Operator Initiated Facial Recognition app (OIFR)

Freedom of information request reference no: 1432/24

REQUEST

Articles in the press recently indicate that SWP are currently making use (or intend to make use) of a Facial recognition tool - "Installed on the internal system iPatrol, the Operator Initiated Facial Recognition app (OIFR) gives officers the chance to scan a person’s face with the hope it could be used to trace someone who is missing, at risk, or wanted in circumstances when they’re unable to provide, refuse to give or offer false details." - source Police Oracle 19th Dec 2024.

 

I would be grateful if you would provide me with the following information:

 

1 - A copy of the Data Protection Impact Assessment carried out to consider, capture and address the high risks to subjects rights which this technology is likely to raise.

 

2 - A copy of any correspondence SWP have had with the ICO regarding this project

 

3 - A copy of any correspondence SWP have had with the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner regarding this project.

 

 

RESPONSE

We consulted with our Digital Services Division who have provided the below response to your request.

 

Question 1

 

Your request has been considered and I am not obliged to supply the information.

 

In relation to your request, the following exemption applies:

 

Section 22 – Information Intended for Future Publication

 

Section 22 is a qualified and class-based exemption which requires South Wales Police to carry out a public interest test.

 

Public Interest Test

 

Factors favouring disclosure

 

The public would be in possession of the information now, rather than wait until the information is published.

 

Factors favouring non-disclosure

 

Whilst this information is held, there is an intention to publish at the time of the request. It would not be the best use of public funds for the Freedom of Information Unit to duplicate work that will be carried out in due course.

The Section 22 exemption was specifically laid down by Parliament to benefit those authorities who proactively publish information. To constantly produce new and up to date elements of the currently published information in order to satisfy an additional need outside of scheduled publication will render these exemptions less effective and remove the benefits of proactive publications.

 

Balancing Test

 

The ‘public interest’ is not however, what the public may find interesting, there must be some tangible benefit to the community in such a disclosure. Ultimately it must be something that serves the interest of the public. It is a requirement to identify all the factors which serve these interests and also those which do not, only then can a decision be made. This process has now been carried out and the balance test has shown that the considerations favouring non-disclosure outweigh the considerations favouring disclosure.

 

The only factor favouring disclosure is that the public would not have to wait for the information. It is deemed that the efficient and effective conduct of the authority would be most harmed in the disclosure of this information therefore the balance falls on the side of non-disclosure.

 

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a refusal notice for this part of your request.

 

Question 2

 

Please find attached document entitled ‘Redacted ICO emails – PDF’ which answers this part of your request.

 

Question 3

 

Please find attached document entitled ‘Redacted OBSCC emails – PDF’ which answers this part of your request.

 

In relation to the redacted information the following exemptions apply:

 

Section 31 (1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement

Section 40(2) - Personal Information

 

Section 31 is a qualified, prejudice-based exemption 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.

 

Section 40(2) is an absolute class-based exemption and therefore the authority is not required to consider the public interest in disclosure.

Overall Harm

 

A disclosure in response to a Freedom of Information request is not a disclosure to the individual applicant but a release into the public domain. It is important that a Police Force safeguards its effective and efficient service and does not disclose information that could undermine that.

 

Disclosure of the requested information would reveal our tactical capabilities and compromise the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This would hinder future investigations by assisting those who are intent on undertaking criminal activity. 

 

Factors favouring Section 31

 

By disclosing the requested information, this would provide openness and transparency and better awareness to the public.

 

Factors against Section 31

 

The security of the public is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge information if to do so could compromise law enforcement.

 

Balance Test

 

Whilst there is public interest in police transparency, there is stronger public interest in safeguarding information which could assist those who wish to disrupt the police service.

 

Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test lies in favour of withholding the information.

 

The Data Protection Act covers processing of personal data about a living individual.  Personal data means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified-

 

1. from those data, or
2. from those data and other information, which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.

 

 

Information will “relate to” a person if it is about them, linked to them, has some biographical significance for them, is used to inform decisions affecting them, has them as its main focus or impacts on them in any way.

 

If we disclosed these details, this would provide significant detail which could identify an individual and would breach the first principle of the Data Protection Act 2018.

 

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a refusal notice for this part of your request.