Video evidence and the use of Amped FIVE

 

I note you seek access to the following information:

 

1. Digital Evidence Department: 

a) Does your police force deal with video and image evidence? 

b) If so, which department deals with it?

 

2.  Software: 

a) What image and video software is used in this department? 

Challenges and limitations: 

b) What are the main issues you find with Video evidence? For example, underexposure or blur image/videos?

 

3. Training and Expertise:  

a) Has your police force provided training to digital forensic staff on the use of Video Editing software? If yes, please provide details on the type of training given.

 

4. Amped Five: Do you use the software Amped FIVE in your department? 

a) if not, why is this and do you use external providers?

b) If used, what factors influenced the decision to acquire Amped FIVE?

 

5. Frequency and Scope of Use: 

a) How frequently is Amped Five used within your police force's digital forensic investigations?

b) In what types of cases or scenarios is Amped Five typically employed?

c) Are there any specific features or capabilities of Amped Five that are particularly valuable in your investigative processes?

 

6. Collaboration and Support: 

a) Does your police force collaborate with other law enforcement agencies or organizations in using Amped Five for digital forensic investigations?

b) Do you have any established relationships or partnerships with Amped Software for technical support, updates, or feedback?

 

7. Outcomes and Admissibility: 

a) Can you provide information on any cases where the use of Amped Five has contributed to successful outcomes or convictions? 

b) Have there been any instances where the results or findings obtained through the use of Amped Five have been challenged in court? If so, please provide brief details.

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 8(1)(c) – Invalid Question

Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement

 

 

Section 31 Exemption applies to Questions: 2(a), 4, 5, 6 & 7, where information has been withheld to ensure that the MPS’ IT systems are not compromised, thus making them vulnerable to cyber-attack.  The MPS utilise a number of digital tactics/applications/ software to progress multimedia casework but will not comment on specific capabilities as this could have a detrimental effect on law enforcement. 

 

The MPS has a statutory role in investigating criminal offences and deploy a range of tactics and investigative techniques to do so.  We believe that the disclosure the MPS’ IT systems could expose areas of potential vulnerabilities which, if compromised, could have a detrimental effect on law enforcement. 

 

The publication of information that could reveal operational systems could render them vulnerable to cyber-attacks and this cannot be in the public interest. As stated above, the MPS utilise a number of digital tactics/applications/software to progress multimedia casework and release of these details could have a detrimental effect on law enforcement if compromised. 

 

I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.  

 

This decision is based on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but what would be of greater good to the community as a whole. 

 

Section 8(1) Exemption has been utilised with reference to Q2(b) and this is because we believe that this question is seeking an opinion.  Within the usual meaning of the Act, this is not a valid question. The ICO guidance for making FOIA requests advises the public that a FOIA request can be in the form of a question rather than a request for specific documents, however, a public authority does not have to answer a question if it means creating new information or giving an opinion or judgement that is not already recorded.  

 

We believe that this questions is seeking an opinion, which does not fall within the Act.  

 

Section 84 of the Act defines information as being ‘information recorded in any form’.  The Act only extends to recorded information held by a public authority. It does not extend to providing explanations, unless the answers are already held in a recorded form which, in this case, they are not. 

 

"Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'.

The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form."

 

 

 

Yes. 

 

 

This is not confined to one single ‘department’ but predominantly Digital Forensics within Forensic Services.

 

Challenges and limitations:

Section 31 Exemption applies as indicated above.

 

 

Section 8 Exemption applies as indicated above. 

 

 

Yes. Practitioners are subject to internal and external training in the methods we utilise in the processing of material.  

 

 

 

 

 

Section 31 Exemption applies to Questions 4-7.

 

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.