FOI 1143-2024/25 Digital Forensics Use of AI

Request
Q1. 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. 

Q2. What guidelines, regulations, or legislation do you follow in relation to AI use within your digital forensic departments? 

Q3. Are there any AI tools/software that you plan on using in the near future?

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 following information to you.

Q1. Yes. I am exempting the names of software pursuant to Section 31(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) – Law enforcement. Please see the below exemption explanation.

Q2. North Yorkshire Police’s Digital Forensics Unit adhere to the NPCC Responsible AI Checklist for Policing & NPCC Covenant for Using Artificial Intelligence in Policing.

Q3. No information held. Section 84 of Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) relates to recorded information held by a public authority and that it does not extend to providing explanations unless the answers are already held in a recorded form. 

"Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form." (Day vs ICO & DWP – EA/2006/0069 Final Decision)

Exemption Explanation

Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a prejudice-based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm 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.

Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, it must be taken into account when considering potential harm that a disclosure under the Act 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.

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.