FOI 252/25 Facial Recognition in Forensics
Enquiry Reference: 252- 25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response. Please accept our sincere apology for the late reply.
1.Do any of your digital forensic departments employ tools/software that incorporate AI technology?
This could include software that uses AI such as enhancement software or systems used for facial recognition.
If your response is "yes", then please include the name of the software(s) and details of what they used for. – Yes:
Answer
Having made enquiries within the Force we would rely on the following:
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act requires that I provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Cleveland Police can confirm that it holds the information 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 31(1)(a) & (b) Law Enforcement;
Section 31 is prejudice based qualified exemptions and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Evidence of Harm
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/
Commercial Forensic Service Providers and the software they offer are vitally important in the Criminal Justice system - not only do they play a crucial role by supporting UK Policing with backlogs in the Digital Forensics arena, but they provide Defence teams with access to independent forensic experts to support their clients.
We must be take into account when considering potential harm that a disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is made to the world at large, rather than a private correspondence. Specific details of any digital forensic software used by the force would be extremely useful to those involved in criminality as it would enable them to create a map of tools and, by extension, providers most used by police Forces. Forensic Service Providers can, and have, be targeted by malicious actors. For example in 2019 Eurofins suffered a highly sophisticated ransomware attack which severely disrupted UK Policing and the Criminal Justice system.
Providing a list of digital forensics software used would mean that force by force, a criminal or individual with criminal intent could identify the software and/or providers most critical to law enforcement and specifically target those proving the most assistance. This would have a huge impact on the effective delivery of operational law enforcement as it would leave companies open to cyberattacks which could have devastating consequences.
Public Interest Test:
Factors favouring Disclosure - Confirming details of the software used would be of interest to the public, namely give insight into the forensic processes used to solve crimes.
Factors favouring Non-Disclosure - Measures are put in place to protect the community we serve and as evidenced within the harm, to provide a detailed list of digital forensic software would allow individuals intent on disrupting law enforcement to target specific companies using the information obtained to maximise the impact.
Taking into account the current security climate and the increasing risk of cyber-attack within the United Kingdom, no information which may aid criminality should be disclosed. It is clear that it would have an impact on a Force’s ability to carry out the core duty of enforcing the law and serving the community.
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.
Balance Test
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve. In order to effectively and robustly carry out those duties, services are utilised which are vital to investigating criminal activity. Weakening the mechanisms used to investigate any type of criminal activity would have a detrimental impact on law enforcement as a whole. To provide the names of digital forensic software currently in use by the force increases the known risks of cyber-attacks and would undermine any trust or confidence the public have in the Police Service. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that the balance test favours against the disclosure.
2.What guidelines, regulations, or legislation do you follow in relation to AI use within your digital forensic departments?
Answer
AI tools and features are not independently relied upon for results as their accuracy can change case by case. As such the tools simply give assistance to analysis work but will be checked by a human user before the publishment of reports.
- Are there any AI tools/software that you plan on using in the near future?
Answer
None
If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request, you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The Freedom of Information Code of Practice (see below link) states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced. Public authorities are not obliged to accept internal reviews after this date.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-code-of-practice
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Decision Maker