Dear Ms King

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018070000613

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 16/07/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"a) Which police forces or other authorities, i.e. local councils,
business partnerships, etc, have you demonstrated live automated facial
recognition (AFR) to.
 
b) Which police forces or other authorities, i.e. local councils, business
partnerships, etc have joints trials or deployments of live AFR with
yourself planned (please advise dates).
 
As per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MeFwqsf... the Police and Crime
Committee questions on 4th July 2018, answers by Cressida Dick:
 
c) Please advise the date of the end of the Met Police’s trial of live
AFR.
 
d) Which ‘academics’ and ’independent people’ will take part in the
evaluation of the live AFR trials as mentioned in the above committee
meeting.
 
e) Please advise when the publication of the evaluation is due.
 
f) It was stated that a ‘considerable amount of legislation’ and ‘a
variety of different parts of the law are relevant’ to the use of live
AFR.  Please could you advise these relevant laws/legislations.
 
g) It was stated the commander that authorises every live AFR deployment
runs through a ‘set of questions’ so that the activity in the live AFR
trials are lawful.  Please could you supply this set of ‘questions’.
 
h) Please advise the types of cameras used in the trials of live AFR, for
example bodyworn, fixed or static CCTV, mobile car/van/handheld, etc.
 
i) Whether you have used any cameras that are not owned by the
Metropolitan Police, if so please advise who owns them and the type (as
per question h) of cameras those are.
 
j) Please supply the Privacy Impact Assessment for the use of live AFR
which was due to be 'published in the second quarter of 2018.' as per
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

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

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear  Ms King

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018080000746

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to  2018070000613 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on  15/08/2018.  

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

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Ms King

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018080000746

Further to our earlier correspondence dated [insert date], I am now able
to provide a response to your complaint concerning Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request reference number: 2018070000613.  

Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:

'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.'

In the circumstances of your request, neither the information requested
nor a refusal notice was provided to you within 20 working days.
Therefore, the MPS have not complied with the requirements of Section 10
of the Act.

The Information Manager with responsibility for your request is currently
collating information relevant to your request. Unfortunately enquiries
have taken longer than anticipated. One enquiry is outstanding.

A response will be completed as soon as the final enquiry is concluded and
a draft response will be circulated to the business area concerned for
approval and quality assurance.

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 MPS response to 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.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Ms. King,

I am pleased to let you know that I have now retrieved the response to the final question outstanding. The whole response will now need to be circulated for approval and quality assurance as Yvette explained previously.

Unfortunately there are some technical issues with the system the response is stored on and we are unable to access this at present. Hopefully this should be fixed in the next few days and I endeavour to get a response to you by Thursday next week.

I apologise for the delay and thank you for your continued patience.

Kind Regards

Jen Powell

show quoted sections

Dear Ms. King,

I am pleased to let you know that I have now retrieved the response to the final question outstanding. The whole response will now need to be circulated for approval and quality assurance as Yvette explained previously.

Unfortunately there are some technical issues with the system the response is stored on and we are unable to access this at present. Hopefully this should be fixed in the next few days and I endeavour to get a response to you by Thursday next week.

I apologise for the delay and thank you for your continued patience.

Kind Regards

Jen Powell

show quoted sections

Dear Ms. King,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018070000613

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

a) Which police forces or other authorities, i.e. local councils, business
partnerships, etc, have you demonstrated live automated facial recognition
(AFR) to.

 b) Which police forces or other authorities, i.e. local councils,
business partnerships, etc have joints trials or deployments of live AFR
with yourself planned (please advise dates).

 As per [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MeFwqsf... the Police and
Crime Committee questions on 4th July 2018, answers by Cressida Dick:

c) Please advise the date of the end of the Met Police’s trial of live
AFR.

d) Which ‘academics’ and ’independent people’ will take part in the
evaluation of the live AFR trials as mentioned in the above committee
meeting.

e) Please advise when the publication of the evaluation is due.

f) It was stated that a ‘considerable amount of legislation’ and ‘a
variety of different parts of the law are relevant’ to the use of live
AFR.  Please could you advise these relevant laws/legislations.

g) It was stated the commander that authorises every live AFR deployment
runs through a ‘set of questions’ so that the activity in the live AFR
trials are lawful.  Please could you supply this set of ‘questions’.

h) Please advise the types of cameras used in the trials of live AFR, for
example bodyworn, fixed or static CCTV, mobile car/van/handheld, etc.

i) Whether you have used any cameras that are not owned by the
Metropolitan Police, if so please advise who owns them and the type (as
per question h) of cameras those are.

j) Please supply the Privacy Impact Assessment for the use of live AFR
which was due to be 'published in the second quarter of 2018.' as per
[2]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

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.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in
getting this response to you and your continued patience.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the below information to you.

In addition to this The Metropolitan Police can neither confirm nor deny
whether any other information is held in relation to the covert use of
facial recognition technology as the duty in Section 1 (1) (a) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following
exemptions:

Section 24(2) National Security

Section 31 (3) Law Enforcement

Confirming or denying that any other information is held in relation to
the covert use of facial recognition technology would potentially show
criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the
MPS are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their
criminal/terrorist activities.   Please note this response should not be
taken to as an indication of whether or not information in relation to the
covert used of facial recognition information is held.

Please see the legal annex for further information on the exemptions
applied in respect of your request.

Request

a) Which police forces or other authorities, i.e. local councils, business
partnerships, etc, have you demonstrated live automated facial recognition
(AFR) to

MOPAC

Surveillance Commissioners 

Humberside Police

BTP

Westfield Shopping Centre (Stratford)

Surveillance Camera Commissioner

London Policing Ethics panel

GLA

Information Commissioners Office

b) Which police forces or other authorities, i.e. local councils, business
partnerships, etc have joints trials or deployments of live AFR with
yourself planned (please advise dates).South Wales Police, Leicestershire
Police and Humberside Police. South Wales Police have finished their
trials and no further deployments scheduled at present, (06.09.2018). 

As per [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MeFwqsf... the Police and Crime
Committee questions on 4th July 2018, answers by Cressida Dick:

c) Please advise the date of the end of the Met Police’s trial of live
AFR.

Provisionally by 30.11.2018.

d) Which ‘academics’ and ’independent people’ will take part in the
evaluation of the live AFR trials as mentioned in the above committee
meeting.

Representatives from the Department of Sociology, University of Essex and
National Physics Laboratory.

e) Please advise when the publication of the evaluation is due.

To be advised, realistically in January 2019.

f) It was stated that a ‘considerable amount of legislation’ and ‘a
variety of different parts of the law are relevant’ to the use of live
AFR.  Please could you advise these relevant laws/legislations?

This information can be found at the following website:

[4]https://www.met.police.uk/live-facial-re...

g) It was stated the commander that authorises every live AFR deployment
runs through a ‘set of questions’ so that the activity in the live AFR
trials are lawful.  Please could you supply this set of ‘questions’.

[5]https://www.biometricupdate.com/201807/l...

The above link only identifies the fact that a Commander asks a series of
questions relating to each proposed deployment.  An operational mandate is
constructed for each deployment and takes into account the intelligence,
resourcing and other operational requirements. Additionally the DPIA is
also bespoke for a given operation and is amended accordingly. Both of
these documents are reviewed by a Commander to ensure the legitimacy of
the operation.

h) Please advise the types of cameras used in the trials of live AFR, for
example bodyworn, fixed or static CCTV, mobile car/van/handheld, etc.

All LFR cameras are fixed plot.

i) Whether you have used any cameras that are not owned by the
Metropolitan Police, if so please advise who owns them and the type (as
per question h) of cameras those are.

No

j) Please supply the Privacy Impact Assessment for the use of live AFR
which was due to be 'published in the second quarter of 2018.' as per
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

[7]This is also produced on the web site:
https://www.met.police.uk/live-facial-re...

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:

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:

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 Section 24 and Section 31

In considering whether or not the MPS can confirm (or deny) that this
information is held, I have conducted a Prejudice Test to establish any
potential harm.

Any disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act is a release to the
public at large.  Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in
which the Police Service may or may not deploy the use of covert facial
recognition would lead to an increase of harm to covert investigations and
compromise law enforcement.  This would be to the detriment of providing
an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to
all members of the public.

Public interest considerations favouring confirming or denying whether the
information is held - Section 24

The confirmation or denial that the MPS holds information in relation to
the covert use of facial recognition technology would provide an insight
into the type of technology used by the force for covert surveillance.

Public interest considerations favouring neither confirming nor denying
whether the information is held - Section 24

The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored.  Since 2006, the UK
Government has published the threat level, based upon current intelligence
and that threat has remained at the second highest level 'severe', except
for two short periods during August 2006, June and July 2007, and more
recently in May and June this year following the Manchester and London
terrorist attacks, when it was raised to the highest threat, 'critical'.  
The UK continues to face a sustained threat from violent extremists and
terrorists and the current threat level is set at 'severe'.  To confirm or
deny information is held in relation to any other information relating to
the covert practise of facial recognition would show criminals what the
capacity, tactile abilities of the MPS are, allowing them to target
specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities.

Public interest considerations favouring confirming nor denying whether
the information is held - Section 31

To confirm or deny information is held would increase public knowledge in
the type of technology used by the police. It will also allow for a
greater understanding as to where force funds are being spent.

Public interest considerations favouring neither confirming nor denying
whether the information is held - Section 31

Confirming or denying whether any information is or isn't held relating to
the covert use of facial recognition technology would limit operational
capabilities as criminals/terrorist would gain a greater understanding of
the police's methods and techniques, enabling offenders to take steps to
counter them.  It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities
in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by
exposing potential vulnerabilities.  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. It would have the likelihood of
identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise
police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could
counteract the measures used against them.

Balance test

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.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
Public Interest favours the application of the neither confirm nor deny
stance in respect of  any other information held in relation to the covert
used of facial recognition technology.

Jen Powell | Information Manager | Information Rights Unit | Strategy &
Governance | METHQ | Metropolitan Police Service

Telephone 020 7230 3005 | Email [8][email address]

Address: Information Rights Unit, PO Box 57192, London, SW6 1SF

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: [9]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MeFwqsf...
2. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MeFwqsf...
4. https://www.met.police.uk/live-facial-re...
5. https://www.biometricupdate.com/201807/l...
6. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...
7. https://www.met.police.uk/live-facial-re...
8. mailto:[email address]
9. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk