FOI247/25

REQUEST 

Please accept this request under the Freedom of Information Act. I’m seeking copies of any and all of the following documents in relation to your organisation’s use of services provided by Palantir Technologies UK Ltd.

 

A list of current and past contracts, with start and end dates (where applicable) Any and all Data Processing Arrangements Any and all Data Sharing Agreements Any and all Data Protection Impact Assessments

 

I note that many UK police forces have previously declined to confirm or deny the existence of information relating to Palantir. However, police forces including Bedfordshire and Leicestershire have since publicly confirmed using the company’s services, setting a precedent for disclosure.

 

Additionally, Palantir is a well-known provider of products that rely on artificial intelligence. The NPCC’s Covenant for Using Artificial Intelligence in Policing, endorsed by all UK police forces, states that “all use of AI will be subject to ‘Maximum Transparency by Default’”.

 

RESPONSE

 

South Wales Police neither confirms nor denies that it holds any information relevant to the request by virtue of the following exemptions:

 

Section 24(2) – National Security

Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement

 

Section 24 and 31 are qualified, prejudice-based exemptions and the legislators accept that there may be harm if released. The authority is therefore required to articulate the harm that may be caused and consider the public interest arguments for and against the disclosure of the information.

 

Harm in Confirming or Denying Information is Held

 

Any disclosure under FOI is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying if a particular policing tool of this type (in this case Palantir Technologies) is used by South Wales Police as part of an investigative process is different from confirming if, in principle, commercial tools generally are used to assist with searches against information that may be found online.

 

It is well established that police forces use publicly available data in order to counteract criminal behaviour. It has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means. However, given the sensitive areas in which tools of this type may be used and South Wales Police’s role in counter-terror investigations, to disclose if any particular tools are used would allow criminals and other adversaries to focus on evaluating the particular capabilities of a particular tool,  With this knowledge it would allow criminals and other adversaries to take steps to counteract a specific tool – be it adjusting how they interact and present themselves to take advantage of any weaknesses or gaps in capability they identify. At a simple level, if a policing tool doesn’t search ‘X ‘social media site or was unable to identify ‘Y’ format of images and criminals can establish this, they will exploit this position. 

South Wales Polices’ more sophisticated adversaries may be able to go further and take more proactive measures to undermine the tool and/or its provider, and a specific confirmation allows efforts to be focused accordingly.

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 organised crime throughout the UK will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tools are or are not deployed. This can be useful information to those committing crimes. It would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract the measures used against them.

 

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.

 

Factors in favour of disclosure:

 

Confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would enable the public to have a better understanding of the type of policing tools and tactics employed by South Wales Police in carrying out their law enforcement role. This would give more confidence to the public that we are using (or, as the case may be, not using) policing tools and tactics to help us detect and prevent crime appropriately.

 

Factors against disclosure:

 

To confirm or deny whether any other information relating to the use of a particular investigative tool is held would harm the integrity of sensitive policing tactics used to prevent and detect crime and safeguard national security.

 

Balancing test

 

Accordingly, in a position taken in common with other law enforcement agencies, confirming or denying if South Wales Police uses Palantir Technologies would lead to an increase of harm to covert investigations and compromise law enforcement. This outweighs the benefits to disclosure, not least as disclosure would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public. Therefore, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information is held.

 

If it exists, the disclosure of this information to the public by South Wales Police would undermine the integrity of police investigations and operations and in maintaining confidence in South Wales Police.

 

The effective delivery of operational law enforcement is of paramount importance to the force in their duty to ensure that the prevention and detection of crime is carried out and the effective apprehension or prosecution of offenders is maintained.  

 

Therefore, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information is held.