Facial recognition used at Notting Hill Carnival 2016

The request was partially successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

http://news.met.police.uk/news/notting-h...
http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement...

With regards to facial recognition used at Notting Hill Carnival under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 please could you advise:

1) Which data base was used and how many images were on it?

“The database is full of images of people who are banned from the event, as well as wanted individuals who might attend to commit offences” http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/not...

2) Please advise where the photographs for the database were supplied from.

3) If there were images of people that were used that were not obtained from a police custody suite database, please advise how many?

4) Which company supplied the facial recognition facility?

5) How much did the system cost?

6) Is the facial recognition system capable of being used in real time, there and then identifying
people immediately?

7) Is the facial recognition system able to be used by police body cameras?

8) Please provide the privacy impact assessment for the facial recognition system.
Was the facial recognition system used on the existing (CCTV) cameras or were additional cameras used?

9) How many cameras was the facial recognition system able to access?

10) Are the Met Police planning on using facial recognition, such as used at Notting Hill, again?

11) Please advise the criteria used to determine whether a facial recognition system, such as the one used at Notting Hill, is deployed at events or for use on the general public.

12) Do the Met police still have access to the facial recognition system?

Some parts of this request may be easier to answer than others and in such case please could you release available data as soon as possible rather than delay the entire request.

If you are not fully certain of what it is I am asking then I look forward to contact from you as soon as possible to clarify what it is I am requesting in order to meet your obligations under the law.

If the costs of processing this request exceed the limit in the Act, please advise on what information you are able to supply within the cost limit.

Yours faithfully,

Pippa King

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms King

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016090000813

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/09/2016.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"http://news.met.police.uk/news/notting-h...
http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement...

With regards to facial recognition used at Notting Hill Carnival under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 please could you advise:

1)  Which data base was used and how many images were on it?

“The database is full of images of people who are banned from the event,
as well as  wanted individuals who might attend to commit offences”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/not...
super-recognisers-backed-up-by-facescan-cameras-to-spot-criminals-a3330216.html

2)  Please advise where the photographs for the database were supplied
from.

3)  If there were images of people that were used that were not obtained
from a police custody suite database, please advise how many?

4)  Which company supplied the facial recognition facility?

5)  How much did the system cost?

6)  Is the facial recognition system capable of being used in real time,
there and then identifying people immediately?

7)  Is the facial recognition system able to be used by police body
cameras?

8)  Please provide the privacy impact assessment for the facial
recognition system.
Was the facial recognition system used on the existing (CCTV) cameras or
were additional cameras used?

9)  How many cameras was the facial recognition system able to access?

10)  Are the Met Police planning on using facial recognition, such as used
at Notting Hill, again?  

11)  Please advise the criteria used to determine whether a facial
recognition system, such as the one used at Notting Hill, is deployed at
events or for use on the general public.

12)  Do the Met police still have access to the facial recognition system?

Some parts of this request may be easier to answer than others and in such
case please could you release available data as soon as possible rather
than delay the entire request.

If you are not fully certain of what it is I am asking then I look forward
to contact from you as soon as possible to clarify what it is I am
requesting in order to meet your obligations under the law.

If the costs of processing this request exceed the limit in the Act,
please advise on what information you are able to supply within the cost
limit."

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms King

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016090000813

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/09/2016.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

http://news.met.police.uk/news/notting-h...
http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement...
With regards to facial recognition used at Notting Hill Carnival under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 please could you advise:

1)  Which data base was used and how many images were on it? “The database
is full of images of people who are banned from the event, as well as
 wanted individuals who might attend to commit offences”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/not...
super-recognisers-backed-up-by-facescan-cameras-to-spot-criminals-a3330216.html

2)  Please advise where the photographs for the database were supplied
from.

3)  If there were images of people that were used that were not obtained
from a police custody suite database, please advise how many?

4)  Which company supplied the facial recognition facility?

5)  How much did the system cost?

6)  Is the facial recognition system capable of being used in real time,
there and then identifying people immediately?

7)  Is the facial recognition system able to be used by police body
cameras?

8)  Please provide the privacy impact assessment for the facial
recognition system. Was the facial recognition system used on the existing
(CCTV) cameras or were additional cameras used?

9)  How many cameras was the facial recognition system able to access?

10)  Are the Met Police planning on using facial recognition, such as used
at Notting Hill, again?  

11)  Please advise the criteria used to determine whether a facial
recognition system, such as the one used at Notting Hill, is deployed at
events or for use on the general public.

12)  Do the Met police still have access to the facial recognition system?
Some parts of this request may be easier to answer than others and in such
case please could you release available data as soon as possible rather
than delay the entire request. If you are not fully certain of what it is
I am asking then I look forward to contact from you as soon as possible to
clarify what it is I am requesting in order to meet your obligations under
the law. If the costs of processing this request exceed the limit in the
Act, please advise on what information you are able to supply within the
cost limit.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.  Please see the legal annex for further
information on this section of the Act.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 31 law Enforcement

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 21st November
2016.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Yours sincerely

Jennifer Powell
Freedom of Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(2) provides:

(2) Where-

a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Fao: Jennifer Powell
Ref: Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016090000813

A reply to the above Freedom of Information request was due back on 21st November 2016, this is now overdue. Please could you reply to my Freedom of Information request or advise why you are unable to.

Thank you for your time on this.

Yours faithfully,

Pippa King

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Pippa King,

Apologies for not getting in touch sooner. I have drafted your response which is currently awaiting approval with the higher level decision makers in line with legisation. I hope to get something to you early next week. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.

Kind Regards

Jen Powell

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Att: Jen Powell.

I appreciate the 'higher level decision makers in line with legisation' have to make an decision on my Freedom of Information request - but could you please either respond or conduct an internal review as to why the Metropolitan Police have not given the information requested.

Yours faithfully,

Pippa King

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms King

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2016120000395

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to 2016090000813 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 10/12/2016.  

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
 The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

David Edwards
Information Rights Unit

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms King

Freedom of Information Internal Review Reference No: 2016120000395

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 10/12/2016 requesting
an internal review in relation to your FoIA request (ref: 2016090000813).
 

DECISION

I have determined that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has not
complied with your request within a reasonable timeframe.

REASON FOR DECISION        

Timeline of request ref:2016090000813

23/09/2016 - Your request for information was received by the MPS

19/10/2016 - You were issued with a refusal notice advising that the MPS
were considering the applicability of a qualified exemption (i.e. section
31) and provided with an estimate of the date by which a decision is
expected to be reached (i.e. 21/11/2016).

24/11/2016 – Following correspondence from yourself, a brief update was
provided to you.

10/12/2016 - You requested an internal review.

At the time of writing, a response to your request is still outstanding.

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) states:

‘(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.’

Section 10(1) of the Act provides that:

‘Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with
section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth
working day following the date of receipt.’

Section 10(3) exempts a public authority from the need to provide the
information requested ‘until such time as is reasonable in the
circumstances’ if, and to the extent that, section 1(1) would not apply
due to the application of one or more of the qualified exemptions listed
in part II of the Act. Qualified exemptions are subject to a public
interest test.

However, it would still be necessary to provide a section 17(1) refusal
notice within 20 working days stating that the information may be exempt
and specifying the relevant exemption(s).

Where a public authority is considering applying an exemption that
requires a public interest test, section 17(2) requires the refusal notice
to indicate that no decision regarding the application of the exemption
has yet been reached and to contain an estimate of the date by which the
authority expects that such a decision will be reached.

Section 17(3) requires a public authority that is to any extent applying
an exemption that requires a public interest test to state the reasons for
claiming that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs
the public interest in disclosing the information ‘within such time as is
reasonable in the circumstances’.

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the length of time a
public authority may take to consider the public interest in relation to
the application of a qualified exemption.

However, the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance titled ‘Time
limits for compliance under the Freedom of Information Act (Section 10)’
indicates that the total time taken to respond to a request should not
exceed 40 working days and that any extension beyond this should be
exceptional.
https://ico.org.uk/media/1165/time-for-c...

With this mind, I have determined that the MPS has not complied with your
request within a reasonable timeframe.

The MPS is currently considering the public interest in relation to your
request and a response will be provided to you as soon as possible.

As a response to your request is currently outstanding, I am unable to
complete a full internal review in relation to your request. However,
should you be dissatisfied with the outcome of your request, you may
request an internal review in relation to the decision.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the MPS
for any inconvenience caused by the time taken to respond to your Freedom
of Information Act request. The progress of your request will continue to
be monitored and the issues you have raised have been recorded, enabling
us to provide a more efficient and effective service in the future.

Yours sincerely

Brian Wilson
Information Law Advisor

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms King,  

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2016090000813

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/09/2016.  I apologise for
the delay in getting this information to you and for any inconvenience
caused.  I note you seek access to the following information:

http://news.met.police.uk/news/notting-h...
http://news.met.police.uk/news/statement...

With regards to facial recognition used at Notting Hill Carnival under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 please could you advise:

1)a  Which data base was used and
1b) how many images were on it? “The database is full of images of people
who are banned from the event, as well as  wanted individuals who might
attend to commit offences”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/not...

2)  Please advise where the photographs for the database were supplied
from.

3)  If there were images of people that were used that were not obtained
from a police custody suite database, please advise how many?

4)  Which company supplied the facial recognition facility?

5)  How much did the system cost?

6)  Is the facial recognition system capable of being used in real time,
there and then identifying people immediately?

7)  Is the facial recognition system able to be used by police body
cameras?

8)  Please provide the privacy impact assessment for the facial
recognition system. Was the facial recognition system used on the existing
(CCTV) cameras or were additional cameras used?

9)  How many cameras was the facial recognition system able to access?

10)  Are the Met Police planning on using facial recognition, such as used
at Notting Hill, again?  

11)  Please advise the criteria used to determine whether a facial
recognition system, such as the one used at Notting Hill, is deployed at
events or for use on the general public.

12)  Do the Met police still have access to the facial recognition system?

Some parts of this request may be easier to answer than others and in such
case please could you release available data as soon as possible rather
than delay the entire request.

If you are not fully certain of what it is I am asking then I look forward
to contact from you as soon as possible to clarify what it is I am
requesting in order to meet your obligations under the law.

If the costs of processing this request exceed the limit in the Act,
please advise on what information you are able to supply within the cost
limit..

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS.  The searches located information relevant to your
request.

DECISION
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information.  Some
data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this
response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  Please see the legal annex for further
information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request.

REASONS FOR DECISION
The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether it
holds the information in relation to question 7 as the duty in Section
1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply by
virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 24(2) National Security;
Section 31(3) Law enforcement;

In relation to questions 1b, 4, 5, 6, and 9 this information is exempt by
virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 24(1) National Security;
Section 31(1a) Law enforcement;

In relation to question 8 this information is exempt by virtue of Section
22 (1)(a) Information Intended for Future Publication;

Please see the legal annex for evidence of 'harm' and the completion of
the public interest tests.

DISCLOSURE
Please see below response to questions 1a, 2, 3 10, 11 & 12.

Question 1a
Which data base was used and how many images were on it? “The database is
full of images of people who are banned from the event, as well as  wanted
individuals who might attend to commit
offences”http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/not...

Response
Wanted individuals were identified from EWMS (Electronic Wanted and
Missing System) taking into consideration geography and crime priorities
for Notting Hill Carnival.  

Question 2
Please advise where the photographs for the database were supplied from.

Response
MPS Custody Imaging System (CIS)

Question 3
If there were images of people that were used that were not obtained from
a police custody suite database, please advise how many?

Response
All images came from the MPS Custody Imaging System (CIS)

Question 10
Are the Met Police planning on using facial recognition, such as used at
Notting Hill, again?  

Response
This was the first phase of a trial of the technology and while no
individuals were identified by the equipment, the trial has resulted in
positive learning to take forward to gain a full understanding of how it
can best be used in future.

Question 11
Please advise the criteria used to determine whether a facial recognition
system, such as the one used at Notting Hill, is deployed at events or for
use on the general public.

Response
No information held.  At the time of the request it is still under
evaluation.

Question 12
Do the Met police still have access to the facial recognition system?

Response
Yes

Yours sincerely

Jennifer Powell
Freedom of Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:
(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 24 (2) of the Act provides:
(2)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for  the purpose of
safeguarding national security.

Section 31 (3) of the Act provides:
 (3)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice
any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

Evidence of Harm
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have
considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

By confirming or denying that the MPS hold any information regarding the
use of facial recognition and police body cameras would in itself disclose
exempt information. Stating information is held would confirm usage and
the opposite if there is no such information.

Any disclosure under FOIA is a disclosure to the world at large, and
confirming or denying information regarding the use of facial recognition
and police body cameras which may or may not exist, and which (should they
exist) the police service may or may not deploy in specific circumstances
would prejudice law enforcement. If the requested information was held by
the force, confirmation of this fact would reveal that the police have
access to sophisticated techniques. This would be damaging as it would (i)
limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a
greater understanding of the police's methods and techniques, enabling
them to take steps to counter them; and (ii) provide an indication to any
individual who may be undertaking criminal/terrorist activities that the
police service may be aware of their presence and taking counter terrorist
measures.

This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several
different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal
fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised crime
throughout the UK will be able to 'map' where the use of certain tactics
are or are not deployed. This can be useful information to those
committing crimes and terrorist activities.

For example, to state that no information is held in one area and then
exempt information held in another, would itself provide acknowledgement
that the technique has been used at that second location.  This could have
the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations, enabling
individuals to become aware of whether their activities have been
detected. This in turn could lead to them moving their operations,
destroying evidence, or avoiding those areas, ultimately compromising
police tactics, operations and future prosecutions.

Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used
to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations.  Information
that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will
adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national
security and law enforcement.

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any information is held
for Section 24
The public is entitled to know where their public funds are being spent
and a better informed public can take steps to protect themselves.

Factors against confirming or denying whether any  information is held for
Section 24
By confirming or denying the use of specialist techniques could render
security measures less effective. This could lead to the compromise of
ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of
the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public

Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any information is held
for Section 31
Better awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the
public, and the public would be able to take steps to protect themselves.

Factors against confirming or denying whether any information is held for
Section 31
By confirming or denying whether such techniques are used would compromise
law enforcement tactics and undermine the partnership approach which would
hinder the prevention or detection of crime. This would impact on police
resources, more crime would then be committed and individuals placed at
risk.

Balancing Test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the MPS will
not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could
undermine national security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is
a public interest in the transparency of policing operations, there is a
very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the
integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.  

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is
appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be
overridden in exceptional circumstances.

There is also no requirement to satisfy any public concern over the
legality of police operations and the tactics we may or may not use.
Forces are already held to account by statute, for example the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and
independent bodies such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the
Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Office of the
Surveillance Commissioner. Our accountability is therefore not enhanced by
confirming or denying whether any information is held.

Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for
confirming or denying whether any information is held regarding facial
recognition and police body cameras is not made out.

None of the above can be viewed as an inference that the information you
seek in relation to question 7 does or does not exist.

Section 22
(1) Information is exempt information if—
(a) the information is held by the public authority with a view to its
publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date
(whether determined or not),
(b) the information was already held with a view to such publication at
the time when the request for information was made, and
(c) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should
be withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a).

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
When information is released under the Act, it is disclosed to the world.
 It is only right that the MPS is seen as being open and transparent in
the way that it operates and there is a genuine public interest with
regards to the Privacy impact Assessment for the use of facial imaging to
arrest wanted offenders.   In addition, the disclosure of the requested
information would enhance public knowledge in  this subject matter and
disclosure of the requested information is likely to support better
informed public awareness and debate regarding the subject of facial
recognition.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
Consideration of the information is required prior to its public release.
 The spending of additional time and public funds may be wasteful if this
information was to be extracted and redacted specifically for this
request.   The MPS have confirmed that in order to be fully transparent
with the use and operational application of this equipment the intention
is to publish a redacted version of the Privacy Impact Assessment in the
near future.

Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
 I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to the Privacy
Impact Assessment for the use of facial imaging.  

Section 24(1) of the Act provides:
(1) Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is exempt
information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose
of safeguarding national security.
Section 31(1a) of the Act provides:
 (1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice-
 (a)the prevention or detection of crime,
Section 24 - Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and resources
distributed within the area of policing.  Disclosure of the requested
information would enable the general public to hold the MPS to account on
the way in which facial technology is deployed at Notting Hill Carnival.
 The information would also be likely to aid public debate on the level of
surveillance in the UK.  

Section 31 - Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
Disclosure of the requested information would lead to better public
awareness which in turn may reduce crime or lead to more information from
the public.
One of the underlying principles of the Freedom of Information Act is the
need for authorities to be more open and transparent. In this case, to
provide the full detail of costings for the mobile deployment of  facial
recognition equipment at Notting Hi Carnival would provide the community
with an awareness that public funds are being used to resource and finance
the use of expert technology to assist in the prevention or detective of
crime; the apprehension or prosecution of offenders and the administration
of justice.

Section 24 - Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
Security measures are put in place to protect the community that we serve.
 Disclosure of  the requested information would highlight to individuals
the operational capabilities of the system.  This could compromise ongoing
or future operations to protect the security of the UK and increase the
risk of harm to the public.
The usefulness of this information can be even more impactive when linked
to other information gathered from various sources.  The more information
disclosed over time gives a more detailed account of the tactical
infrastructure of, not only the MPS area, but also the country as a whole.
Any incident that results from such a disclosure would by default affect
national security.

Section 31 -  Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational
information into the public domain which would enable those with the time,
capacity and inclination to try and map strategies and tactics used for
Police Forces.  In this case, disclosure of the information may enable
individuals or terrorist organisations to identify expert technology and
methods used by the police service as part of an intelligence gathering
operation. The effectiveness of current and future strategies to combat
terrorist activity may be compromised and may also inhibit the ability to
prevent crime.

In addition to this releasing the name of the service provider would
assist the criminal fraternity with valuable information by revealing what
services they provide in turn disclosing inability and capabilities

Balancing Test

When balancing the public interest test we have to consider whether the
information should be released into the public domain.  Arguments needs to
be weighed against each other.  The most persuasive reason for disclosure
is the use of public funds which needs to be compared to the strongest
reason for non disclosure, which in this case is public safety.  The MPS
cannot disclose information which will place the public at risk by
undermining national security or law enforcement thereby assisting those
intent on committing crime.  On balance the disclosure of information
requested in questions 1b, 4, 5, 6, and 9 would not be in the public
interest.

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 10 Lambs Conduit Street, London, WC1N 3NR.
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk