Removal of YouTube videos linked to gang violence

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.036338

I note you seek access to the following information:

This article published in The Guardian in May 2018 says:
“Scotland Yard said it had asked the Google-owned site [YouTube] to take down between 50 and 60 videos in the last two years” after the Met had linked them to gang violence.”

Please provide the following information:
1) In the past 5 years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024), how many music videos has Scotland Yard asked YouTube to take down because of concerns about their links to gang violence? Please provide individual figures for each year.
2) Of the total number of videos that were requested to be removed, how many were taken down by YouTube? Please provide figures for each year (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024)
3) Of those videos concerned, which were the top 5 channels that were responsible for producing/ uploading the videos?

CLARIFICATION -
“Yes, I am happy to have the data in financial year.”

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 22(1)(a) – Information intended for future publication.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3A)(a) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Information relevant to your question 1 and question 2 is held by the MPS and has been disclosed in part (please see the disclosure section below), however, data for 2023/24 is not included in that disclosure. This is because data for 2023/24 was already scheduled for publication when you submitted your request and will be published at the conclusion of this financial year. Section 22 of the Act which provides an exemption for information intended for future publication, has therefore been applied to refuse disclosure of data for 2023/24. When published it will be accessible via the following link: Published items | Metropolitan Police.

Section 22(1)(a) – Information intended for future publication - The MPS has a process for both identifying and publishing police information that is of public interest. In this case the information you are interested in is considered of public interest and a decision has already been made to publish it in the near future.

This is an established process which is primarily designed to engage the general public in the work of the police service but importantly, also serves to reduce the financial and administrative cost of responding to requests for information under the Act.

The MPS receives a considerable number of requests for information that is due to be published. It would be both administratively and financially prohibitive for the MPS to release information in response to individual requests when the information requested is scheduled to be published in the near future.

Having considered your request, I have chosen to claim Section 22 of the Act as the MPS had already made a decision to publish the information in the near future.

For these reasons, I consider that the financial and administrative cost of attempting to collate data separately at this stage, in order to answer your request, would be contrary to the public interest. I have accordingly refused your request.

Please also be advised that information relevant to your question 3 is exempt from disclosure. If we were to provide a list of the top 5 channels that were responsible for producing/ uploading videos, this would inform individuals of information of interest to the MPS. This could lead to individuals uploading videos to other sites that the MPS may not be aware of which would impact on our ability to prevent and detect crime and prosecute offenders. This would prejudice law enforcement and Section 31(1)(a)(b) of the Act has therefore been applied to refuse disclosure.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement - The MPS does not request the removal of content from online platforms. The MPS refers breaches of community guidelines to the platforms and the platforms make a decision on whether the content is removed. The referrals are not made due to concerns in relation to the content's link to gang violence, content is referred where a breach of the platforms community guidelines is identified and it is suspected that the content may lead to an escalation of violence.

The release of the information you are seeking namely the top 5 channels that were responsible for producing/ uploading videos, that were subsequently removed for breaching guidelines and inciting violence, would alert individuals as to the channels that are working with us to help prevent violent crime. Disclosing the top 5 channels that have removed videos would indicate that those channels are or have been of interest to the police which would highlight to individuals the likelihood of whether their videos would also be identified and removed. This would lead to those individuals avoiding those channels and uploading their videos elsewhere, and that they could do so undetected. Disclosure would therefore not prevent crime or help detect crime but rather encourage it which would prejudice law enforcement. As the focus is on content that may lead to an escalation of violence this would also impact on our ability to keep the public safe.

As some of the video content may also be used as evidence of crime, disclosure would also impact on the right of accused persons to a fair trial.

Disclosing the names of the top 5 channels that have removed video content would disclose the channels that the MPS have engaged with and who we may still be engaging with. This would compromise and significantly weaken our ability to prevent and detect crime. If we were to disclose the names of the channels where videos have been produced and uploaded and subsequently removed, this would undermine our capabilities for intelligence gathering, development and analysis. Disclosure would also equip those with malicious intent, to build up a picture of where the MPS are looking at videos, and other associated information, and would enable individuals to avoid those specific channels and place their videos or relevant information elsewhere, whilst remaining undetected, which could then lead to an escalation of violence.

This would not be in the public interest, as it would help offenders to evade apprehension, would encourage more crime to take place and as our focus is on preventing violent crime, would place the public at an increased risk.

It is also crucial that members of the public, including external organisations, can trust the MPS to keep their details confidential when they are assisting or have assisted police. This needs to be consistent so that victims, witnesses, and informants feel that they can speak to the police and their details will not be made public. External organisations must also be assured that if sharing documents, evidence and data which may include information of a sensitive nature, that they can do so securely. It is not in the public interest for the MPS to disclose the details of sources, informants, or contacts as this would risk harming the trust we have with the public and with other organisations.

It is crucial that we can continue to work with channels to stop videos that promote violence being uploaded, and to ensure that where videos have been uploaded, that they are removed as soon as possible.

Releasing the information you are seeking in relation to the top 5 channels that have removed videos, would impact on the trust and confidence of the channels we have worked with, and are working with. Disclosure would also lead to individuals uploading videos elsewhere and could lead to them being undetected. If this led to an escalation in violent crime it would never be in the public interest.

I believe that the Public Interest has been served by the release of the information that has been released in response to your request and can see no benefit to any further information being disclosed, particularly when to do so would impact on our ability to prevent and detect crime and keep the pubic safe, and could also impact on the right of accused persons to a fair trial.

Releasing a lsit of the top 5 channels could also identify individuals concerned in the production and uploading of videos and individuals depicted in those videos. Any such disclosure would be unfair, as no permission has been sought from those individuals. This would also be illegal, as disclosure would contravene the first data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 2018, and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Section 40(2)(3) of the Act, which provides an exemption for disclosure of personal information has therefore also been applied to refuse disclosure of this information.

Section 40(2)(3)&(4) – Personal Information - 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 2018 (DPA). I have applied this exemption in that the identity of individuals that may be realised through providing the information broken down in the format you have requested would constitute personal data which, if released, would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

There are six data protection principles that are set out in Section 34 of the Data
Protection Act 2018. The first principle requires that the disclosure of the requested personal data must be lawful and fair. Under the Act, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:
a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

The requested information contains personal data that I consider exempt under the Act. For example, were we to disclose details of the top 5 channels that have removed videos this could identify individuals linked to those channels and could also identify individuals concerned in uploading videos. Some of the videos could include evidence of other crimes and both the victim and perpetrator of those crimes therefore any disclosure would identify individuals and release extremely sensitive information about individuals into the public domain.

Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully... The release of this information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available, disclosure would also be unlawful as it would not be in accordance with the first principle of the Data Protection Act.

In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to the condition at Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. Condition one of the GDPR requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to performance of a public task in the public interest.

Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is present or would likely be received to release this information. The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Please see the disclosure section below for information that has been located in response to your request and assessed as suitable for disclosure.

Disclosure

Questions 1 & 2 -
In the past 5 years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024), how many music videos has Scotland Yard asked YouTube to take down because of concerns about their links to gang violence? Please provide individual figures for each year.

Of the total number of videos that were requested to be removed, how many were taken down by YouTube? Please provide figures for each year (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024)

It should be noted that the MPS does not request the removal of content from online platforms. The MPS refers breaches of community guidelines to the platforms and the platforms make a decision on whether the content is removed. The referrals are not made due to concerns in relation to the content's link to gang violence, content is referred where a breach of the platforms community guidelines is identified and it is suspected that the content may lead to an escalation of violence.

	2019/20		2020/21		2021/22		2022/23
	Referred	Removed	Referred	Removed	Referred	Removed	Referred	Removed
You Tube	45	44	101	99	148	133	367	315

Using this criteria the volume of music videos referred to You Tube and subsequently removed from the platform is detailed in the table below:

Caveats:
• Data is produced by financial year – 1 April to 31 March
• Data for 2023/24 will be published following the conclusion of the current financial year
• The data refers to referral/removal of unique items of content and may be lower than previously published figures which included details of multiple referrals for the same item of content