UK Police Can't Confirm Or Deny Investigation Of Journalists It Publicly Confirmed In 2013
from the Glomar-logic dept
If you're a UK-based journalist who's reported on the Snowden leaks, it's safe to say you're under investigation. Not only are you being investigated, but that investigation itself is so secret, it can't be discussed. The Intercept's Ryan Gallagher sent a Freedom of Information request to London's Metropolitan Police (the Met) for more information about the investigation -- something twice publicly confirmed by Met representatives.
But when asked specifically for information on the ongoing investigation, the agency had nothing to say.
[T]he Metropolitan Police... says everything about the investigation’s existence is a secret and too dangerous to disclose. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from this reporter, the force has repeatedly refused to release any information about the status of the investigation, how many officers are working on it, or how much taxpayer money has been spent on it. The Met wrote in its response:The response is hardly a response. In fact, almost the entirety of the nine-page document Gallagher received is simply reasons WHY the Met won't be responding affirmatively or negatively to his inquiry. The only new information gleaned is that control of the investigation has changed hands.
"to confirm or deny whether we hold any information concerning any current or previous investigations into the alleged actions of Edward Snowden could potentially be misused proving detrimental to national security.'
In this current environment, where there is a possibility of increased threat of terrorist activity, providing any details even to confirm or deny that any information exists could assist any group or persons who wish to cause harm to the people of the nation which would undermine the safeguarding of national security."
AC Mark Rowley has taken over as Head of Specialist Operations following the departure of Cressida DickThat's the one thing the "Counter Terrorism Command" can confirm. This would be the same department within the Met that was directly involved with the detainment and questioning of Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda. Everything else falls under a variety of exemptions, including the oh-so-opaque "state secrets" designation.
The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any of the information that you have requested, as the duty in S1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:There's more detail later, when the response details the agency's decision to declare the request to be "not in the public interest."
Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 30(3) Criminal Investigations
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(5) - Personal information
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 would undermine National Security or law enforcement. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threats posed by groups or individuals there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and operations in the highly sensitive area of extremism, crime prevention, public disorder and terrorism prevention.But, of course, all of this discussion about national security, public interest and possibly compromised investigations does not confirm that there's a twice-previously-confirmed investigation of UK journalists in progress.
[...]
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that confirmation or denial of any information being held concerning whether the MPS has investigated the alleged actions of Edward Snowden or not would not be in the public interest. To confirm or deny that information is held regarding any individual or investigation that may or may not have taken place could be detrimental to any investigations that may be being conducted now or in the future.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.This UK-style Glomar tosses the request back to The Intercept, which has tossed it to the nearest governing body..
The Intercept has filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office, the public body that enforces the U.K.’s freedom of information laws, about the Met’s refusal to release information about the current status of the investigation. The commissioner will now look at how the police handled the request and decide whether they should be ordered to hand over the relevant details.Even in the UK, information doesn't want to be free. It wants to be litigated.
The Met continues to maintain its code of silence in the face of its earlier public statements about investigating those publishing the Snowden leaks. When asked how something the agency itself publicly discussed several months ago is now a "national security" issue, the Met offered a swift "no comment" -- a handy way to dodge the logic hole in its Freedom of Information request denial.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ed snowden, foia, investigation, metropolitan police, police, reporting, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Turnabout's okay?
"I can neither confirm, nor deny, ... No comment."
Why not? You don't know why that person was running, nor if they're even the same person the cops are looking for. Why stick your neck out? It's none of your business what that person was up to, nor why the cops want them or suspect them.
Do the cops really want to go there? If you can't be honest and open with those who're paying your salary on something as trivial as this, what right do you have to expect me to help you pull !@#$ like this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tortuous Censorship
The next stage is going back and burning all those inconvenient books and newspapers.
"...by virtue of the following exemptions..." There is nothing virtuous about these. The proper word would be tortuous.
Tortuous censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sound familiar to the twin towers and the patriot act at all?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
metpolice crooks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No. Everyone thought so, but it probably wasn't the case. And he blamed it on the Communists (and later the Social Democrats as well), but not the Jews.
Be this as it may, it was of course possible to pass this "Patriot"-Act after it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes but..
its to protect official's!
Its a common mistake.
(Shamelessly nicked from "Yes Minister")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Those are former PM Tony Blair's words, speaking of himself in his memoir, and bitterly regretting that he allowed the FoIA to pass under his administration. When this is the attitude of people at the top, it's hardly surprising if the henchmen pick it up and run with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sic semper tyranis!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
To the contrary, he was studying methods and techniques!
[ link to this | view in thread ]