Copy of presentation given at Football IAG relating to Facial recognition

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.032467

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to request the following information relating to the Met Police's football IAG:

A copy of the presentation given at the Football IAG on 26/07/2023 relating to facial recognition by CI Brooker

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 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) & 3A(a) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

It is important to note that a Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself and any information disclosed are considered suitable for open publication, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received. Any information released under the Act is also published on the MPS website.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement - Has been applied and this is because one of the documents requested has been redacted in part (P.g.7) as we believe that some information would reveal policing tactics which could compromise future law enforcement capabilities and undermine its effectiveness.

As explained above, a Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because under the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to one individual. Once the information is published the MPS has no control over what use is made of it.

The MPS employs covert tactics in its policing operations and we believe that disclosure of the requested information in its entirety would have an adverse effect by providing those individuals who would wish to circumvent the law with invaluable intelligence, which would compromise the police service function of the prevention and detection of crime.

Disclosure of the requested information in its entirety may be used as intelligence to exploit any perceived vulnerability and this could undermine law enforcement. Criminals could gain an enhanced knowledge of the MPS’ operational capabilities and policing tactics as well as reveal any deficiencies. This would be detrimental to law enforcement.

Modern-day policing is intelligence-led and this is particularly pertinent with regard to law enforcement. The public expect police forces to use all powers and tactics available to them to prevent and detect crime or disorder and maintain public safety. However, any information released cannot be to the detriment of law enforcement.

The public interest is defined not as what the public might find interesting, but there must be some tangible benefit to the public in the disclosure of the information. The MPS appreciates the public interest in this matter, however, we believe that it is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise our ability to fulfil our core function of law enforcement.

The MPS considers that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the harm arising from disclosing the information requested.

Section 40(2) & 3A(a) – Personal Information - has also been utilised and this is because the details of an officer below the rank of Superintendent has been removed (P.g.1). The MPS considers that this officer would have no expectation that their details would be released into the public domain and we therefore consider that if released, it would breach the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Disclosure at this level of detail (name of individual police officers in the document) would breach the 1st Data Protection Principle that requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals.

There is no presumption of disclosure in relation to ‘personal data’ which is defined as: ‘any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual’

“Identifiable living individual” means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
(a) an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b) one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.’

For such disclosure to be lawful, it would be necessary to satisfy a condition within Article 6 of the GDPR. Article 6 sets out the six lawful bases, applying to all processing; one of which must be in place in every case of disclosure of personal data under FOIA, in accordance with the First Data Protection Principle.

I am satisfied that the disclosure of personal data contained within the requested information is unwarranted in the circumstances of this request. This is because the disclosure of this personal data is not necessary to satisfy the legitimate public interest and in relation to personal data, there is no presumption of disclosure. Furthermore, none of the conditions specified within Article 6 of the GDPR would be met.

Disclosure

Please find attached the following documents, redacted as indicated above:

LFR Presentation given at the Football IAG on 26/07/2023
LFR Leaflet distributed at the meeting