FOI Drones (0376-2022/23)
Request
Q1. If you are using drones for surveillance purposes, on which legal basis do you rely for the collection and storage of data collected by drones?
Q2. Please provide us with information regarding what payloads could be fitted onto the drones, such as the type of cameras, sensors or other tools that you have previously fitted onto the drones.
Q3. Please confirm if any of the drones have been or can be combined with facial recognition technology?
Q4. Please provide us with the following:
a) any guidance and/or policy you are relying on for the the deployment of drones
b) Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in relation to the use of drones if one has been completed.
Q5. Please confirm which private companies you have used for the procurement of drones.
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 some of the information you have requested is held by North Yorkshire Police.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the located information to you.
Q1. If you are using drones for surveillance purposes, on which legal basis do you rely for the collection and storage of data collected by drones?
In relation to overt use of drones, all our operations are in accordance with the requirements of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner and the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012. Although this information is not “held” by North Yorkshire Police, I have attached the relevant links below for your convenience.
Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.
Furthermore, North Yorkshire Police can neither confirm nor deny whether drone technology is used in any covert capacity citing sections 23, 24 and 31 of the Freedom of Information Act
Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in response to this part of your request.
Please see the exemption explanations below for further details regarding this exemption and it’s application in this case.
Q2. Please provide us with information regarding what payloads could be fitted onto the drones, such as the type of cameras, sensors or other tools that you have previously fitted onto the drones.
All drones used by NYP have factory fitted and fixed visible light and infra-red (thermal) sensors.
Q3. Please confirm if any of the drones have been or can be combined with facial recognition technology?
In response to this question the answer is no, they have not.
Q4. Please provide us with the following:
any guidance and/or policy you are relying on for the the deployment of drones
In addition to the separately published legislation mentioned in Q1 above, North Yorkshire Police have published online and freely available for public access a “privacy notice” which can be accessed using the following link –
Unmanned aerial devices privacy notice | North Yorkshire Police
North Yorkshire Police operates its drones in accordance with our Drone Deployment Procedure. Attached with this response is a separate PDF detailing our Drone Deployment Procedure, certain elements of which have been redacted citing S31 – Law Enforcement and S40 Personal Details. Please see the exemption explanations below for a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the application of these exemptions in this instance.
Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in relation to the use of drones if one has been completed.
Attached with this response a separate PDF detailing our Drone Deployment Procedure, certain elements of which have been redacted citing S31 – Law Enforcement and S40 Personal Details. Please see the exemption explanations below for a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the application of these exemptions in this instance.
Q5. Please confirm which private companies you have used for the procurement of drones.
The information pertinent to this part of your request has been published on our website and can be readily accessed by using the below link.
FOI - Drones | North Yorkshire Police
I am therefore exempting providing a further response to this part of your request citing S21 of the Freedom Of Information Act – Information Reasonably Accessible to the Applicant by Other Means.
Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in response to this part of your request.
Please see the exemption explanations below for further details regarding this exemption and it’s application in this case.
Exemption Explanations
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. Please see the relevant exemption headers below for further information.
Partial NCND for covert use of Drones – applied to Q1
Section 23 of the Freedom Of Information Act - Information Supplied by, or Relating to, Bodies Dealing with Security Matters is an absolute class-based exemption and there is no requirement to conduct a harm or public interest test.
Sections 24 – National Security, and 31 – Law Enforcement are prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or denying that any other information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Evidence of Harm
As you will be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the use of drones for covert purposes, 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 drones, 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, and it is well established that police forces use covert tactics and surveillance to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour. As such, 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 that North Yorkshire Police hold any other information in relation to covert use of drones, or unmanned aerial devices, would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police forces’ methods and techniques, enabling them 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 useful 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.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 24
Any further information, if held, simply 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 security measures are in place, and by confirming or denying whether any other information regarding the covert use of drones is held, would lead to a better informed public.
Factors favouring Neither Confirming Nor Denying for Section 24
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would render 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 Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding the covert use of drones would provide an insight into North Yorkshire Police. 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.
Some information is already in the public domain regarding the police use of this type of specialist equipment and confirming or denying whether any other information is held would ensure transparency and accountability and enable the public to see what tactics are deployed by the Police Service to detect crime.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the covert use of drones for maritime/border surveillance would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder any future investigations. In addition, confirming or denying methods used to gather intelligence for an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future proceedings.
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 specialist covert tactics 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 conduct similar investigations.
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation to the use of drones would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. North Yorkshire Police would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This would impact on police resources and more crime and terrorist incidents would be committed, placing individuals at risk. It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information, if held, in relation to any aspect of investigations or of any nation's security arrangements so confirming or denying that any information is held, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.
Balance test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and North Yorkshire Police will not divulge whether any information is or is not held regarding the use of drones if to do so would place the safety of an individual 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 North Yorkshire Police is 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 drones in any covert capacity is 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 information is held regarding the use of drones is not made out.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet any future request exists or does not exist.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement – applied to Q’s 4 a and 4 b
Section 31(1)(a)(b) is a prejudice based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in the disclosure of any information, as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Evidence of Harm
As you may be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, releasing any information held regarding specific capabilities and functions of North Yorkshire Police drones could enable individuals to put measures in place to avoid detection from future criminal activity.
Factors favouring disclosure under Section 31
There is public interest in how the Police operate in order to protect the public from risk of harm. Disclosure could raise the public’s confidence in the police’s ability to protect them from harm and raise confidence that the Police were readily available and properly equipped to respond to threats or criminal activities. Disclosure would allow the public to scrutinise how the police are approaching certain matters resources available to them to assist in this. The police service operate on public funding therefore there is general interest in the use of these funds.
Factors against disclosure under Section 31
Disclosure of the information would detriment the Police forces ability to prevent and detect crime. Revealing the full processes and capabilities around North Yorkshire Police drone operations may give individuals the knowledge with which to avoid or evade detention and further aid criminal enterprise. Furthermore, national disclosure of policing tactics or capabilities, where an FOI request is submitted to a number of forces, would inform criminals where certain gaps vulnerabilities may lie between police forces.
Balance test
On balance, taking the above factors into account, the decision is to withhold certain aspects of Q’s 4a and 4b.
Section 40 – Personal Information – applied to Q’s 4a) and 4b)
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), UKGDPR 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 this instance it is determined that the names and contact details of individuals who are involved in decisions, amendments and processes covered by this request are not pertinent to this request and are therefore witheld as being personal data.
In all the circumstances of the case it has been determined that the duty to the individual under the Data Protection Act 2018 & UK 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.
Section 21 – Information Reasonably Accessible to the Applicant by Other Means – applied to Q 5
This exemption applies as the requested information has been deemed already reasonably accessible by other means.
Section 21(1) is an absolute class-based exemption. This means that if the requested information is held by the public authority, and it is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means, it is not subject to the public interest test.
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.