Option for censor rules to only apply to public presentation of request

[RichardTaylor]

There are circumstances when we'd like a requester to retain access to material but to remove it from public view.

Increasing complexity of the system is an argument against here.

It's already possible to make a whole message, or thread, requester_only, but censor rules don't have that level of control over which users they impact.

This isn't a feature which is needed, it's one we're running quite happily without. Perhaps we could note cases here when it would have been nice to have - one such case has prompted me to raise this ticket.

[RichardTaylor]

We've had subject access requests where users have sought copies of unreacted versions of their correspondence.

Enabling users to have access to unredacted versions of their requests may prevent such requests.

[garethrees]

Not identical, but related to #10.

[RichardTaylor]

+1 We've had a case on WhatDoTheyKnow where an annotation alerted a user to the fact we'd removed material, but as the removal had been done via a censor rule the user didn't have access to an unredacted version. In the case in question the material was removed from a PDF via a censor rule, an action which often results in a silent removal, as the censor rule system doesn't effectively insert replacement text into PDFs.

[garethrees]

Is this the same as #218?

[garethrees]

+1 on #3033 (comment) – could we add prominence to censor rules

[HelenWDTK]

This issue has been automatically closed due to a lack of discussion or resolution for over 12 months.
Should we decide to revisit this issue in the future, it can be reopened.