FOI 0580-2023/24- ICT equipment
Request:
Q1. How many computers within your force run the Windows XP operating system?
Q2. What is the total number of fax machines currently in use by your force?
Q3. What is the total number of pagers currently in use in your force?
Q4. How much did your force spend on a) printers and b) paper scanners c) pagers in 2022.
Q5. How much did your force spend on postage in each of the past 5 years?
Response:
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. North Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you have requested as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of Section 24(2) National Security and Section 31(3) Law Enforcement. Please see the exemption explanation below.
Q2. Zero
Q3. Zero
Q4a & b. North Yorkshire Police spent £67,475.04 on printers. Scanners are part of the printers and therefore included within these costs.
Q4c. As per response to Q3, we do not have any pagers in use within the force.
Q5. Please see the table below showing the total cost spent on postage for the past 5 years.
|
Financial Year |
Cost |
|
2018/19 |
£292,065 |
|
2019/20 |
£274,814 |
|
2020/21 |
£258,730 |
|
2021/22 |
£270,101 |
|
2022/23 |
£206,226 |
Exemption Explanation
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.
North Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny that information is held relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Sections 24 and 31 being prejudice based qualified exemptions, both evidence of harm and public interest considerations need to be articulated to the applicant.
Harm in Confirming or Denying that Information is held
Policing is an information-led activity, and information assurance (which includes information security) is fundamental to how the Police Service manages the challenges faced. In order to comply with statutory requirements, the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice for Information Assurance has been put in place to ensure the delivery of core operational policing by providing appropriate and consistent protection for the information assets of member organisations, see below link:
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/information-management/
To confirm or deny whether North Yorkshire Police uses a certain operating system would identify vulnerable computer systems and provide actual knowledge, or not, that this software is used within individual force areas. In addition, this would have a huge impact on the effective delivery of operational law enforcement as it would leave forces open to cyberattack which could render computer devices obsolete.
This type of information would be extremely beneficial to offenders, including terrorists and terrorist organisations. It is vitally important that information sharing takes place with other police forces and security bodies within the UK to support counter-terrorism measures in the fight to deprive terrorist networks of their ability to commit crime.
To confirm or deny whether or not North Yorkshire Police relies on a certain operating system would be extremely useful to those involved in terrorist activity as it would enable them to map vulnerable information security databases.
Public Interest Considerations
Section 24(2) National Security
Factors favour complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held
The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and how resources are distributed within an area of policing. To confirm whether North Yorkshire Police utilises Windows XP would enable the general public to hold North Yorkshire Police to account by highlighting the use of out of date software. In the current financial climate of cuts and with the call for transparency of public spending this would enable improved public debate into this subject.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming or denying that information is held
Security measures are put in place to protect the community we serve. As evidenced within the harm to confirm information is held would highlight to terrorists and individuals intent on carrying out criminal activity vulnerabilities within North Yorkshire Police.
Taking into account the current security climate within the United Kingdom, no information (such as the citing of an exemption which confirms information pertinent to this request is held, or conversely, stating ‘no information is held’) which may aid a terrorist should be disclosed. To what extent this information may aid a terrorist is unknown, but it is clear that it will have an impact on a force’s ability to monitor terrorist activity.
Irrespective of what information is or isn’t held, the public entrust the Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with what is placed into the public domain.
The cumulative effect of terrorists gathering information from various sources would be even more impactive when linked to other information gathered from various sources about terrorism. The more information disclosed over time will give a more detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of not only a force area, but also the country as a whole.
Any incident that results from such a disclosure would, by default, affect National Security.
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Factors favouring complying with Section 1(1)(a) confirming that information is held
Confirming that information exists relevant to this request would lead to a better informed public which may encourage individuals to provide intelligence in order to reduce the risk of police networks being hacked.
Factors against complying with Section 1(1)(a) neither confirming nor denying that information is held
Confirmation or denial that information is held in this case would suggest North Yorkshire Police take their responsibility to protect information and information systems from unauthorised access, destruction, etc., dismissively and inappropriately.
Balancing Test
The points above highlight the merits of confirming or denying the requested information exists. The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. As part of that policing purpose, information is gathered which can be highly sensitive relating to high profile investigative activity.
Weakening the mechanisms used to monitor any type of criminal activity, and specifically terrorist activity would place the security of the country at an increased level of danger.
In order to comply with statutory requirements and to meet NPCC expectation of the Police Service with regard to the management of information security a national policy approved by the College of Policing titled National Policing Community Security Policy has been put in place. This policy has been constructed to ensure the delivery of core operational policing by providing appropriate and consistent protection for the information assets of member organisations. A copy of this can be found at the below link:
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APP-Community-Security-Policy-2014.pdf
In addition, anything that places that confidence at risk, no matter how generic, would undermine any trust or confidence individuals have in the Police Service. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balance test favours neither confirming nor denying that information is held.
Pursuant to Section 17(4) of the Act this letter also acts as a refusal notice in relation to the duty to confirm or deny.
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.