Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')
As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of access to information held at the time of a request, by a Public Authority (including the Police), subject to certain limitations and exemptions.
- Does your police force use automated decisions systems (ADS) or artificial intelligence (AI) to make policing decisions? If the answer is ‘yes’, are these systems being used for:
Recruitment of new personnel
Analysing patterns of crime occurrence
2.If possible, please elaborate on any other uses of automated decision systems/AI by your authority. I am aware that some of this information is publicly available.
3. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, does your force have and offer guidelines (or a code of conduct or similar) on how to use these systems to police officers and staff?
4.If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, does your force currently offer training on how to use these systems to police officers and staff?
5.If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, has your force engaged the public on the use of AI and ADS systems in your police work? If so, how have they done this?
Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with the ICT Department of Northumbria Police. I can confirm that, with regards to overt use, the information you have requested is not held by Northumbria Police.
No, we do not use automated decisions systems (ADS) or artificial intelligence (AI) to make policing decisions. As the answer to point one is “no” this negates the need for us to provide a response to your remaining points.
With regards to the use of facial recognition technology for covert policing, we shall neither confirm nor deny any information is held and by doing so rely on the following exemptions:
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Any disclosure under FOI is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any other information relating to the covert practise of facial recognition would show criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the force are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities. Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in which the Police Service may or may not deploy the use of facial recognition would lead to an increase of harm to covert investigations and compromise law enforcement. This 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.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It is generally recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. Since 2006, the UK Government has published the threat level, based upon current intelligence and that threat has remained at the second highest level ‘severe’, except for two short periods during August 2006, June and July 2007, and more recently in May and June this year following the Manchester and London terrorist attacks, when it was raised to the highest threat, ‘critical’. The UK continues to face a sustained threat from violent extremists and terrorists and the current threat level is set at ‘severe’.
It is well established that police forces use covert tactics and surveillance to gain intelligence 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.
Confirming or denying whether any information is or is not held relating to the covert use of facial recognition technology would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorist would gain a greater understanding of the police’s methods and techniques, enabling offenders to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities. 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 tactics are or are not deployed. This can be use 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.