Use of cloud analytics / extraction

Currently waiting for a response from Surrey Police, they should respond promptly and normally no later than (details).

Dear Surrey Police,

I am aware that companies are selling technologies to law enforcement that allow them to take vast quantities of personal data from cloud-based apps and accounts. You can read more here [https://privacyinternational.org/long-re....

I make the following request for documents/information under the Freedom of Information Act:

1. Do you use mobile phone extraction technology that includes cloud analytics / cloud extraction capabilities e.g. Cellebrite UFED Cloud Analyser, Magnet Axiom Cloud or Oxygen Forensics Cloud Extractor

2. Do you have other technologies that allow you to access cloud-based accounts and extract this data.

3. Please provide a copy of the relevant Data Protection Impact Assessment.

4. Please provide a copy of the relevant local and/or national guidance/standard operating procedure/policy.

5. Please confirm the legal basis you rely on to conduct cloud analytics/extraction.

Yours faithfully,

G Kanter-Webber

!Freedom of Information (Surrey), Surrey Police

Dear G KANTER-WEBBER,

Freedom of Information: 000535/20

I write to acknowledge receipt of your FOI request which has been recorded
under the above reference number.

We will send you a response within 20 working days.

Yours Sincerely,

Alan Bayless
Information Access Team
Surrey Police
Telephone 01483 630007

!Freedom of Information (Surrey), Surrey Police

Dear G KANTER-WEBBER,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST REFERENCE: 000535/20

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by Surrey Police on received 30/01/2020.

Whilst requests under the Act should be dealt with on an applicant blind
basis the Information Commissioner’s Officer offers guidance on the
‘Consideration of the Identity or Motives of the Applicant’ which confirms
that an applicant’s identity and motives may be relevant when considering
the context in which request(s) are made, the burden it may impose, and
the value of the request.

 

The guidance also quotes the following extract from an Upper Tribunal case
of relevance (ICO –v- Devon County Council and Dransfield):  ‘… The motive
of the requester may well be a relevant and indeed significant factor in
assessing whether the request itself is vexatious, the propose application
of Section 14 cannot side-step the question of the underlying rationale or
justification for the request…’  (Paragraph 34).

 

I am aware that several forces have received identical requests from
several individuals all with different names (possibly pseudonyms).  As a
consequence I am of the view that these individuals could be acting in
concert.

 

Section 8(1)(b) indicates that the real name of an applicant should be
used when requesting information and not any other name, for example, a
pseudonym.  The ICO guidance is quite clear and states it is the intention
of the legislation that an applicant should provide their real name so
that the request can be processed in accordance with the requirements of
the FOIA, see below link:

 

[1][1]http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guid...

 

As a consequence before I do any further work on this request I require
from you proof of identity.  In such cases ‘proof’ will be as required
under the remit of the Data Protection Act 2018 and necessitate two
photocopy documents that between them show name, address, date of birth
and a signature.  The nature of the documents supplied is up to you.

 

Pending such identification I have placed your request on hold where it
will remain for the next 20 working days.  If no response is received by
the 5^th March I shall assume that the information is no longer required
and close the request marked as ‘withdrawn’.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days (from receipt of proof of identity)  as defined by the
Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being
exempt.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
Surrey Police and look forward to your response.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Surrey Police/Information Access Team on 01483 630007 quoting
the reference number above.

Yours Sincerely,

Alan Bayless
Information Access Team
Surrey Police
Telephone 01483 630007

References

Visible links
1. http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guid...

Dear Alan,

I do not accept that you have any reasonable basis to conclude that I am not using a real name. You have only to search my name on Google ("Gabriel Kanter-Webber") to find that I am a real person (and, indeed, a minister of religion).

I will not be providing any proof of ID to you, and if you fail to respond to my request within 20 working days of it having been made, I will complain to the Information Commissioner. Entirely your decision.

Yours sincerely

G Kanter-Webber

!Freedom of Information (Surrey), Surrey Police

 

Dear G Kanter-Webber,

 

Further to our previous correspondence.

 

It has come to our attention that the request and wording thereof has
originated from the ‘Campaigns’ section of the Privacy International
website:  

[1]https://privacyinternational.org/action/...

 

ICO guidance stipulates that in considering whether a request is vexatious
(under Section 14 of FOIA), the belief that several different requestors

are acting in concert may be taken into account.  As referenced by the
‘Campaigns’ section within [2]S14 guidance , it states that examples of

relevant evidence includes:

     

·       A group’s website makes an explicit reference to a campaign
against the authority.

 

 

Notwithstanding the absence of ID previously requested (and our reasoning
for doing so), this request is refused and deemed as vexatious in line

with Section 14(1) of FOIA for the reasons as outlined and evidenced
above.   The FOI act is not intended to pursue a campaign or common

underlying grievance against a public authority – any other requests that
are identified as following a similar theme may be deemed to be vexatious

and a refusal letter may be issued.

 

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Surrey Police/Information Access Team on 01483

630007 quoting the reference number above.

Yours Sincerely,

 

Neil Coventry

Information Access Team

Surrey Police

Telephone 01483 630007

 

References

Visible links
1. https://privacyinternational.org/action/...
2. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

Dear !Freedom of Information (Surrey),

Please arrange for an internal review of your refusal notice.

My request plainly has a serious purpose and value. The text was drafted by an interest group, which - rather than making requests to each UK police force itself - invited members of the public to do so on its behalf. This is not vexatious.

I look forward to hearing back from you within 20 working days, failing which I will immediately refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

G Kanter-Webber