts generated by the two databases. Presumably, these layouts reflect all of the field names used in the two databases. However, it is important to note that, as with all electronic database systems, the contents of a database can be displayed and printed in a number of different ways, and the particular paper format chosen by the Police merely represents one way of displaying the field names. In Order PO-1725, I examined the nature of information stored in a different type of database, an electronic calender management system. I stated: The nature of an electronic calendar management database permits users to manipulate entries in ways that organize and/or display them either individually or together with other entries related by a common characteristic identified by the user. A "record" could be anything from a single entry up to and including the entire database. That determination must be made on the basis of the nature of the specific request and the circumstances of a particular appeal. In Order P-1281, I determined that an entire relational database containing corporate registration data should be treated as a single "record" for the purpose of addressing the issues in that appeal. In the present appeals, because the entries are electronic, and are created and can be amended, classified or deleted one entry at a time, I find that each entry in its electronic format should be characterized as a separate "record". The individual printed pages of entries for each day - the form in which the material has been provided to me - merely represent a convenient way of organizing the entries in order to permit Cabinet Office to respond to the requests and to permit me to process these appeals. Although the present appeal involves a different type of database, some of the reasoning in Order PO-1725 is also applicable here. In my view, the "record" responsive to the first part of the appellant's request is a listing of the individual field names used in the RICI and CIPS databases. That is all of the information the appellant wants, and the format that he receives it in is not relevant for his purposes. The Police decided to provide the list of fields in a format that includes additional information, such as screen layout design and field sizes. However, the appellant did not ask for this additional information, and I find that any information other than the field names themselves falls outside the scope of the first part of the appellant's request. In responding to the appellant, the Police could have provided the listing of field names in whatever format was most convenient or appropriate in the circumstances. For example, the Police could have generated a printout of the field names in alphabetical order, or as a continuous listing of the names in order of their use on the various screens. If the screen layouts were the most convenient format, the Police could even have provided individual hardcopy printouts of the various screens
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
-
MFIPPA
-
10(1)(a)
-
10(1)(b)
-
11(a)
-
11(b)
-
11(c)
-
11(d)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Dec 21, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|