User data social media (FOI 365A/25)

Request

 

The number of requests for user data made by the West Midlands Police to the following companies since 2015 to date. Please provide separate figures for each company, broken down by calendar year.

 

• Google / Alphabet
• Apple
• Microsoft
• Facebook / Meta
• Twitter / X
• TikTok
• Snapchat

 

Response

 

West Midlands Police will neither confirm nor deny that we hold some of the requested information as the following exemptions apply: 

 

Section 24(2) National Security

Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

 

These exemptions and explanatory notes are shown here: 

 

Freedom of information | College of Policing

 

The following data is in relation to overt enquiries only.

Company Name	20/02/2020 to 19/02/2021	20/02/2021 to 19/02/2022	20/02/2022 to 19/02/2023	20/02/2023 to 19/02/2024	20/02/2024 to 19/02/2025
Google/Alphabet	332	663	839	777	1291
Apple	348	580	574	865	1099
Microsoft	213	308	337	307	424
Facebook/Meta	847	892	978	1154	1418
Twitter/ X	18	33	26	33	57
Tik Tok	2	35	157	265	386
Snapchat	310	516	918	1328	1985

 

 

 

In relation to covert enquiries:

Exemptions apply: 

 

s24(2) National Security

s31(3) Law Enforcement

 

In line with the above, I am required to complete a Prejudice Test/Public Interest Test (PIT) on disclosure. Please find this PIT below.

Harm

Disclosure under FOIA is considered 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 number of requests made during investigations of a covert nature to the companies in question would reveal levels of policing activity at the most serious levels of crime, including terrorism.  This could result in identifying whether one or more companies might be more or less used by criminals and therefore the likely focus of police enquiries than others, which 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 any other information is held may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities and the success rate of determining which companies will be more or less compliant upon request. Such results, if held, 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. This can be useful information to those with mal-intent. It would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract measures that might be used against them, such as altering online behaviour to avoid detection.  

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 how effective policing and security measures are. By confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding such requests to these companies for the purposes of covert investigations 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 relevant to this request would provide an insight into FORCE NAME. It would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate, which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation about covert police investigations accessing data from the aforementioned companies. 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 relevant to this request 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 the level of, or lack thereof of 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. 

West Midlands Police would not wish to reveal whether or not any companies relevant to this request have been approached for the purpose of acquiring data covertly 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 West Midlands Police will not divulge whether any other information is or is not held 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 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. Acquiring data via 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 other information is held for this request, 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.

……………..

Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that this data has been extracted from a number of data sources used by forces for police purposes. The detail collected to respond specifically to your request may be subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are considered when interpreting the data. 

 

The figures provided therefore are our best interpretation of data which has relevance to your request, but you should be aware that the collation of figures for ad hoc requests may have limitations and this should be considered when those data are used.  

If you decide to write an article / use the enclosed data we would ask you to take into consideration the factors highlighted in this document so as to not mislead members of the public or official bodies, or misrepresent the relevance of the whole or any part of this disclosed material.