Facebook and Twitter Investigations

Under the Freedom of Information Act, could you please tell me how many times your force has investigated people over messages they have posted on social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook, since January 1st 2011.

Where possible, please could you tell me what alleged offence was investigated in each case and what the outcome of each investigation was - including any resulting charges.

Please also indicate which offences, if any, were connected to the summer's riots.

In accordance with section 1(1) (b) of the Act our response is provided below;

From our assessment we estimate that compliance with your request would exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12 of the Freedom of information Act 2000. This is currently £450 The basis for this calculation is the cost of retrieving the information. Facebook and Twitter are not 'an occurrence location'. They may feature in some way in reported incidents but they cannot be the crime/incident location, but perhaps a conduit or means to aid an offender, Our systems contain 2396 references to Facebook alone. To get any of the information we think you are seeking would require a manual search of records, which although we can filter some extent would it is estimated take a couple of weeks to achieve a result. this will exceed the appropriate limit. Your request is therefore refused.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the Cheshire Constabulary, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you 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.

The appropriate limit is defined in the Data Protection and Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004, which is covered by statutory Instrument Number 3244 of 2004. Furthermore, Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows a public authority to refuse to respond to a request for information where the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit as defined by the above mentioned regulations.

I can point to two recent events concerning the disorder that occurred during the summer months when Facebook was used to attempt to incite disorder by two men in the Cheshire Police area. This was well publicised at the time, an example of this are entries on the following web sites:

BBC News Manchester

Telegraph News Riots & Facebook

I am unable at this stage to offer a reasonable alternative to achieve the results that you are seeking. To narrow the request down to specific offences would seem to be more realistic but even so its still likely to be a heavy piece of work and may not be achievable.

Please Note: Police forces in the United Kingdom are routinely required to provide crime statistics to government bodies and the recording criteria is set nationally. However, the systems used for recording these figures are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the crime data. It should be noted that for these reasons this force's response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.

In addition to the above, the Cheshire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relative to your request. To give a statement of the reasons why neither confirming nor denying is appropriate in this case would involve the disclosure of exempt information, therefore under section 17 (4), no explanation can be given. To the extent that 23(5) Information relating to Security bodies; Section 24(2) National Security; Section 30(3) Investigations and Section 31(3) Law Enforcement applies, the Cheshire Constabulary has determined that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to neither confirm nor deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether or not any other information is held.

In order to counter criminal and terrorist behaviour it is vital that the police and other agencies have the ability to work together, where necessary covertly, in order to obtain intelligence within current legislative frameworks to ensure the successful arrest and prosecution of those who commit or plan to commit acts of terrorism. In order to achieve this goal, it is vitally important that information sharing takes place with other police forces and security bodies within the UK and Internationally in order to support counter-terrorism measures in the fight to deprive international terrorist networks of their ability to commit crime.

It should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The UK faces a serious and sustained threat from violent extremists and this threat is greater in scale and ambition than any of the terrorist threats in the past. Since 2006, the UK Government have 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 and June and July 2007, when it was raised to the highest threat ‘critical’.

The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent crime and arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to commit crime. To do this the police require evidence and that evidence can come from a number of sources, some of which is obtained through covert means. Having obtained sufficient evidence offenders are charged with offences and placed before the courts. By confirming or denying that any other information pertinent to this request exists could directly influence the stages of that process, and jeopardise current investigations or prejudice law enforcement.

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.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24 –The public are entitled to know how public funds are spent and by confirming or denying when and how social networks are used by the police service could lead to a better-informed public that can take steps to protect themselves

Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 – By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the request exists would render Security measures less effective. This could lead to the compromise of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying when or how the police service monitor social network sites, would enable the public to see where public funds are being spent. Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the request exists, law enforcement tactics could be compromised which could hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime could be committed and individuals placed at risk.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S30 - By confirming or denying when or how the police service monitor social network sites, would enable the public to obtain satisfaction that all investigations are conducted properly and that their public money is well spent.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S30 - By confirming or denying that any other information relevant to the request exists, would hinder the prevention or detection of crime, undermine the partnership approach to law enforcement , which would subsequently affect the force’s future law enforcement capabilities.

Balance test - The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so could undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and in this case providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by the criminal fraternity, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. Therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any other information relevant to your request exists is not made out.

There is also no requirement to satisfy any public concern over the legality of police operations and the tactics we may or may not use. The force is already held to account by statute, for example the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and independent bodies such as Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Our accountability is therefore not enhanced by confirming or denying that any other information is held.

None of the above can be viewed as an inference that any other information does or does not exist.