"Microsoft gags UK schools" - Linux

This is a discussion on "Microsoft gags UK schools" - Linux ; http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ags-uk-schools "THE THREAT OF REPRISALS from Microsoft lawyers has stopped Becta, the UK's technology quango for schools, from publishing the details of the three-year megadeal it agreed with Microsoft in April." .... "Becta refused to satisfy a Freedom of Information ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

  1. "Microsoft gags UK schools"


    http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ags-uk-schools

    "THE THREAT OF REPRISALS from Microsoft lawyers has stopped Becta, the UK's
    technology quango for schools, from publishing the details of the
    three-year megadeal it agreed with Microsoft in April."
    ....
    "Becta refused to satisfy a Freedom of Information request made by the
    INQUIRER for details of the latest Microsoft schools megadeal, "after
    consultation with Microsoft.""

    Now let's see what the UK Freedom of Information Act has to say about this:
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000..._20000036_en_1

    "(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
    entitled—

    (a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
    information of the description specified in the request, and

    (b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him"

    Certainly, there are exceptions, for instance if "the public interest in
    maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
    information.", if the information is a matter of national security, and in
    a limited number of other cases -- none of which apply here. Then again,
    perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that the BECTA or UK schools somehow resort
    under a public authority? Let's see:

    "SCHEDULE 1 Public authorities
    ...
    Part IV Maintained schools and other educational institutions"

    Well, this seems to cover most schools for which the BECTA made the deal.
    How about the BECTA itself? Well, it appears to be a governmental
    organization, so it most certainly is beholden to the Freedom of
    Information Act.
    Even better: they have a Web page dedicated dealing with this very
    subject -- albeit only with regard to actual schools, not the BECTA itself:

    http://schools.becta.org.uk/index.ph..._dp_03&rid=629

    Let's see what information schools are required to supply:

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/for_the_p...education.aspx

    "Accessing official information

    The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to access official
    information from public authorities. This includes all publicly funded
    educational establishments, ranging from state nurseries to universities.

    You have the right to request official information, for example about how
    the establishment is run, by letter or email."

    Ah, we have the right to information about "how the establishment is run".
    I'd say this includes information on deals made with large suppliers; and
    as the BECTA deals almost exclusively with technology in education, any
    multi-million pound deals most definitely fall under the Freedom of
    Information Act.

    Then again, Microsoft has powers not unkin to those of the Mafia in its
    heyday, so I guess the BECTA acted in their best interest to let themselves
    get bullied into silence.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  2. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    Richard Rasker wrote:
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ags-uk-schools
    >
    > "THE THREAT OF REPRISALS from Microsoft lawyers has stopped Becta, the UK's
    > technology quango for schools, from publishing the details of the
    > three-year megadeal it agreed with Microsoft in April."
    > ...
    > "Becta refused to satisfy a Freedom of Information request made by the
    > INQUIRER for details of the latest Microsoft schools megadeal, "after
    > consultation with Microsoft.""
    >
    > Now let's see what the UK Freedom of Information Act has to say about this:
    > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000..._20000036_en_1



    Outrageous. The freedom of information act should take priority over any
    other agreement. If BECTA have signed an agreement that they can't
    disclose then heads should roll.

  3. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    In article ,
    Richard Rasker wrote:
    > Certainly, there are exceptions, for instance if "the public interest in
    > maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
    > information.", if the information is a matter of national security, and in
    > a limited number of other cases -- none of which apply here. Then again,


    Why doesn't the exception in item 43 apply?



    --
    --Tim Smith

  4. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    >> Outrageous. The freedom of information act should take priority over any
    >> other agreement. If BECTA have signed an agreement that they can't
    >> disclose then heads should roll.

    >
    > They are already in some deep s*.


    Is that just a throw-away line Roy - or do you know something we don't?

    Translation - would you like to elaborate a little? I assume that you are
    referring to BECTA?


  5. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    ____/ Phil Da Lick! on Wednesday 09 July 2008 10:31 : \____

    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>

    http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ags-uk-schools
    >>
    >> "THE THREAT OF REPRISALS from Microsoft lawyers has stopped Becta, the UK's
    >> technology quango for schools, from publishing the details of the
    >> three-year megadeal it agreed with Microsoft in April."
    >> ...
    >> "Becta refused to satisfy a Freedom of Information request made by the
    >> INQUIRER for details of the latest Microsoft schools megadeal, "after
    >> consultation with Microsoft.""
    >>
    >> Now let's see what the UK Freedom of Information Act has to say about this:
    >> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000..._20000036_en_1

    >
    >
    > Outrageous. The freedom of information act should take priority over any
    > other agreement. If BECTA have signed an agreement that they can't
    > disclose then heads should roll.


    They are already in some deep s*.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Quote when replying in non-real-time dialogues"
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 5 Jul 3 20:37 last=S
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  6. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ bbgruff on Wednesday 09 July 2008 17:31 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >>> Outrageous. The freedom of information act should take priority over any
    >>> other agreement. If BECTA have signed an agreement that they can't
    >>> disclose then heads should roll.

    >>
    >> They are already in some deep s*.

    >
    > Is that just a throw-away line Roy - or do you know something we don't?
    >
    > Translation - would you like to elaborate a little? I assume that you are
    > referring to BECTA?


    BECTA has already been reported to the Commission, which is probably why it
    slams OOXML and Vista (defensive measures). After that fake 'open source'
    gesture, BECTA made even /more/ enemies. Like ISO and the BBC, their
    reputation is at gutter level among some. In both cases, you already see
    attempts to pretend that there is choice (BBCers post photos of trying Linux
    on the laptops). It's because their jobs are at stakes; they decisions are
    frowned upon and the parliament too investigates it every now and then.

    Ending Microsoft (+ecosystem) corruption won't happen overnight, but by
    identifying those involved, you make the corruption harder to go on
    uninterrupted. They thought they had found a loophole -- a fountain of cash
    for life (secret deals with transport of undisclosed sums blindly funneled).

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | http://debian.org
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 136 total, 2 running, 134 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkh17G0ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6OOwCcCRKhnip34L uOTuXOcWmfkbF5
    A+cAni8SkyOI3WdZerSiK7XL6Nv5wONJ
    =cyRB
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  7. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    Tim Smith wrote:

    >In article ,
    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >> Certainly, there are exceptions, for instance if "the public interest in
    >> maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
    >> information.", if the information is a matter of national security, and in
    >> a limited number of other cases -- none of which apply here. Then again,

    >
    >Why doesn't the exception in item 43 apply?


    Price isn't a "trade secret", Timmy. The recipe for Coke is a "trade
    secret".

    Sheesh. "You have to disclose the price, unless someone doesn't want
    you to." THAT would make a lot of sense...


  8. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>> Outrageous. The freedom of information act should take priority over any
    >>> other agreement. If BECTA have signed an agreement that they can't
    >>> disclose then heads should roll.

    >> They are already in some deep s*.

    >
    > I don't understand this???
    > Are these public schools that are funded by the taxpayers?
    > If so, everything should be public record, no?


    Yes, this is precisely the problem. BECTA has an obligation to disclose
    *all* of its records, however it is saying it cannot because of an
    agreement with M$. The terms of the deal with M$ are not an issue - its
    the fact that BECTA are refusing to disclose that is the problem.

  9. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    In article ,
    chrisv wrote:
    [idiocy deleted]

    Read section 43, idiot.



    --
    --Tim Smith

  10. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    Tim Smith wrote:
    ,
    > chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >> >Read section 43, idiot.

    >>
    >> I did, fsckwit.

    >
    >Read *all* of section 43, idiot.


    What part of "I did, fsckwit" are you having difficulty with, Timmy?

    >(immoral trolling snipped)



  11. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"


    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:5pke74lg15si1vt5k6qq5j11u4p1h8v35r@4ax.com...
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    > ,
    >> chrisv wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >Read section 43, idiot.
    >>>
    >>> I did, fsckwit.

    >>
    >>Read *all* of section 43, idiot.

    >
    > What part of "I did, fsckwit" are you having difficulty with, Timmy?
    >
    >>(immoral trolling snipped)

    >


    You're an stupid idiot. Why don't you stick to your stupid "plonk's" and
    simply calling people names. Oh wait... all you're doing here *IS* calling
    people names. Of course since you're too stupid to actually debate
    anything.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  12. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    In article <5pke74lg15si1vt5k6qq5j11u4p1h8v35r@4ax.com>,
    chrisv wrote:
    > >> >Read section 43, idiot.
    > >>
    > >> I did, fsckwit.

    > >
    > >Read *all* of section 43, idiot.

    >
    > What part of "I did, fsckwit" are you having difficulty with


    The part where you lie about having read all of section 43. It has 3
    parts, not just the 1 part you read.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    Tim Smith lied:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >> >>>
    >> >>>Read section 43, idiot.
    >> >>
    >> >> I did, fsckwit.
    >> >
    >> >Read *all* of section 43, idiot.

    >>
    >> What part of "I did, fsckwit" are you having difficulty with

    >
    > The part where you lie about having read all of section 43.


    Thanks for the (redundant) proof that you are a bald-faced liar, Timmy.

    > It has 3 parts, not just the 1 part you read.


    I'm well aware of that, Timmy.

    Only a lying POS, Timmy, would falsely accuse an honest person of lying
    about something, with the weak assumption that I had not read all three
    parts, simply because I directly mentioned only one part, which I, in
    fact, felt was quite representative of the quite-similar concepts
    discussed in all three parts.

    You're a lying POS, Timmy. How does that make you feel?


  14. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    chrisv wrote:

    *PLONK*

    a poor chrisv.....

  15. Chrisv thinks I'm the British Government!

    In article ,
    chrisv wrote:
    [idiocy snipped]

    Chrisv, why do you think that *I* am the one that wrote section 43 and
    put it into British law?

    You think section 43 is immoral. Fine. Nowhere have I disagreed with
    that. All I've done is note its existence. You claim that is immoral.
    Justify that.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    In article ,
    chrisv wrote:
    [Chrisv's continued lies about reading section 43 snipped]

    Let's recap. I said that section 43 may apply. I did not say which
    particular parts of section 43 might apply.

    You responded, in an irrational and insulting manner, saying that it did
    not, and basing your entire spew on the first part not applying. Hence,
    it was clear that you had overlooked the second and third parts, since
    you did not offer any argument that they did not apply.

    You have since then presented no evidence that you have subsequently
    read the second and third parts. If you had, you'd be busy apologizing
    for your first post.

    Why don't you go back, read all three parts of section 43, note that it
    appears that it could in fact apply, and then be an adult (for the first
    time in your life), and apologize here? Then maybe write a letter to
    the appropriate British authorities who actually wrote section 43, and
    point out that it should perhaps be fixed.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  17. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Tim Smith lied:
    >
    > You're a lying POS, Timmy. How does that make you feel?


    Hey you two. Don't forget to smoke a cigarette afterward.

    --
    System going down in 5 minutes.

  18. Re: Timmy thinks that he's not a twit!

    Tim Smith wrote:

    >[dishonesty snipped]


    Sure, Timmy. You didn't suggest that "section 43" may be a perfectly
    valid reason to not disclose the prices. Just like you don't support
    vile trolls like Quack when you join them in attacking advocates.
    Right.


  19. Re: "Microsoft gags UK schools"

    Tim Smith lied:

    >[Timmy's continued lying and idiocy snipped]


    Poor Timmy. All three parts amount to "we want to keep this a
    secret". Stop lying about things you don't know.

    You made a real asshole of yourself, again, Timmy.


  20. Re: Timmy gets it wrong again

    Tim Smith wanked:

    >Chrisv, why do you think that *I* am the one that wrote section 43 and
    >put it into British law?


    Stop lying, Timmy. I think no such thing, obviously.

    >You think section 43 is immoral.


    Wrong again, Timmy. Laws are interpreted by courts, and there may
    well be valid and moral situations where section 43 applies.

    "Supplier wants to keep pricing secret" is NOT one of those
    situations. To interpret otherwise would be immoral.

    Is it starting to soak through your thick skull yet, Timmy?

    >Fine. Nowhere have I disagreed with
    >that. All I've done is note its existence. You claim that is immoral.


    Sure, Timmy, that's "all" you've done. Right.

    >Justify that.


    Justify your dishonesty, Timmy.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast