Smart glasses (1629A/22)
Request
1.In the past 12 months, how many smart glasses have been submitted for digital forensic examination?
2.What number of the submitted smart glasses from the last 12 months had data recovered (in whole or partial) successfully?
3.What type of data was extracted from the smart glasses within those cases?
4.What forensics tools do you use to obtain data from smart glasses?
5.What offence/incident types were the submitted smart glasses relating to? Please provide figures where possible.
6.What training do officers/staff receive in seizing or forensically examining smart glasses?
- Have smart glasses formed part of any horizon scanning exercises for potential growth areas of data recovery within your organisation?
Response
Please find enclosed our response.
1.In the past 12 months, how many smart glasses have been submitted for digital forensic examination?
No information held
2.What number of the submitted smart glasses from the last 12 months had data recovered (in whole or partial) successfully?
No information held
3.What type of data was extracted from the smart glasses within those cases?
No information held
4.What forensics tools do you use to obtain data from smart glasses?
No information held
5.What offence/incident types were the submitted smart glasses relating to? Please provide figures where possible.
No information held
6.What training do officers/staff receive in seizing or forensically examining smart glasses?
No information held
- Have smart glasses formed part of any horizon scanning exercises for potential growth areas of data recovery within your organisation?
Exempt by virtue of
Sections 24(2) National security
Section 31(3) Law enforcement
REASON FOR DECISION
West Midlands Police does not disclose whether it has, or has not, trialled or evaluated specific technologies such as smart glasses. To do so in response to requests about our capabilities, would allow a picture of our capabilities to be established. This would render this police tactic ineffective. The provision of any information about new and emerging technologies through the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, could also reveal operational tactics linked to policing, compromise police investigations and/or adversely affect the ability of West Midlands Police and others to safeguard national security. West Midlands Police accordingly neither confirms nor denies that the requested information is held.
Please note this response should not be taken to as an indication of whether or not the requested information is held.
EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED
Sections 24(2) and 31(3) are prejudice based qualified exemptions and as such, there is a requirement to set out the prejudice/harm that would result from confirming or denying whether the information sought is held. A test of the public interest must also be conducted to determine whether the public interest supports confirming or denying that the information requested is held or neither confirming nor denying that the information requested is held.
PUBLIC INTEREST TEST
Factors favouring confirming or denying whether any information is held in respect of all exemptions claimed
Confirming or denying whether information is held in response to the request, would provide the public with information about technologies and West Midlands Police capabilities. This would reinforce the wider commitment to openness and transparency with the general public and facilitate public debate. Furthermore, owing to the inherent link between transparency and public confidence, confirming or denying whether information is held would be likely to improve the general public’s confidence in West Midlands Police. Over time, an increase in public confidence would be likely to improve public engagement with the police. This would, in turn, lead to an improvement in our ability to both prevent and detect crime, and apprehend and prosecute offenders.
Factors against confirming or denying whether any information is held for Section 24(2) – National Security
Security measures are put in place to protect the community that we serve. To confirm whether any information relevant to this request is/is not held would be useful intelligence to terrorists and individual’s intent on carrying out criminal activity. Irrespective of what information is or is not 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 those with ill-intent gathering information about force capabilities, would have greater impact when linked to other information gathered from various sources. The more information that is disclosed over time will provide a detailed account of the tactical infrastructure, not only at force level but across the country as a whole. Any incident that results from confirming that any information is held would by default affect National Security.
Factors against confirming or denying whether any information is held for Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
To confirm or deny information is held would compromise the forces’ ability to protect the public. Disclosing the West Midlands Police capabilities would provide persons intent on disrupting their work, with information that would assist them to do so. The safety of the public is of paramount importance to policing purposes, and any increase in crime would place the public at risk of harm.
Balance Test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming, or denying, whether information pertinent to question 7 does or does not exist. Having considered the reasons why West Midlands Police should opt to neither confirm nor deny that information is held, although openness and transparency is at the forefront when considering the public interest, in this case confirmation or denial relating to a policing tactic that may or may not be used overtly, or covertly, as part of any horizon scanning exercises for data recovery, would not be in the public interest.
Whilst there is a public interest in appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat from criminals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding National Security. As much as there is a public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of National Security, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
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 any information that is released. Confirming or denying whether information is or isn’t held would definitely reveal policing activity and would assist those intent on causing harm. Any incident that results from confirmation or denial would, by default, affect National Security.
I have found that confirming or denying whether information is held in response to questions of this nature, would make public, areas of police interest. This would directly harm the ability of West Midlands Police to investigate crime. This could also reveal police capabilities, compromise police investigations and/or otherwise, adversely affect the ability of West Midlands Police to safeguard national security. I have attached considerable weight to these interests as the primary role of the Police Service is to both prevent and detect crime and apprehend those responsible for committing criminal offences.
Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test for confirming, nor denying, that information is held with regard to question 7 is made out.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that information does or does not exist.
Attachments