Freedom of Information
Internal Review decision
Internal Reviewer
Simon Pickard
Reference
IR2013018
Date
8 April 2013
Requested information
The requestor submitted the following request for information to the BBC on 7th
January 2013 under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’):
“The text of a sworn oath of a BBC application for a search warrant
has entered the public domain. An excerpt of the text of that
statement relevant to this FOI request is reproduced below.
“5. A television display generates light at specific frequencies.
Some of that light escapes through windows usually after being
reflected from one or more walls in the room in which the
television is situated. The optical detector in the detector van
uses a large lens to collect that light and focus it on to an
especially sensitive device, which converts fluctuating light
signals into electrical signals, which can be electronically
analysed. If a receiver is being used to watch broadcast programmes
then a positive reading is returned. The device gives a confidence
factor in percentage terms, which is determined by the strength of
the signal received by the detection equipment and confirms whether
or not the source of the signal is a “possible broadcast””
“6…When the detector camera was pointed at the window of the
Premises a positive signal was received indicating a TV receiver
was in use receiving a possible broadcast with a confidence factor
of 97%. ...”
--Excerpt ends--
The text in this statement makes plain that the TV detector does
NOT produce with 100% confidence that its ‘positive reading or
signal’ is indicative of a live TV broadcast being received, which
is the legally licensable factor.
Search warrants granted by Justices of the Peace and Magistrates
are based on the information contained in these sworn statements.
The execution of these warrants will inevitably impinge on the
liberty of legally TV licence free households.
It is also a criminal offence to make a false or misleading
statement to a Justice of the Peace or Magistrate under oath.
There is therefore a strong public interest in full transparency of
the capabilities of the TV detection equipment and any “confidence
factor” statistic figures quoted to Justices of the Peace and
Magistrates under oath in order to obtain search warrants.
For the avoidance of doubt I am not asking HOW the TV detectors
work, but the provenance of the results that their detection
parameters and/or statistics produce.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please answer the
following questions.
Q1. Is the “confidence factor in percentage terms” actually output
by the TV detector as described above? (Please answer Yes or No.)
If the answer to Q1 is Yes:
Q2a. What is the range of “confidence factor” percentages that the
TV detector device can produce?
Q2b. What is the MINIMUM confidence factor percentage that the BBC
will quote to a Justice of the Peace or Magistrate in order to
apply for a search warrant?
If the answer to Q1 is No:
Q2c. What is the source of the confidence factor that is quoted to
Magistrates and Justices of the Peace? (“97%” in this example)
Q3. How is the “confidence factor” percentage calculated?
Q4. Please state concisely what the “confidence factor” percentage
is a function of and what variables are used in its calculation?
Q5. The statement says that the confidence factor in percentage
terms in this particular case was “97%” of a “possible broadcast”.
Are there statistics produced which may be quoted to Justices of
the Peace and Magistrates to assist them to decide whether or not
to grant search warrants that would indicate what the confidence
factor ACTUALLY is? If so, what are they and are they provided?
Q6. In regard to the following excerpt sentence “If a receiver is
being used to watch broadcast programmes then a positive reading is
returned.”; Are there other circumstances in which a “positive
reading” or "positive signal" is also returned? If so, what are
they? (for example playing a DVD or video game)
Q7. Does the percentage “confidence factor” phrase referred to in
paragraphs 5 and 6 refer to the output from the TV detector device
in BOTH cases? Please answer Yes or No.
Q8. Does the detector provide three (3) separate outputs indicating
“Received Signal Strength”, “Possible Broadcast” and “Confidence
Factor Percentage”? If not, what are the outputs?
Q9. Is the “confidence factor” solely a function of the “Received
Signal Strength” and “Possible Broadcast” TV detector output
parameters?
Q10. Are Justices of the Peace or magistrates being made aware that
the statistical “confidence factor” percentage of the TV detector
may in fact be much LOWER if the “positive reading” were
representing an ACTUAL (rather than 'possible') broadcast detected?
Q11. Is the 97% “confidence factor” quoted in the statement above
merely the 2012 published BARB statistic that “97% of UK households
have a television”?
Q12. Does the "TV Detector" exist at all? Please answer Yes or No.”
Issues on review
The information requested was withheld on the basis that disclosure would or
would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension
or prosecution of offenders, the collection of the licence fee and the BBC’s ability to
discharge its public functions in respect of such matters. This is because it would
provide information of use to those seeking to evade and/or assist others in evading
paying the licence fee.
Decision
In considering this appeal I looked at sections 31(1)(a),(b)(d) and (g) and (2)(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act. I also referred to the ICO publications ‘the Public
Interest Test’ and ‘The Exemption for Law Enforcement’.
Whilst the Requester’s interest in knowing more about the capabilities of the TV
detection equipment used is understandable there seems little doubt that the
information requested in questions 1 to 11 would be of assistance to anyone who
was seeking to avoid detection. It therefore falls clearly within the exemption set out
in Section 31 of the Act and detailed in the letter dated 1st February sent to the
requester. In his request for an appeal the requester does not explain why he
considers that the answers would not fall within the Section 31 exemption stating
only that he disagrees with the decision and that he does not consider the answers
prejudice the discharge of the BBC’s obligations. However the information
requested is seeking to ascertain more detail as to how the detection system works
in practice and I find it difficult to follow any argument which maintains this would
not be of assistance to anyone planning to avoid detection. It seems clear that the
information requested if answered would supply information that could assist an
offender and enable him or her to avoid detection or conviction. The public interest in
favour of withholding the information requested has been clearly stated in the
original response. It may be worth pointing out that the ICO makes clear that the
public interest means the public good and not what is of interest to the public.
For the reasons stated above I do not find any evidence that there are grounds for
finding that the original response was wrong and therefore do not uphold this
appeal.
Appeal Rights
If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you can appeal to
the Information Commissioner. The contact details are: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF; Telephone
01625 545 700 or
www.ico.gov.uk