Data on Live Facial Recognition (LFR)

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.030260

I note you seek access to the following information:

I noticed the Metropolitan Police has recently started testing live facial recognition (LFR) technology. Please can you tell me:

1. Which companies supply the Metropolitan police with LFR hardware including cameras?

2. Which companies supply the Metropolitan Police with LFR software?

3. How much money has been spent in total to each individual LFR hardware / software supplier?

4. In responding, please clearly state what part of the LFR hardware / software is supplied by each company.

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) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 43(2) – Commercial Interests
Section 31(1)(a) Law enforcement

Reason for decision

I have today decided to disclose information for Question One (1) and Two (2).

Recorded information held to answer Question Three (3) has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure.

Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests - provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person.

The MPS has claimed Section 43(2) of the Act for disclosure of the total cost requested is commercially sensitive. Disclosure of the requested information could be used by competitors to price future product and procurements which would harm the MPS as the public sector does have finite resources.

Sections 43(2) of the Act is both a qualified and prejudice based exemption. I am accordingly required to conduct a public interest test to determine whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. In addition to conducting a public interest test, the MPS must establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that may result from disclosure and where prejudice/harm is established but not certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring.

Harm to the Commercial Interests of the MPS

Disclosure of the requested information could be used by competitors to price future products and procurements which would harm the MPS especially considering the public sector has finite resources.

Public disclosure would harm the Met’s ability to achieve best value in future procurement processes in this area. The MPS would not want to public disclose information regarding its expenditure that would detrimentally impact on any future procurement process. The release of any information that would negatively influence, or impact upon, a future procurement process is not in the public interest.

In deciding whether to claim the commercial interests exemption (Section 43) of the Act, I have considered whether the public interest lies in favour of releasing the information requested or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding it.

Having considered the requested information for release, I acknowledge that a public interest would be satisfied in demonstrating how public money is spent. This public interest must be balanced against any identified risk.

In this case, disclosure would harm future procurement processes. Disclosure would negatively impact upon the Met’s ability to achieve best value in future procurement processes in this area.

Having considered the competing public interest factors, I have found that the public release of information that would negatively influence or impact upon a procurement process is not in the public interest. I have accordingly refused this part of your request for information.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law enforcement - While we appreciate you will have no ill meaning behind your request, disclosure could be used by those with criminal intent against the MPS or the UK as intelligence in regards to resources and law enforcement products/methodology. It is not in the public interest to disclose financial information that could be used to assist in the planning of criminal activity, due to an adverse FOIA disclosure.

Disclosure would lead to a loss of confidence in the MPS’ ability to protect the safety of the community (for example, following an adverse FOIA disclosure regarding service specifications in terms of financial spend).

The risks to individuals are likely to be significant if the information is used by those with the necessary criminal intent to undermine the very purpose information is held (crime detection and prevention).

Extra security measures and policing resources may need to be put into place with the disclosure of this information. This is because of the risk disclosure brings in that it could be used as intelligence by those with the necessary criminal intent to undermine policing.

The strongest reason favouring disclosure is increasing public knowledge of the use of public funds.

The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is to not undermine law enforcement tactics, methodology and resources by virtue of an adverse disclosure regarding our financial spending.

On 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 the considerations favouring non-disclosure.

The other information disclosed today ensures the public interest is met without placing law enforcement and the safety and security of the community in harm’s way.

I appreciate this is not the decision you would have liked for this part of your request. However this decision has been made on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public but is what would be of greater interest to the public as a whole, should the information be disclosed.

Disclosure

Q1 - Which companies supply the Metropolitan police with LFR hardware including cameras?
Q2 - Which companies supply the Metropolitan Police with LFR software?

The Facial recognition system is supplied by NEC.

The CCTV cameras used for LFR deployments are supplied by AXIS.

Q4 - In responding, please clearly state what part of the LFR hardware / software is supplied by each company.

The Facial recognition system is supplied by NEC.

The CCTV cameras used for LFR deployments are supplied by AXIS.

To provide further information in regards to the MPS spend on Facial Recognition Hardware and Software, the MPS is happy to provide the attached document which details our procurement of Facial Recognition Technology, with the redacted contract values .