Prevent and Internet filtering policies

Jim Killock made this Freedom of Information request to University of Hull This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was successful.

Dear University of Hull,

Can you please supply:

(1) your policy or policy guidance for duties under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 duties for the various local authorities listed in Schedule 6, known as “Prevent”;

(2) your policy relating to Internet filtering, blocking and prevention of access to material deemed inappropriate;

(3) the name of any providers of Internet filtering and blocking services that you use, or else a statement that you do not block or filter content at all;

(4) a list of agreements, arrangements or Memorandums of Understanding between yourselves and bodies such as the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), or Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) of the City of London Police, to receive lists of illegal or illicit content, for instance for the purposes of blocking.

Finally, can you:

(5) tell me if any filtering or blocking service that you use incorporates lists from the IWF, CTIRU or PIPCU, and which lists are incorporated; and

(6) provide to me any clauses within any contract or terms and conditions of service agreed with your filtering and blocking providers that relate to their use of information from the IWF, CTIRU or PIPCU.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Killock

Dan Palmer-Dunk, University of Hull

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Killock,

 

I can confirm (in part) that the information you have requested is held by
the University.  Please find our response to your Freedom of Information
request below.

 

The University does not (at this time) have a specific Prevent Policy,
however Prevent is included within the Safeguarding work stream, and the
attached Policy and Regulations may therefore be of interest to you.  Any
other documents relating to the strategic implementation of Prevent has
been withheld pursuant to sections 24 and 31 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (the Act).  This is because to release the information would be
likely to prejudice both National Security and Law Enforcement by allowing
those with such intentions to identify provisions made by the University
to monitor suspect activity and protect sensitive information and thereby
exploit and perceived weaknesses.  More information on the application on
this exemption can be found below.

 

The University’s does not (aside from automated malware blocks) filter web
traffic.  The ICT Regulations and guidance (which describe acceptable use)
are available at the below link:

 

[1]http://www2.hull.ac.uk/ICT/policies-and-...

 

 

 

Section 31(1)(a) – Law Enforcement and Section 24(1) – National Security

 

When these exemptions are engaged a public authority must evidence the
prejudice (harm) that it is envisaged disclosure would or would be likely
to cause, and also balance the public interest in disclosure against the
public interest in maintaining the exemption.  As these issues are closely
related, the below serves each function for both exemptions in tandem.

 

Harm

 

Releasing the information in question would be likely to provide valuable
intelligence to those with criminal intentions as to the type of both
information systems and physical security that is in place at the
University, making the University more vulnerable to offences against it. 
Disclosure would therefore be likely to undermine national security by
allowing those with extremist views to exploit any area of weakness that
they perceive from the information.

 

Public Interest Test

 

For Disclosure

 

There is a public interest in how the University is implementing Prevent
obligations, in particular whether the measures put in place are
prejudicial to particular groups of students and are proportional to the
risk posed.  Furthermore, there is a public interest in knowing that such
measures do not leave gaps in awareness and that the security and risks to
students, staff and visitors is being managed effectively.

 

Against Disclosure

 

The threat from terrorism and extremism is currently rated as ‘SEVERE’ by
the security services.  This threat is unpredictable and ever changing; no
one is able to identify what information may be of benefit to extremists
of any background, and it must be assumed that all of this information
would be likely to be of use to those wishing to pursue extremist or
terrorist (and therefore criminal) ends.

 

Decision

 

Whilst releasing the information requested would assist the public
understand the nature of the duty imposed on the University, and how this
might affect the monitoring of normal day-to-day activity by staff and
students, it is not possible to forecast what use may be made of
information by those with criminal intentions.  The University takes the
view that the least risk arises from non-disclosure.

 

For these reasons I have decided that the factors against disclosure
outweigh the factors for disclosure, and that the information should
therefore be withheld.

 

 

Your request is subject to the terms of the Freedom of Information Act
2000.  Under these terms, you have the right of complaint.  Your initial
course of action should be through the University’s own complaints
procedure.  In the first instance please contact [2][email address] or the
University Registrar and Secretary, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX
within 20 days from the date of this email.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint,
you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.  Phone: 0303 123 1113  Website: [3]www.ico.gov.uk. 
There is no charge for making an appeal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Dan Palmer-Dunk

Information Compliance Officer

University of Hull

Hull, HU6 7RX

[4]www.hull.ac.uk

01482 466594

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear University of Hull,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of University of Hull's handling of my FOI request 'Prevent and Internet filtering policies'.

In relation to:

(4) a list of agreements, arrangements or Memorandums of Understanding between yourselves and bodies such as the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), or Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) of the City of London Police, to receive lists of illegal or illicit content, for instance for the purposes of blocking.

(5) tell me if any filtering or blocking service that you use incorporates lists from the IWF, CTIRU or PIPCU, and which lists are incorporated; and

(6) provide to me any clauses within any contract or terms and conditions of service agreed with your filtering and blocking providers that relate to their use of information from the IWF, CTIRU or PIPCU.

It should not be a problem to be clear about whether law enforcement bodies are supplying content block lists to Universities, directly or through products. Most Universities have told us that they have no direct arrangements, but where they block, certain lists are incorporated, but not through contractual arrangements.

In relation to questions 5 and 6, we have already established that most products state when they incorporate these lists, but do not do so in contract. It would be helpful if you can confirm this in your case.

Blocking websites does not in itself constitute a law enforcement activity designed to have a serious impact on the prevention or detection of crime, nor a national security activity, in our view. This is firstly because it is not illegal to view websites, nor to provide access to them. In the case of IWF lists, where viewing material is illegal, use of their lists has always been framed as a service to customers, to prevent them from accessing this material inadvertently, rather than a law enforcement activity. The Prevent duty, meanwhile, is framed as an attempt to reduce radicalisation, rather than the commissioning of crime as such. Attempts have been made to ensure that it is not perceived as a “law enforcement” or national security issue, but as a safeguarding approach. As such, secrecy and non-disclosure would in our view be counter-productive.

Blocking is a form of censorship, which in order to be legitimate needs to be transparent and accountable. This is very important in an academic context, where access to information should not normally be restricted, and restrictions should have careful management.

This first stage of transparency and accountability is to know who is blocking what and why; with lists compiled by whom. Mistakes may need correction, and people who are subject to restrictions need to know that they are in place. When these restrictions are in partnership with or directed by law enforcement, this is of course even more important.

This includes, in our view, a duty to disclose that agreements along these lines are not in place.

General blocking agreements that also include the handing over of information to law enforcement agencies may constitute a form of surveillance activity, which may be in some cases justifiable, but in order to be lawful and fully accountable should be introduced through dedicated powers and warrants such as those specified in the Investigatory Powers Act. You would of course not be under an obligation to disclose this through FoI.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Yours faithfully,

Jim Killock

Katie J Skilton, University of Hull

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Killock

Thank you for your email of 16 June 2017 requesting an internal review of
how your Freedom of Information Act request (FOI 1243) was handled.

I have conducted a review in accordance with my role as the Acting
Director of Governance and Compliance at the University of Hull and I am
writing to inform you of the conclusions of that review.

o I have considered the University’s response to questions 4, 5 and 6 of
your request, in accordance with the parameters of your email. The
University’s response to these questions was incorporated within the
third paragraph of the response submitted to you, namely, “The
University does not (aside from automated malware blocks) filter web
traffic. The ICT Regulations and guidance (which describe acceptable
use) are available at the below link:
[1]http://www2.hull.ac.uk/ICT/policies-and-.... Although
the University’s response did not clearly address questions 4, 5 and 6
individually, these three questions related specifically to internet
filtering and blocking services, for which the response concluded, the
University does not undertake. Given the University does not filter or
block internet content, these questions were deemed to be
inapplicable. For clarity, the University does not hold a list of
agreements, arrangements or memorandums of understandings with other
bodies for the purpose of blocking because the University does not
block or filter internet material; the University does not have a
filtering or blocking service, thus cannot incorporate lists from
other bodies; and finally, the University cannot provide clauses
within any contract or terms and conditions of service with filtering
and blocking providers because the University does not engage them.

 

o To confirm, the University’s decision to withhold information related
only to question 1 of your request, i.e. documents referring to the
strategic implementation of the Prevent duty. These exemptions
(sections 24 and 31) did not relate to internet blocking / filtering
because the University does not undertake this activity.

 

In light of the above I have concluded that:

o The University could have been clearer in the response submitted to
you, addressing each question individually; we will take this into
account when responding to future requests; and
o The original conclusion that the University could not submit this
information was correct. This is because the University does not
undertake blocking or filtering activity and, therefore, does not hold
this information.

 

I do hope this response is satisfactory and I apologise for any confusion
which may have resulted from the way in which the University’s original
response was structured.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further
information or if I can assist further.

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint,
you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at: The
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.  Phone: 0303 123 1113. Website: www.ico.gov.uk.  There
is no charge for making an appeal.

Kind regards

Katie Skilton

 

 

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
||Katie Skilton | Acting Director of Governance and Compliance | |
||Governance and Compliance |
|| |
||University of Hull |
|| |
||Hull, HU6 7RX, UK |
|| |
||[2]www.hull.ac.uk |
|| |
||[3][email address] | 01482 466308 |
|| |
||  [4]@UniOfHull       [5]/UniversityOfHull      [6]universityofhull |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

 

 

 

 

This message is private and confidential.  If you have received this
message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www2.hull.ac.uk/ICT/policies-and-...
2. http://www.hull.ac.uk/
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://twitter.com/UniOfHull
5. https://www.facebook.com/UniversityOfHull/
6. https://www.instagram.com/universityofhu...

Dear Katie J Skilton,

Thank you, that is very helpful and is appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Killock