Advanced CCTV
Dear Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council,
I am writing under the FOIA2000 to request the following information
- A list of all Hikvision products you council owns or operates
- A list of all "advanced CCTV" products your council owns or operates - examples of these include products that go beyond mere video recording and storing or those that have features such as temperature scanning, facial recognition, crowd monitoring [this list is illustrative]
- Data Protection Impact Assessments for all of these products your council uses
- Contracts for these product's supply - prices can be redacted
Yours faithfully,
Jake Hurfurt
Dear Mr Hurfurt,
Thank you for your e-mail received on 24 August 2021 requestion information about Advanced CCTV.
Please note you can now log a Freedom of Information request on our online portal on the following link:
https://www.knowsley.gov.uk/your-council...
I have recorded your request for information under reference F2021.08.4687.
This has been passed to the relevant service and you will receive a response by 21 September 2021.
In line with guidance published by the Information Commissioner’s Office, the council may make a charge for the provision of information – for example in order to cover the costs of postage (in line with the relevant postal charges) or charges for printing and copying (which will reflect photocopying charges levied by the council’s public libraries) or if this falls within the regulations of an EIR (Environmental Information).
You will be informed if a fee is to be applied before information is to be provided.
If you need further information please contact me.
Kind regards,
Customer Liaison Team
Knowsley Council
Archway Road
Huyton
Knowsley
Merseyside
L36 9UX
Your FOI request has been completed
Dear Jake Hurfurt
Your FOI with Reference Number : 4687 has been completed please click on the link
below to view it
[1]https://knowsleytransaction.mendixcloud....
Customer Liaison Team
Knowsley Council
Archway Road
Huyton
Merseyside
L36 9UX
[2]www.knowsley.gov.uk
[3]Knowsley
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. It may contain
privileged information and is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It
must not be distributed without consent. If you are not one of the
intended recipients, please notify the sender immediately and do not
disclose, distribute, or retain this email or any part of it and do not
take any action based on it.
Unless expressly stated, opinions in this email are those of the
individual sender, and not of Knowsley MBC. Legally binding obligations
can only be created for, or be entered into on behalf of, Knowsley MBC by
duly authorised officers or representatives.
Knowsley MBC excludes any liability whatsoever for any offence caused, any
direct or consequential loss arising from the use, or reliance on, this
e-mail or its contents. We believe but do not warrant that this e-mail and
any attachments are virus free. You must therefore take full
responsibility for virus checking and no responsibility is accepted for
loss or damage arising from viruses or changes made to this message after
it was sent. Knowsley MBC reserves the right to monitor and/or record all
e-mail communications through its network in accordance with relevant
legislation.
References
Visible links
1. https://knowsleytransaction.mendixcloud....
2. http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/
3. Stay at Home
https://www.knowsleynews.co.uk/coronavir...
Dear Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Advanced CCTV'.
Knowsley Council has failed in its duties to provide proper refusal notices for the pieces of information it wishes to keep hidden from public view which suggests a poor handling of the request. However from the references to cost I assume the refusal is liked to a Section 12 exemption, but this is a guess due to the improper nature of the response which does not meet the ICO guidance requirements to outline the exemption invoked.
Taking the assumption that it is indeed section 12 Knowsley has invoked, it has also failed to show that the exemption applies rather than the council just not wanting to share information.
- You have failed to provide any kind of estimate for the time disclosing the information and how this would exceed the cost limit. In Randall v IC EA/2007/0004 the Tribunal said an estimate must be "sensible, realistic and supported by cogent evidence" however it is clear that the council has not made an estimate at all and instead blindly decided that fulfilling the request would be too expensive. By failing to properly assess the cost limit the council suggests that this request was not handled properly and the cost exemption is wrongly applied.
- Although you do not have to provide evidence of how you arrived at the estimate, the combination of this and lack of Section 16 advice on how the request could be brought under the limit would go against the principles of a second Tribunal Ruling, Fitzsimmons v IC. Neither providing an estimate or this advice breaches the FOI code of practice and is further evidence that this claim was badly managed.
- You suggest that there is a PIA for each Hikvision Camera in use, but disclosing this requires redaction which would be too expensive. I would suggest that on review you read the ICO guidance, backed up by case law, that states redaction CANNOT be taken into account when invoking a cost limit exemption, see paragraph 15 of this document https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio....
- I would further suggest you do not even need to redact this as most other local authorities publish their CCTV camera locations proactively suggesting it is not a security risk (https://data.gov.uk/dataset/bef4fc96-65e...).
On review please take this all into account and disclose the information.
Yours faithfully,
Jake Hurfurt
Dear Mr Hurfurt
Thank you for contacting Knowsley Council on 8 September 2021 regarding an internal review.
In order for us to respond to your complaint can you please provide us with your personal email address.
For further assistance please contact the details above.
Kind regards
Customer Liaison Team
Knowsley MBC
Archway Road
Huyton
Knowsley
Merseyside
L36 9UX
Dear KMBC Complaints DCR,
Why is that a requirement? I am perfectly contactable here.
Yours sincerely,
Jake Hurfurt
Dear Mr Hurfurt,
Thank you for your request for internal review where you state the
following:
I am writing to request an internal review of Knowsley Metropolitan
Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Advanced CCTV'.
Knowsley Council has failed in its duties to provide proper refusal
notices for the pieces of information it wishes to keep hidden from public
view which suggests a poor handling of the request. However from the
references to cost I assume the refusal is liked to a Section 12
exemption, but this is a guess due to the improper nature of the response
which does not meet the ICO guidance requirements to outline the exemption
invoked.
Taking the assumption that it is indeed section 12 Knowsley has invoked,
it has also failed to show that the exemption applies rather than the
council just not wanting to share information.
- You have failed to provide any kind of estimate for the time disclosing
the information and how this would exceed the cost limit. In Randall v IC
EA/2007/0004 the Tribunal said an estimate must be "sensible, realistic
and supported by cogent evidence" however it is clear that the council has
not made an estimate at all and instead blindly decided that fulfilling
the request would be too expensive. By failing to properly assess the cost
limit the council suggests that this request was not handled properly and
the cost exemption is wrongly applied.
- Although you do not have to provide evidence of how you arrived at the
estimate, the combination of this and lack of Section 16 advice on how the
request could be brought under the limit would go against the principles
of a second Tribunal Ruling, Fitzsimmons v IC. Neither providing an
estimate or this advice breaches the FOI code of practice and is further
evidence that this claim was badly managed.
- You suggest that there is a PIA for each Hikvision Camera in use, but
disclosing this requires redaction which would be too expensive. I would
suggest that on review you read the ICO guidance, backed up by case law,
that states redaction CANNOT be taken into account when invoking a cost
limit exemption, see paragraph 15 of this document
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio....
- I would further suggest you do not even need to redact this as most
other local authorities publish their CCTV camera locations proactively
suggesting it is not a security risk
([2]https://data.gov.uk/dataset/bef4fc96-65e...).
On review please take this all into account and disclose the information.
The Council have conducted an internal review of your request and the
findings are detailed below:
Time of response
The request was received on 24 August 2021 and the Council’s response was
sent on 7 September 2021. This is within the 20 working-day limit
established under Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Review of your request
The Council has reviewed the handling of the request and the response
issued. It is acknowledged that the response provided did not meet the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by not applying
appropriate exemptions to the non-disclosure of information held. Please
accept our apologies for this. However, a revised response which meets FOI
requirements is now provided below:
1. A list of all Hikvision products your council owns or operates
This element of your request is interpreted to mean a detailed list
including model numbers of each Hikvision product the Council is
responsible for. However, the specific information you request is not held
centrally and would require a manual search of the products. The Council
are responsible for a high volume of such products which would need to be
manually inspected to ascertain the information sought. Due to the nature
of the products, this would involve a manual inspection of each device
which would involve road closures due to their deployment. This would be a
highly labour-intensive exercise which could not be undertaken without
incurring disproportionate cost. It would take a minimum of 2 hours per
device which exceeds the 18-hour cost limit. Section 12(1) of the FOI Act
has therefore been applied to this element of your request.
We can confirm, in line with Section 16 of the Act, that the total number
of Hikvision products the Council is responsible for is 70 cameras, 2 NVRs
and 4 DVRs.
2. A list of all "advanced CCTV" products your council owns or
operates - examples of these include products that go beyond mere video
recording and storing or those that have features such as temperature
scanning, facial recognition, crowd monitoring [this list is
illustrative].
The Council can confirm this information is not held.
3. Data Protection Impact Assessments for all of these
products your council uses.
The Council can confirm DPIAs are carried out on each camera owned which
are regularly reviewed in line with policies and procedures.
Please find attached copies of the DPIAs conducted for these devices.
However, Section 31(1)(a) of the Act has been applied to the camera
locations within the documentation and as such this detail is redacted.
Section 31(1)(a) of the Act is a qualified exemption and a Public Interest
Test (PIT) has been conducted accordingly. This is detailed below.
Factors in favour of disclosure
It is accepted that there is some public interest in the Council being
open and transparent about security camera locations but since the purpose
of these cameras is for security purposes this disclosure cannot
compromise security.
Factors against disclosure
It is believed that providing the information in respect of the device
locations would compromise security and increase the risk of crime and
criminal damage. It is known that such devices within Knowsley have been
specifically targeted for criminal purposes and once their whereabouts is
entered into the public domain, there is no control over where, or whom,
that such information may reach. It is considered that such information
would be likely to reach organised criminal gangs.
Section 31 of the above Act provides that information is exempt
information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the
prevention or detection of crime. It is considered that this exemption
would apply as it is believed that providing the information in respect of
the device locations would increase the risk of crime and criminal damage.
Conclusion
In considering the balance of the public interest, the factors against
disclosure outweigh those in favour. The balance of the public interest
therefore lies in the non-disclosure of the device locations and this
information is therefore exempt under Section 31(1)(a) of the Act due to
the prejudice that would be caused to the prevention and detection of
crime.
4. Contracts for these product's supply - prices can be
redacted
The Council can confirm this information is not held.
I trust this response now provides clarity on our position. However, if
you are dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review it is open
to complain to the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner’s postal
address is Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow SK9 5AF. The telephone
number for the Information Commissioner’s Office is 0303 123 1113 or 01625
545745. The e-mail address is: [3][email address].
Yours sincerely
Ian Willman
Head of Community Safety
[4]Knowsley
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. It may contain
privileged information and is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It
must not be distributed without consent. If you are not one of the
intended recipients, please notify the sender immediately and do not
disclose, distribute, or retain this email or any part of it and do not
take any action based on it.
Unless expressly stated, opinions in this email are those of the
individual sender, and not of Knowsley MBC. Legally binding obligations
can only be created for, or be entered into on behalf of, Knowsley MBC by
duly authorised officers or representatives.
Knowsley MBC excludes any liability whatsoever for any offence caused, any
direct or consequential loss arising from the use, or reliance on, this
e-mail or its contents. We believe but do not warrant that this e-mail and
any attachments are virus free. You must therefore take full
responsibility for virus checking and no responsibility is accepted for
loss or damage arising from viruses or changes made to this message after
it was sent. Knowsley MBC reserves the right to monitor and/or record all
e-mail communications through its network in accordance with relevant
legislation.
References
Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
2. https://data.gov.uk/dataset/bef4fc96-65e...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. Stay at Home
https://www.knowsleynews.co.uk/coronavir...
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now