Strategic Facial Recognition Board
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.033513
I note you seek access to the following information:
I am writing to request the following information relating:
A copy of all Strategic Facial Recognition Board minutes from 2023
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 40(2)(3A)(a) - Personal Information
Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement
Section 42(1) - Legal Professional Privilege
Section 21 – Information accessible by other means
Reason for decision
I am pleased to inform you that some of the minutes captured by your request is already in the public domain, under Section 21 - Information accessible by other means
The information requested has been identified as being accessible via other means as it is already published.
Where information is already in the public domain we are not required to re-publish the data; instead public authorities are required to direct you to the information, which we have done in this instance.
Some information within three new set of minutes have now been redacted and is exempt by Section 40(2)(3A)(a) Personal Information - of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b), 3B of the Act.
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 records contain the following types of personal data that I consider exempt under the Act:
1. Names of living individuals
Having considered the release of the identified personal data, the MPS has found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that, whilst there is an element of public interest in the recorded information, the information requested is uniquely personal to individuals in the context of their personal life.
The disclosure of the requested information under FOIA legislation is not necessary to meet a legitimate interest, particularly when considering the distress that is likely to be caused with the disclosure of personal information via a FOIA request.
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.
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 Freedom of Information, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual.
Recently the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was been introduced across the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). In respect of the United Kingdom, GDPR was enshrined in UK law through the Data Protection Act 2018. The MPS, like all UK public authorities are obliged to comply with the Data Protection Act 2018 and this includes the protection of personal data.
The information you have requested can fairly be considered "personal data" and sensitive, with a clear identifiable link. In most cases, personal data is exempt from disclosure under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act.
Where an individual is requesting third party personal data the MPS must ensure that any action taken adheres to the principles of GDPR/ the Data Protection Act 2018. To clarify, the Freedom of Information Act only allows disclosure of personal data if that disclosure would be compliant with that law.
It is legitimate for the MPS to consider the cumulative effect of disclosing information of a similar nature in respect of routinely disclosing personal information about possible interaction with police under the Freedom of Information Act, and the effect this has on public perception and how it responsibly and sensitively handles personal data in a public forum.
Section 31(1)(a) & (b) (Law Enforcement) - Other than the information already disclosed on our website and today, any further disclosure of information held is exempt is exempt to protect trust in the police use of technology as well as to protect intelligence, resources, policing tactics.
Disclosure would undermine the intelligence case for the deployment and the use of LFR as a policing tactic if operational information continues to be drip fed into the public domain which can be used as intelligence against us. Disclosure is likely to compromise public trust in the use of the technology which in turn would compromise any ongoing or future operations to protect public safety and law enforcement within the UK. This would increase the risk of harm to the public in possible future scenarios and occasions.
Disclosure would also inform the public what information the MPS is or is not aware of at operational times which again would provide valuable intelligence to criminals or those wishing to subvert law enforcement and exploit any gaps in the MPS’s intelligence picture or operational tactics.
Full disclosure would involve releasing sensitive information into the public domain as well as operational deployment details. This would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map intelligence, strategies and tactics used by the MPS and other police services across the country.
In this case, disclosure may enable individuals, perpetrators of violent or other serious crime and terrorist organisations to identify expert technology, tools, intelligence and methods used or not used by the MPS as part of an LFR operation at a given location and time. The effectiveness of current and future strategies to combat criminal activity may be compromised and so would inhibit the ability to prevent crime.
The disclosure of any further information that may be held concerning specific deployments would not be of benefit to the community as a whole, as substantial information is already in the public realm. The additional information would not, in the view of the MPS, greatly further the public’s understanding and instead could only be used to hinder law enforcement and crime prevention.
The strongest reason favouring full disclosure is the public interest in the public gaining the greatest possible understanding of how the use of LFR technology may infringe upon their right to a private life.
The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is ensuring public safety is not compromised by disclosing policing methodology, tactics and intelligence that will enable individuals to evade detection and law enforcement or be used to damage public confidence in police handling of operational data.
The MPS will not willingly disclose information which will place the public at risk by undermining law enforcement capabilities, tactics and methodology. It is important to note the Public Interest is also met by the disclosure of the information already disclosed on our website regarding use of LFR deployments, which assist with showing the decision making process, without risking undermining our own capabilities, resources, trust and confidence in the MPS.
Although considered as part of the Balancing Test, the MPS believes the fact the LFR programme is publically funded to be a relatively weak factor favouring disclosure of the specific information requested. It is not uncommon for new policing tactics, operations and capabilities not to be disclosed for operational reasons.
Therefore the MPS has determined that the public interest favours the application of this exemption for information within the minutes.
This decision is reached on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but is what would be of greater good to the public if disclosed to the public as a whole. As advised, the Public Interest has been met to a large extent by the information already disclosed today and that which is already available in the public domain.
Some information within minutes of 12/07/2023 is exempt by virtue of the following exemption - Section 42(1) Legal Professional Privilege - This exemption applies to information that is protected by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). The relevant paragraph is subject to Litigation Privilege. This privilege protects confidential written or oral communications between a lawyer and third parties (here, the MPS).
There was an inherent understanding by the legislators when they introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that harm would be caused by the disclosure of information that falls within this exemption – this is why there is no requirement to articulate the prejudice when arguing that it is engaged.
However, this exemption is qualified – and so there are some instances where this type of information is in the public interest to disclose. However, they are not made out in this instance.
There is a strong public interest in safeguarding the openness between communications between a lawyer and their client in order to allow for the full and frank provision of legal advice.
Whilst the MPS understands there is always a public interest in transparency in high profile matters of interest, there is a strong public interest in safeguarding the openness between communications between a lawyer and their client in order to allow for the full and frank communication and advice as a fundamental tenant to the effective administration of justice.
On weighing up the competing interests, the MPS considers that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure. Therefore, disclosure of this information cannot be seen to be in the public interest at this time.
This decision has been made on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but is what would be of great good to the public as a whole, if the information were disclosed.
Disclosure
I am pleased to inform you that some of the minutes captured by your request is already in the public domain for the following dates:
• 18/01/2023
• 15/02/2023
• 16/03/2023
• 13/04/2023
• 07/06/2023
The information can be accessed via the following:
Facial Recognition technologies | Metropolitan Police
Please find attached three sets of minutes for;
• 12/07/2023
• 31/08/2023 (the September Board was brought forwards)
• 04/10/2023
The May and August board was cancelled and so no minutes for those months is held.