Offences regarding airbnb & tik tok 248/2022
FOI Reference: 248/2022
Request:
1) In the 2021 calendar year how many crimes were logged by your force where Airbnb was recorded as being an element in the offence?
[Note: I would hope that this could be achieved by a computer search on the MO of crimes for the word/s ‘airbnb’, ‘air bnb’, ‘air-bnb’ and ‘air bandb’.]
2) Please provide me with a table showing a breakdown of the crimes from Question 1 that are ‘linked’ to Airbnb by its mention in the MO.
3) Please provide me with copies of the first 10 MOs that mention Airbnb.
[Note: To avoid falling into an exemption I am content for the names, ages, geography or any other detail to be redacted to allow for the disclosure of the incident and how it relates to Airbnb.]
4) Could you please go through the same process in answering Question 1, 2 and 3 but instead of Airbnb please carry out the process in relation to the website Tik Tok?
Response 1, 2 & 4:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
|
Offence |
Keyword |
||
|
Air BNB |
Tik Tok |
Total |
|
|
Drug Production |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
Residential Burglary |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
Criminal Damage (Residence) |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
Harassment |
0 |
7 |
7 |
|
Hate Incident |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
Malicious Communications |
0 |
12 |
12 |
|
Obscene Publication |
0 |
3 |
3 |
|
Racial |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Response 3:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested; however we are exempting part of the information as we believe that the following exemption is relevant:
Section 40(2) Personal Information
Section 40(2) is a class-based absolute exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. There is therefore no requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information. There is also no requirement to carry out a Public Interest Test.
Section 40(2) Personal Information:
Section 40(2) applies to third party personal data and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 if disclosure, in relation to data subject to law enforcement processing, would breach any of the data protection principles contained within Part 3 - Chapter 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Under Section 34 within Chapter 2 “The Controller in relation to personal data is responsible for and must be able to demonstrate, compliance with” Chapter 2. Such information would not be released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless there is a strong public interest. One of the main differences between the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 2018 is that any information released under FOI is released into the public domain, not just the individual requesting the information and disclosure under the Act must be made with that in mind. As such, any release that identifies an individual through releasing their personal data, even third party personal data is exempt.
Personal data is defined under Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as:
“(2) ‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual (subject to subsection (14)(c)).
(3) ‘Identifiable living individual’ means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
(a) An identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b) One or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.”
All members of the public including those employed by the force have an intrinsic right to privacy and these rights are protected by virtue of the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and a public authority must not interfere with that right. Any release of the information subject to the exemption is likely to compromise those rights.
Data Protection Act 2018
Part 3 – Law Enforcement – Chapter 2 Principles Section 35
The first data protection principle:
“(1) The first data protection principle is that the processing of personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be lawful and fair.”
General Data Protection Regulation
Article 5 of the GDPR – ‘Principles relating to processing of personal data’ provides:
“1. ‘Personal data’ shall be
- Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency);
- Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest…
- The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’).”
Dyfed-Powys Police would not want to disclose any information that could potentially identify an individual. In this particular case, to release the personal details alongside the recorded year of the offence, especially taking into consideration the very low number of offences, could lead to the identification of the individuals involved and to release such information would be a direct breach of Data Protection legislation. Therefore as a consequence I am satisfied that Section 40(2) Personal Information exemption is applicable to the release of the information.
The Section 40 exemption is a class-based exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. There is therefore no requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information.
The Section 40 exemption is in part qualified and in part absolute, in the present case it would be absolute as to release the information would breach Data Protection legislation and therefore there is no requirement to carry out a public interest test.
|
Exemption Applied |
Air BnB MO |
|
Section 40(2) – Personal Information exemption applied |
An unknown xx has rented the given location fraudulently through AirBnB. The address has been searched and a large amount of paraphernalia, suggesting the production of cannabis, and cannabis laced confectionary products were located. |
|
Section 40(2) – Personal Information exemption applied |
The IP states that at around 0100hrs xx thought xx could hear a noise downstairs, when xx went downstairs this morning an Airbnb pack for their guests was on a tray on the table and a whole loaf of bread had been taken. |
|
N/A |
The IP rents out to Air bnb and persons who have booked to stay at the property have caused substantial damage to the property. |
Response 4:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested; however we are exempting part of the information as we believe that the following exemption is relevant:
Section 40(2) Personal Information
Section 40(2) is a class-based absolute exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. There is therefore no requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information. There is also no requirement to carry out a Public Interest Test.
Section 40(2) Personal Information:
Section 40(2) applies to third party personal data and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 if disclosure, in relation to data subject to law enforcement processing, would breach any of the data protection principles contained within Part 3 - Chapter 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018. Under Section 34 within Chapter 2 “The Controller in relation to personal data is responsible for and must be able to demonstrate, compliance with” Chapter 2. Such information would not be released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless there is a strong public interest. One of the main differences between the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 2018 is that any information released under FOI is released into the public domain, not just the individual requesting the information and disclosure under the Act must be made with that in mind. As such, any release that identifies an individual through releasing their personal data, even third party personal data is exempt.
Personal data is defined under Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as:
“(2) ‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual (subject to subsection (14)(c)).
(3) ‘Identifiable living individual’ means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
(a) An identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b) One or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.”
All members of the public including those employed by the force have an intrinsic right to privacy and these rights are protected by virtue of the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and a public authority must not interfere with that right. Any release of the information subject to the exemption is likely to compromise those rights.
Data Protection Act 2018
Part 3 – Law Enforcement – Chapter 2 Principles Section 35
The first data protection principle:
“(1) The first data protection principle is that the processing of personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be lawful and fair.”
General Data Protection Regulation
Article 5 of the GDPR – ‘Principles relating to processing of personal data’ provides:
“1. ‘Personal data’ shall be
- Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency);
- Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest…
- The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’).”
Dyfed-Powys Police would not want to disclose any information that could potentially identify an individual. In this particular case, to release the personal details alongside the recorded year of the offence, especially taking into consideration the very low number of offences, could lead to the identification of the individuals involved and to release such information would be a direct breach of Data Protection legislation. Therefore as a consequence I am satisfied that Section 40(2) Personal Information exemption is applicable to the release of the information.
The Section 40 exemption is a class-based exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. There is therefore no requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information.
The Section 40 exemption is in part qualified and in part absolute, in the present case it would be absolute as to release the information would breach Data Protection legislation and therefore there is no requirement to carry out a public interest test.
|
Exemption Applied |
Tik Tok MO |
|
Section 40(2) – Personal Information exemption applied |
IP has received malicious comments on Tik Tok by a party who knows xxx |
|
Section 40(2) – Personal Information exemption applied |
IP reports that the alleged offender has said xxx hates deaf people and made throat cutting actions towards IP on tik tok. |
|
N/A |
The user of a Tik Tok account has uploaded one potential self-generated Category B indecent video of a child onto the internet on the stated date. |
|
N/A |
IP has received a threat via TIK TOK from persons unknown. Report taken by Cumbria Police |
|
Section 40(2) – Personal Information exemption applied |
The IP's xxx is posting arguments and bank details on Tik Tok. |
|
Section 40(2) – Personal Information exemption applied |
IP has been speaking with a person on Tik Tok and this person has called the IP insulting names and told xxx to go and kill xxx self. |
|
Section 40(2) – Personal Information exemption applied |
IP has been speaking with a person on Tik Tok and this person has called the IP insulting names and told xxx to go and kill xxx self. Then the IP received 20 withheld phone calls |
|
Section 40(2) – Personal Information exemption applied |
The IP has reported that xxx is being cyber bullied via Tik Tok and Snapchat calling xxx names and telling xxx to go kill xxx self. |
|
N/A |
Alleged offender has made "tik tok" videos and sent a voice note to the IP causing harassment, alarm and distress. |
|
N/A |
A user of a Tik Tok account has uploaded an indecent images of a child. |
It should be noted that as a result of the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such information that the information released may or may not be accurate.
Furthermore, it should also be noted that Police forces in the United Kingdom are routinely required to provide crime statistics to government bodies and the recording criteria is set nationally. However, the systems used for recording these figures are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the crime data. 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 25/05/2022)