FOI Facial Recognition Systems

FOI Request:

I am writing to request the following information from MOPAC:
A copy of Part 2 of the Retrospective Facial Recognition System report for the
MOPAC Investment Advisory & Monitoring meeting 15th December 2020, which
features part of the business case for RFR.

Our response:

I confirm that your request has been handled under the FOI Act 2000 and that MOPAC does hold information relating to your request.

I attach the Part 2 of the Retrospective Facial Recognition System report for the MOPAC Investment Advisory & Monitoring meeting in December 2020. Redactions have been made for the following FOI Act exemptions:

Section 40(2) Data Protection. This is an absolute exemption, therefore no Public Interest Test is required.

Section 31 Law Enforcement.

The FOI Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. The provision to refuse access to information under Section 31 is both qualified and prejudice based and therefore requires a public interest test.

Public Interest Test

Factors in Favour of Disclosure

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:

• There is a general public interest in disclosing information that promotes accountability and transparency in order to maintain confidence and trust in public bodies, such as the MPS.
• Increasing the transparency of how police operations are conducted could improve public confidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of policing operations.
• Disclosure could provide the public with an understanding that public funds are and have been used appropriately.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

• Release of the document in full would have the effect of compromising and disrupting law enforcement processes, in that it would reveal intelligence held by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) about the use of facial recognition.
• Disclosure would release sensitive operational information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map capabilities and processes used by the MPS.

Balance Test

The police services/forces of the UK are charged with enforcing the law and preventing and detecting crime. Any information released under the Act which reveals investigative strategies, processes and resourcing capabilities would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime. It is in the public interest to protect the law enforcement strategies and capabilities of the MPS.

I consider that the factors favouring non-disclosure of parts of the requested information outweigh those favouring disclosure, therefore appropriate redactions have been made.

Section 42 Legal Privilege-

Under the FOI Act Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:

• There is a general public interest in disclosing information that promotes accountability and transparency in order to maintain confidence and trust in public bodies, such as the MPS.
• Increasing the transparency of how police operations are conducted could improve public confidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of policing operations.
• Disclosure could provide the public with an understanding that public funds are and have been used appropriately.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

• MOPAC is reliant upon the provision of impartial legal advice to inform and guide its decision-making. The public release of the requested legal advice would be likely to impede the free and frank channels of communication that exist between MOPAC and professional legal advisors. This is because, over time, those seeking legal advice on behalf of MOPAC and/or providing advice to employees of MOPAC, would be less likely to be candid in future communications owing to the risk of future release. This would affect the quality of advice provided by legal advisors to MOPAC and the ability of MOPAC to obtain open, informed and unbiased legal advice in future.

Balance Test

Having considered your request, I have found that any action that would adversely affect the ability of MOPAC to obtain open and candid advice is not in the public interest. I have accordingly refused to release the information described above in response to your request for information.

I consider that the factors favouring non-disclosure of parts of the requested information outweigh those favouring disclosure, therefore appropriate redactions have been made.

Section 43 (2) Commercial Interests

Section 43(2) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any legal person (an individual, a company, the public authority itself or any other legal entity)

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:

• There is a general public interest in disclosing information that promotes accountability and transparency in order to maintain confidence and trust in public bodies, such as the MPS.
• Increasing the transparency of how police operations are conducted could improve public confidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of policing operations.
• Disclosure could provide the public with an understanding that public funds are and have been used appropriately.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

• The disclosure of this information would allow for the indirect inference of law enforcement capabilities of relevant suppliers.
• There is a public interest in protecting the commercial interests of MOPAC and ensuring it is able to compete fairly in a commercial environment. Disclosure of information may cause unwarranted reputational damage to MOPAC which may in turn damage its commercial interests. In addition, the disclosure of this information could harm MOPAC’s ability to participate successfully in future sales/purchases/negotiations. If a competitor knows how much MOPAC paid/is willing to pay for a product then it can exploit this for profit or other gain. Revealing this commercially sensitive information now may cause other parties in the future to question whether MOPAC is able to maintain confidentiality of such information.

Balance Test

There are factors favouring both disclosure and non-disclosure. The main factor favouring disclosure is openness and accountability; however, the impact of this factor is diminished due to the factors favouring non-disclosure outlined above. As such, it is my decision that the public interest at this time lies substantially in favour of non-disclosure as to release the information would prejudice the commercial interests of MOPAC.

If you are unhappy with the response to your Freedom of Information request, please see the MOPAC website on what the next steps are at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-wedo/mayors-office-policing-and-crime mopac/governance-and-decision-making/freedominformation