Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Transcription

1 Our Ref: /12 Freedom of Information Section Nottinghamshire Police HQ Sherwood Lodge, Arnold Nottingham NG5 8PP Tel: 101 Ext Fax: December 2012 Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) I write in connection with your request for information, which was received by Nottinghamshire Police on 19 November Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide me with full answers to each of the following questions: 1. How much money has your force paid to mobile phone companies for call logs and location data, in each of the past five financial years? If possible please break down the figures by provider, ie Vodafone, O2, T- Mobile, Virgin, Orange, Three, Tesco etc. 2. How much money has your force paid to internet service providers for communications data, in each of the past five financial years? If possible please break down the figures by ISP, ie Talk Talk, BT Internet, Virgin Media. Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within Nottinghamshire Police to locate the information you require. Please find below answers to your questions:- RESPONSE Under S 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), I can confirm that Nottinghamshire Police does hold the information you have requested.

2 Mobile Phone Companies 2007/ / / / / , , , , , Internet or Broadband Providers 2007/ / / / /2012 3, , , , The answer to question 2 has been obtained by searching for any references in the transaction description that includes the word internet or broadband and where identified the figures have been provided. In some cases an account name may be used and due to the number of transactions involved it is not possible to determine if they are an internet service provider. Question 3 This information will be exempt by virtue of Section 31 (Law enforcement) and Section 43 (Commercial interests) as below. S43(2) is a prejudiced based Qualified exemption and as such requires the harm to the evidenced and a public interest test to be carried out. S31(1)(a)(b)(c) is also a prejudice based Qualified exemption which requires the prejudice (harm) to be evidenced and a public interest test to be carried out. Background The Code of Practice which accompanies Part I Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), concerning the acquisition and disclosure of communications data explains at paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4 that communication service providers (CSP), also known as network providers such as O2, Orange, Vodaphone, incur costs in complying with requirements made of them by the police under Chapter II of RIPA and allows for arrangements for making appropriate payments to CSPs to facilitate the timely disclosure of communications data. This document was implemented on 1 st October 2007 There is also a requirement within the code (paragraph 4.4) stipulating that CSPs make available information as the Home Office requires ensuring the cost recovery tariffs are appropriate. Paragraph 6.5 of the Code of Practice sets out the records the police must keep concerning the number of requirements made upon CSPs. These records are shared with the Interception Commissioner who oversees the process, collates and reports on the total acquisitions to the Prime Minister for inclusion within his annual report. A substantial amount of that report is placed into the public domain.

3 A breakdown of company charges would not be disclosed as to do so would prejudice the commercial interests of the CSPs by revealing the capabilities and inabilities of individual CSPs (S43(2)); undermine the relationship between the CSP and the Police Service S31(1)(a)(b)(c) and compromise information which would benefit a terrorist or criminal organisation. Disclosure would also reveal which CSPs are limited in their abilities and those which have the better capabilities, potentially giving a tactical advantage to criminals who would choose networks based on risk. Details of prices charged would also reveal the services provided by CSPs, which would include covert services. Any such disclosure would provide the full inabilities and capabilities of each CSP which in turn would benefit a terrorist or criminal by revealing what services and systems are used by the Police Service. This awareness would enable members of the criminal fraternity to take evasive steps to avoid detection. The charge a private company makes for their services is, in many instances, an individual agreement between the CSP and the force. To provide costing details would undermine the company in its ability to be competitive when providing services to the public sector. Any such disclosure would compromise that company s pricing structures which would leave them vulnerable to unfair negotiations when a customer requires their services. Overall Harm for Section 31 and Section 43 Some companies have bespoke systems to accommodate the disclosure of data via a secure system to enable virtual 'real-time' collection by the police and those systems need to be funded through cost recovery. To disclose the actual breakdown of prices charged by these companies would reveal an inaccurate 'skewing' of the cost recovery statistics as CSPs who have built bespoke systems provide more services than CSPs who do not. Any misinterpretation by individuals may result in certain CSPs being branded as 'the criminal's choice' which would damage the working relationship between the police, CSPs and the Government. With this relationship impeded, a CSP may pull their services without prior notice which would compromise the prevention and detection of crime. Disclosure would also reveal which CSPs are limited in their abilities and those which have the better capabilities, potentially giving a tactical advantage to criminals who would choose networks based on risk. A total breakdown of charges would reveal the services provided by CSPs, which would include covert services. Any such disclosure would provide the full inabilities and capabilities of each CSP which in turn would benefit a terrorist or criminal by revealing what services and systems are used by the

4 Police Service. This awareness would enable members of the criminal fraternity to take evasive steps to avoid detection. Public Interest Test Considerations favouring Disclosure for Section 31 When information disclosed relates directly to the efficiency and effectiveness of the force or its officers it is generally of benefit to the community. In this case, the release of information will enable the public to have a better understanding of the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service. One of the underlying principles of the Freedom of Information Act is the need for authorities to be more open and transparent. In this case, to provide the full detail of costings for telephony data would provide the community with an awareness that public funds are being used to resource and finance the use of expert technology to assist in the prevention or detective of crime; the apprehension or prosecution of offenders and the administration of justice. Considerations favouring Non-Disclosure for Section 31 Disclosure of the information may enable individuals or terrorist organisations to identify expert technology and methods used by the police service as part of an intelligence gathering operation. The effectiveness of current and future strategies to combat terrorist activity may be compromised and may also inhibit the ability to prevent crime. Although the request does not ask for personal information the interests of third parties, i.e. the Communication Service Providers, is compromised. The Police Service has a moral duty to protect the sensitive commercial information it holds about any private company they have dealings with. In this case, to provide the fine detail of how much the company charges together with a breakdown of the charge would prejudice the commercial interests of that company, as detailed within the harm above. There may be occasions where the release of information relating to public safety may not be in the public interest. Public safety is of paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be considered in respect of every release. As evidenced within the harm, by providing individuals with information which would assist their offending behaviour to enable them to carry out offences which could lead to loss of life and injury, would place the safety of the community in jeopardy. Factors favouring disclosure for section 43 Disclosure of the requested information would enable the public to have a better understanding of how public funds are spent and how the decisionmaking process is completed. The information requested is mostly historical. Factors favouring non-disclosure for section 43 By disclosing the information requested would damage ongoing tender processes and undermine the relationship between the CSP and the Police

5 Service and could lead to civil action taking place. To disclose the information requested would undermine the company in its ability to be competitive when providing services to the public sector. The Police Service has a moral duty to protect the sensitive commercial information it holds about any private company they have dealings with. Balancing Test The Police Service is tasked with detection and prevention of crime and the Police service will not divulge whether information is held if it will jeopardise this important role. Although there is a public interest in knowing that public funds have been spent wisely, there is a greater public interest in protecting law enforcement and the capacity and capabilities of the forces and outside agencies that are used to support this function. As already stated, The Police Service also has a moral duty to protect the sensitive commercial information it holds about any private company they have dealings with. Therefore it is our opinion that the balance of the public interest lies in not disclosing the amount of money paid to individual communication service providers. This letter constitutes a refusal notice under Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, with Section 31 and Section 43 of the Act being applied. Complaints Rights Your attention is drawn to the enclosed review procedure, which details your right of complaint. Copyright Nottinghamshire Police in complying with their statutory duty under Sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to release the enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the copyright owner s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to the Force Solicitor, Nottinghamshire Police, Force Headquarters, Sherwood Lodge, Arnold, Nottinghamshire, NG5 8PP. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Nottinghamshire Police. Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact the Freedom of Information Officer on telephone number or freedomofinformation@nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk quoting the above reference number. Yours sincerely Information Compliance Officer

6 Are you dissatisfied with your response? If so, prior to lodging a formal complaint, you are welcome and encouraged to discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request. Ask to have the decision looked at again The quickest and easiest way to have the decision reconsidered is to telephone the case officer that is identified at the end of your decision letter. That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and assist with any problems. Formal Independent Review If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision made by Nottinghamshire Police under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, you can request an Independent Review. Upon receipt for a review of the initial request response, an independent audit officer from Information Management will review the request and assess whether it has been satisfactorily processed in accordance with policy and procedure. Requests for Independent Reviews requests should be made in writing to- Force Information Manager Nottinghamshire Police Force Headquarters Sherwood Lodge Arnold Nottingham NG5 8PP The Audit officer will record and communicate his/her decision to the information requester within 20 working days. Appeals If the findings of the formal independent review do not meet your approval, you can register an appeal against the decision. An investigation will then take place by the Freedom of Information officer, which will be reported and presented to the Internal Appeal Board. This will include a full account of the reasoning for or against disclosure and the application of any relevant exemptions. The Internal Appeal Board will consist of at least a member of the Chief Officer Team, a member of the Legal Team and the Force Information Manager. Appeals should be registered in writing to:

7 Freedom of Information Officer Nottinghamshire Police Force Headquarters Sherwood Lodge Arnold Nottingham NG5 8PP Alternatively Or call: Applications to the Information Commissioner If you then remain dissatisfied, you may make an application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act. For information on how to make an application to the Information Commissioner, please visit their website at Alternatively, Write to: Information Commissioner s Office Wycliffe House Water lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Or call: