Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Request
Q1. Do you currently employ live video streaming technology within your Police Force for operational purposes? If so, in what contexts or situations is it utilized?
Q2. What specific platforms or systems do you use for live video streaming?
Q3. Are there any plans for expanding or enhancing the use of live video streaming technology in the future? If so, what are they, and what considerations are being taken into account?
Q4. Who is the key contact within the Police Force who deals with the Live Video Streaming Technology? (Name, Position and Email).
Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police. I can confirm that the information you have requested is held by North Yorkshire Police.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you.
Q1. Yes – in car CCTV during pursuits.
Q2. Watchguard
Q3. North Yorkshire Police are exploring the use of a system called Goodsam. This is being considered to improve interaction between the Force and the public.
Q4. I am exempting any information pursuant to Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
Section 40 – Personal Information
I am exempting the specific nationalities of these individuals pursuant to Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
Where an individual can be identified by such data, releasing it would clearly breach the first data protection principle of being ‘fair’ to the data subject.
Section 17 of the Act requires North Yorkshire Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which: (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Section 40(2) is an absolute class based exemption, which does not require a public interest test, but requires the balancing of the legitimate interests of the public against the interests of the individual under the first Data Protection Principle; in that processing of personal data must be lawful and fair (DPA 2018 35(1), EUGDPR Article 5(1)).
This exemption applies because the right given under the FOI Act to request official information held by public authorities does not apply to the personal data of third parties where disclosure of that information would not be fair to the individual, and where there is no legitimate public interest in disclosure.
In all the circumstances of the case it has been determined that the duty to the individual under the Data Protection Act 2018 & EU General Data Protection Regulations, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption from disclosure of personal information held by the force in such instances, outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In this instance, personal information can only be disclosed to the individual concerned.
Releasing personal details to a person other than the data subject would not only breach the data subject’s Data Protection rights it may also breach the obligations placed on an authority under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a refusal notice under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to your request.
Further to the information provided above, North Yorkshire Police can nether confirm nor deny that any additional information is held pursuant to Section 21 and Section 31.
Section 24(2) – National Security
Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
Evidence of Harm
Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the use of live streaming technology would cause operational harm and affect the police’s ability to fulfil their core function of law enforcement in the future. Confirming or denying whether or not any other information is held would allow members of the public to identify the resources and tactics used in sensitive policing operations, some of which may be covert. It would enable individuals and organisations, including serious and organised crime groups and terrorists to identify specific capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of individual forces, undermining operational law enforcement which ultimately results in harm to members of the public.
Confirming or denying any other information is held about the use or planned use of live video streaming would likely 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 is currently judged as "SUBSTANTIAL”, meaning that an attack on the UK is likely. It is well established that police forces use tactics and technology to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour, and 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 other information is held about the use of live streaming technology would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists 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 disrupting policing functions throughout the UK will be able to 'map' where the use of certain tactics may or may not be deployed. This can be useful information to those committing (or those intent on committing or planning) crime.
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.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 24
Any other information, if held, only relates to national security and confirming or denying whether it is held would not actually harm it. The public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and what measures are in place. By confirming or denying any other information is held would lead to a better informed public.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 24
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would render policing and security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring Neither Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding the use or potential use of live streaming technologies, would provide an insight into the Police Service. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police and about how the police gather intelligence. It would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate, which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation. Where public funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use of public money.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the use or potential use of live streaming technologies would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics. It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to confirm or deny any other information is held concerning live streaming would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed, if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to perform the core functions it has a duty to provide.
Balancing test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the police will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held regarding live streaming technology, if to do so would place the safety of individuals at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police are appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and all areas of operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The use of technology can be a sensitive issue that would reveal police tactics and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding the use or potential use of live streaming technology, is not made out.
This should not be taken as an indication any information does or does not exist.
Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data. It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.