Fog data science llc records 707/2022
FOI Reference: 707/2022
Request:
Please can you provide me with procurement records since 2018 held by Dyfed-Powys Police regarding products and services from the supplier "Fog Data Science LLC," in a digital format.
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
Sections 24 and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions and both evidence of harm and public interest considerations need to be articulated to the applicant.
Evidence of Harm:
Any disclosure under FOI is a release to the public at large. 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. Whilst not questioning the motives behind this specific request, confirming or denying that information is held regarding business with Fog Data Science LLC, or any other likeminded third-party provider, would cause operational harm and affect our ability to fulfil our core function of law enforcement in the future. Confirming or denying whether or not information is held would allow members of the public to identify the resources and tactics used to identify, and respond to emergency operations such as widespread disorder, protests, demonstrations, wide scale disasters etc. It would enable individuals and organisations that are intent on causing disruption to identify strengths and weaknesses at force level, and more so nationally, which could be exploited causing harm to members of the public.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It is generally recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. Since 2006, the UK Government has published the threat level based upon current intelligence, and that threat is currently judged as “SUBSTANTIAL”, meaning that an attack on the UK is likely. It is well established that police forces use tactics and technology to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour, and it has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.
Confirming or denying whether any information is held about the use of internet intelligence gathering tools/platforms would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police’s methods and techniques, enabling offenders to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities.
The mosaic effect of confirming or denying the procurement of services from specifically named providers of internet intelligence tools such as Fog Data Science LLC also presents a risk of harm, inasmuch as if further requests to be made about whether named companies were working in Dyfed Powys police data space, a wider picture would very soon begin to be built of capabilities for intelligence collection, development and analysis. This picture would be of significant use to those with malicious intent, including terrorists in establishing what police forces across the UK can and cannot do, undermining the force’s ability to protect the public.
This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on disrupting policing functions throughout the UK will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tactics may or may not be deployed. This can be useful information to those committing (or those intent on committing or planning) crime.
Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both National Security and Law Enforcement.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 24 :
The information, if held, only relates to national security and confirming or denying whether it is held would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and what measures are in place. By confirming or denying if business is conducted with Fog Data Science LLC or any other likeminded third-party provider, would lead to a better informed public.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 24:
By confirming or denying whether any information is held would render policing and security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring Neither Confirming or Denying for Section 31:
Confirming or denying whether business is conducted with Fog Data Science LLC, or any other likeminded third-party provider, would provide an insight into the Police Service. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police and about how the police gather intelligence. It would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate, which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation. Where public funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use of public money.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 31:
Confirming or denying that any information is held regarding business with Fog Data Science LLC, or any other likeminded third-party provider, would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics. It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to confirm or deny information is held concerning intelligence gathering would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed, if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to perform the functions it exists to provide.
By confirming or denying that a business interest exists would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. The Police Service would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This would impact on police resources and more crime and terrorist incidents would be committed, placing individuals at risk. It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information, if held, in relation to any aspect of investigations or of any nation's security arrangements so confirming or denying that information is held, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.
Balancing Test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and Dyfed Powys police will not divulge whether any information is or is not held regarding business with any company, if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the Dyfed Powys police is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and all areas of operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The use of technology can be a sensitive issue that would reveal police tactics and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any information is held regarding the police, Fog Data Science LLC, or any other likeminded third-party provider, is not made out.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 25/10/22)