Cybersecurity breaches 927/2024
FOI Reference: 927/2024
Request:
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I kindly request the following information regarding cybersecurity breaches or hacks experienced by your police force over the past three years (from 1st January 2020 to the present):
- A chronological list of all cybersecurity breaches or hacks that have occurred within the specified time frame.
- For each incident, please provide:
- Date of the breach/hack
- A brief description of the nature of the breach/hack
- Impact on operations, including any data compromised
- Measures taken to address the breach/hack and prevent future incidents
Response:
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Dyfed-Powys Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information pertinent to this request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Harm in Confirming or Denying that Information is held
To confirm or deny whether any further information is held in respect of cybersecurity breaches or hacks would provide actual knowledge of where an attempt has been made, it if it has or has not been successful. Confirming that such information is not held may assist potential attackers by indicating that an attack had gone undetected. Equally, confirming information is held would enable understanding of where attacks have been successful, and possible weaknesses exist. Attackers may then be able to tailor their methods to increase their chances of success.
To confirm or deny whether information is held in respect of any leaked data as a result of an attack would, in effect, confirm that there had been successful cybersecurity breaches or hacks made against the force, which would present harm as detailed above.
Furthermore, in order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour it is vital that the police and other agencies have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, in order to obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to ensure the arrest and prosecution of offenders who commit or plan to commit acts of terrorism, whereby their modus operandi may involve cybersecurity breaches or hacks on secure databases. In order to achieve this goal, it is vitally important that information sharing takes place with other police forces and security bodies within the United Kingdom in order to support counter-terrorism measures in the fight to deprive terrorist networks of their ability to commit crime. To confirm or deny specific details of any breaches of information technology and security would be extremely useful to those involved in terrorist activity as it would enable them to map vulnerable information security databases.
Public Interest Considerations
Section 24(2) National Security
Factors in favour of confirming or denying that information is held:
The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and how resources are distributed within an area of policing. To confirm information is held regarding cybersecurity breaches or hacks would enable the general public to hold the police to account ensuring all such breaches are recorded and investigated appropriately. With the call for transparency of public spending this would enable improved public debate.
Factors against confirming or denying that information is held:
Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve. As evidenced within the harm to confirm whether any cybersecurity breaches or hacks have been successful would highlight to terrorists and individuals intent on carrying out criminal activity vulnerabilities within the police which could be further exploited.
Taking into account the current security climate within the United Kingdom, no information (such as the citing of an exemption which confirms information pertinent to this request is held, or conversely, stating ‘no information is held’) which may aid a terrorist should be disclosed. To what extent this information may aid a terrorist is unknown, but it is clear that it will have an impact on a force’s ability to monitor terrorist activity.
Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, the public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain.
The cumulative effect of terrorists gathering information from various sources would be even more impactive when linked to other information gathered from various sources about terrorism. The more information disclosed over time will give a more detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of not only a force area but also the country as a whole.
Any incident that results from such a disclosure would, by default, affect National Security.
Section 31 (3) – Law Enforcement
Factors favouring confirming or denying that information is held:
Confirmation that information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better-informed public which may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to reduce such security breaches.
Factors against confirming nor denying that information is held:
Confirmation or denial that information is held in this case would suggest the police take their responsibility to protect information and information systems from unauthorised access, destruction, etc., dismissively, and inappropriately.
Balancing Test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying the requested information exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing, and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, information is gathered which can be highly sensitive relating to high profile investigative activity. Weakening the mechanisms used to monitor any type of criminal activity, and specifically terrorist activity would place the security of the country at an increased level of danger.
In addition, anything that places that confidence at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in the Police Service. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information is held.
Please note that we are interpreting the request to be referring to the number of successful cyber-security breaches “hacks” the force have experienced as opposed to the number of attempted cyber-attacks (irrespective of whether they were successful or not). This is based on the wording “cybersecurity breaches or hacks experienced” as well as the breakdown at question 2 which references the impact on operations and measures taken to address the breach, both of which would only really be of relevance to successful attacks.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 22/10/2024)