Social media post issues 045/2022
FOI Reference: 045/2022
Request:
Please can you provide the following information:
1] The number of people, social media account holders or social media accounts contacted by the force and asked to remove a social media post or told that not removing a social media post could lead to further action, over the following periods:
- 1 January 2019 - 31 December 2019
- 1 January 2020 - 31 December 2020
- 1 January 2021 - 31 December 2021
2] The number of incidents referred to in [1] that were subject to further investigation by the force after the initial contact was made, over the following periods:
- 1 January 2019 - 31 December 2019
- 1 January 2020 - 31 December 2020
- 1 January 2021 - 31 December 2021
3] The number of incidents referred to in [1] that resulted in charges being brought
4] The number of requests made by the force to social media companies asking for a post or online material to be removed, or drawing attention to problematic content, over the following periods:
- 1 January 2019 - 31 December 2019
- 1 January 2020 - 31 December 2020
- 1 January 2021 - 31 December 2021
5] A breakdown of what companies or sites were contacted by the force as per question [4]
Response 1 – 3:
I can confirm that there is no information held/recorded by Dyfed Powys police in respect of your request.
Response 4:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, the details of which are as follows:
|
Time period |
No. of requests made to social media companies |
|
1 January 2019 - 31 December 2019 |
0 |
|
1 January 2020 - 31 December 2020 |
11 |
|
1 January 2021 - 31 December 2021 |
10 |
Response 5:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, however the following exemption applies:
Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement
- Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to prejudice -
- the prevention or detection of crime
- the apprehension or prosecution of offenders
Section 31 is a prejudice based qualified exemption and as such there is a requirement to provide details of the harm as well as the public interest test.
Evidence of harm:
Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any application for information. We have no doubt that the vast majority of requests made under the Act are legitimate and the applicants do not have any ulterior motives. However, in disclosing information to one applicant, we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested and concerned person automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure, including those who would use the information to gain an advantage over our ability to exercise our core function which is Law Enforcement.
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, consideration has been given to the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure. To disclose the requested information would be a clear indicator of the force’s capabilities and law enforcement tactics in a specific area of policing. To reveal which social media platform(s) information was requested would also frustrate any investigative work and allow judgements to be made over which social media companies do and do not cooperate with UK policing. This in turn would obviously be detrimental to police forces as it would indicate where ‘strengths and weaknesses’ lie not only within each individual police force but also for the UK police forces as a collective. This would be useful to and could be used to the advantage of criminal organisations or those individuals with criminal intent and allow them to highlight/map any potential vulnerabilities that a force may have and potentially avoid detection and disrupt police activity.
The disclosure of information which is likely to undermine the operational integrity of the police service and its ability to serve the public will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on law enforcement and impinge on the prevention and detection of crime, which can only be considered as being harmful to the public.
Public Interest Test:
Factors favouring disclosure:
Disclosure of the requested information would allow the public to see where public funds are being spent and would provide a better understanding of police resources and tactics used to help prevent crime.
Factors against disclosure:
Disclosure of the requested information would reveal capabilities that Dyfed Powys Police has in a specific area of policing. This would compromise law enforcement tactics which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime would be committed and individuals would be placed at risk, which would impact on police resources. Disclosure of such information is not just to an individual, but is seen as a disclosure to the world at large, which will include those who undertake criminal activity.
Balancing Test
After considering the advantages and disadvantages in disclosure it falls upon Dyfed-Powys Police to conduct a balance test on the issues. The strongest argument for release, which is better awareness, needs to be weighed against the strongest argument for non-release, which in this case is effective law enforcement. The Police Service is tasked with the prevention and detection of crime and protecting the public. Whilst there is a public interest in better awareness, there is very strong public interest in safeguarding the protection of the public. Dyfed Powys police would not disclose information that would compromise law enforcement tactics or highlight where strengths and weakness lie in relation to specific areas of policing as this would hinder the prevention and detection of crime and ultimately put individuals at risk.
Therefore, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
It should be noted that owing to the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such matters the information provided may or may not be accurate. It should be noted that for these reasons this Force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 15/02/22)