Use case · Public sector · FOI
Freedom of information: release records while protecting personal data
Anonimatum Team
In short
FOI laws favour disclosure, but third-party personal data is protected: section 40 in the UK, exemptions 6 and 7(C) in the US. The usual answer is partial release, with the personal details redacted and the rest disclosed.
Most documents released under freedom of information were never written with publication in mind. A planning report names the neighbour who complained, a grant decision lists recipients and an incident log records witnesses with their home addresses. The request is legitimate, and so is the privacy of those people.
Both the UK and US regimes resolve this the same way in practice: disclose what can be disclosed and redact only what is exempt. This page explains the rules in each jurisdiction and how to turn them into a consistent redaction workflow.
United Kingdom: FOIA section 40 and the ICO
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, section 40 deals with personal information. If the requester asks for their own data, section 40(1) applies and the request should be handled as a subject access request under the UK GDPR. If the information is someone else's personal data, section 40(2) exempts it where disclosure to the world would breach the data protection principles, among other conditions.
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance on section 40 and regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations explains the test: you must assess whether disclosure would be lawful under data protection law, usually by weighing the legitimate interest in disclosure against the individual's rights. Senior officials acting in a public role generally have lower expectations of privacy than junior staff or members of the public.
Commercially sensitive material is covered separately by section 43 (trade secrets and commercial interests). In both cases the exemption usually applies to parts of a document, not the whole of it.
United States: FOIA exemptions 6 and 7(C)
The federal FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552) protects privacy through two exemptions. Exemption 6 covers personnel, medical and similar files whose disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption 7(C) covers records compiled for law enforcement purposes where disclosure could reasonably be expected to be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Agencies balance the privacy interest against the public interest in shedding light on government operations.
The statute also requires agencies to release any reasonably segregable portion of a record after deleting the exempt parts. Withholding an entire report because one page contains a home address is rarely defensible. Many states have their own public records laws with similar privacy exemptions.
What to look for before release
Personal data rarely sits only in the header. Review the whole document, attachments included, for personal data such as:
- Names, signatures and identifiers (National Insurance or Social Security numbers, case reference numbers linked to a person).
- Home addresses, phone numbers and personal email addresses.
- Health, benefit or disciplinary information about identifiable people.
- Vehicle registration plates and bank details in invoices or claims.
- File metadata such as author names and internal paths.
Equally, do not over-redact. Names and job titles of officials acting in their public role, dates, reference numbers and figures the public is entitled to see should normally stay visible. Over-redaction leads to complaints to the ICO or administrative appeals.
A repeatable redaction workflow
Before releasing a document
- Identify which exemptions apply and to which parts of the record.
- Agree what stays visible: officials, dates, references, figures.
- Detect personal data across every page, including scanned pages and annexes.
- Review each proposed redaction before applying it.
- Apply true redaction that removes the content and strip PDF metadata.
- Tell the requester what was withheld and under which exemption.
Drawing black boxes in a PDF editor often leaves the text underneath, which can be copied or extracted. For a disclosure log or a public reading room, redaction must be irreversible. The full step-by-step list is in our checklist for publishing documents safely.
Worked example (fictitious)
A council receives a request for all complaints about noise from a fictitious bar, “The Old Mill”, over the last year. The file holds twelve emails from residents, two officer inspection reports and the licensing decision. A release that respects section 40 typically looks like this:
| Item | Treatment | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Residents' names, emails and flat numbers | Redacted | Third-party personal data; release to the world would be unfair |
| Content of the complaints (times, type of noise) | Released | Explains the council's decision; no longer identifies anyone once names and addresses go |
| Name and job title of the licensing officer | Released | Official acting in a public role |
| Name of the bar and its licence conditions | Released | Business information already on the public register |
| A resident's mention of their own medical condition | Redacted | Special category data with no public interest in disclosure |
The cover letter cites section 40(2) for the redacted parts. The same reasoning applies to a US agency: names and contact details of complainants go under exemption 6, while the substance of the complaints and the agency's response are released as reasonably segregable material.
How Anonimatum helps
Anonimatum detects names, addresses, ID numbers, IBANs, phone numbers, registration plates, signatures and QR codes with its own AI running on servers in the European Union, without sending text to external language-model APIs. Scanned PDFs go through OCR, and every proposed redaction can be reviewed and adjusted before it is applied.
A whitelist (reverse anonymization) keeps the names of officials visible while everything else is redacted, and since version 1.9.0 the redacted PDF can be published directly to your organisation's case management system or transparency portal (REST or CMIS) under a neutral file name. The group audit log records each operation without storing document names or content.
Frequently asked questions
Is removing the name enough?
Not always. If the address, a distinctive job title or the context still identifies the person, the information remains personal data. Review the whole record, not just the names.
Should officials' names be redacted?
Usually not for senior staff acting in a public role. In the UK the ICO guidance considers seniority and expectations; in the US agencies weigh the privacy interest case by case. Junior staff may warrant more protection.
What if the requester asks for their own information?
In the UK that is a subject access request under the UK GDPR, not an FOI request. In the US, individuals can also use the Privacy Act for records about themselves held in agency systems of records.
Can I withhold the whole document?
Only if no part can be released. Both regimes expect partial disclosure: the US FOIA explicitly requires release of reasonably segregable portions.
Redact FOI releases with confidence
See the plans and start redacting your next disclosure today, with review before every change and AI hosted in the EU.