Home Office Office for Security and Tel: 020 7035 4343
Counter-Terrorism Fax: 020 7035 4745
2 Marsham Street, London 
4DF

OSCTFOIQnomeufllce mmuk
Website. 

Dear 

Thank you for your e-mail of 24 August in which you requested information regarding the
reporting of terrorist and extremist material online. You ask specifically:

FOI Ref: 40882
Date: 23 November 2016

Since the webpage, 
went live please could you confirm:

1. The number of individual reports received through the page.

2. The number of individual reports that were assessed as genuinely "terrorist and harmful
extremist" by the government.

3. The number of individual reports that were assessed as not "terrorist and harmful
extremist content" by the government.

4. The number of individual reports that led to further counter-terrorism action being taken
by the government as a consequence of the report.

5. How many of the reported urls were subsequently added to the list of urls to be blocked
by and public sector bodies?

6. An aggregated geographic break-down of the likely country of origin of the reported
materials. (If possible please identify countries within the UK - e.g England, Scotland
Wales, Northern lreland).

7. The cost of any marketing budget dedicated to promoting the reporting service.

8. The total number of page views and unique browsers received by the reporting page.

For all questions except question 6 please provide an annual breakdown of these figures if
possible.

I must first of all apologise for the delay in sending you a substantive response. The Home
Office aims to answer all requests within 20 working days; however, in some circumstances
this may not be possible. While some of the delay in this instance is attributable to the time
taken to properly consider the relevant public interest factors, the extended length of the
delay, on this occasion, was wholly unacceptable. The department takes its responsibilities
under the Act seriously, and will work to ensure such a delay does not occur again in future.

We can confirm that the Home Office holds some information relevant to your request. In
relation to questions 4-6, we can neither confirm nor deny whether we have ever held any
other information relevant to your request by virtue of sections 24(2) (information supplied

INVESTORS
IN PEOPLE

by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters and national security) and 31(3) (law
enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act. These exemptions absolve us from the
requirement to say whether or not we hold information, and the public interest falls in favour
of neither confirming nor denying. Sections 24(2) and 31(3) are qualified exemptions and
are subject to the public interest test. Please find further details of these exemptions in the
Annex to this letter.
The following figures are provided with the date parameters of July 1st 2016 to
September 2nd 2016 as we do not hold information from the date that the webpage was
first established.
1. The number of individual reports received through the page. We have received a
total of 2675 public referrals from the Online Reporting tool between July 1 st to
September 2nd 2016.
2. The number of individual reports that were assessed as genuinely "terrorist and
harmful extremist" by the government. From these 2675 public referrals, a total of
3189 urls were found , 2292 of these urls were assessed as being genuine and
contained terrorist or harmful extremist material. These were flagged and have
been removed by the relevant platforms. This equates to 69% removal rate.
3. The number of individual reports that were assessed as not "terrorist and harmful
extremist content" by the government. From these 2675 public referrals, 813
(30%) were found not to breach terrorist laws and 486 (18%) had already been
removed by the relevant platform prior to any assessment. 76 referrals (3%)
breached other UK laws and were not terrorist related.
4. The number of individual reports that led to further counter-terrorism action being
taken by the government as a consequence of the report. See exemption above.
5. How many of the reported urls were subsequently added to the list of urls to be
blocked by ISPs and public sector bodies? X numbers have been assessed to
breach and were added to the list. See exemption above.
6. An aggregated geographic break-down of the likely country of origin of the reported
materials. (If possible please identify countries within the UK - e.g England,
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). See exemption above.
7. The cost of any marketing budget dedicated to promoting the reporting service. .
There is no marketing budget dedicated to promoting the service.
8. The total number of page views and unique browsers received by the reporting
page. The total number of page views is 32,940 and Unique Page views is 21,801.

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address
below, quoting reference 40882. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if
you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
Information Rights Team
Home Office
4th Floor, Peel Building
2 Marsham Street

 London SW1P 4DF
E-mail: FOIRequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be
reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you
remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the
Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Yours sincerely,

FOI Team

 Annex
Public Interest Test
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to
a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure
against the public interest in favour of withholding the information, or the considerations for
and against the requirement to say whether the information requested is held or not. We
must carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions in
response to a request for information.
The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT we
consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is
released or not. The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective
government and to serve the best interests of the public.
The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the
motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are
expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone, including those who might
represent a threat to the UK.
Sections 23(5) and 24(2) (national security) of the Freedom of Information Act state:
‘23(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it was directly or
indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in
subsection (3).
(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise of, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already
recorded) which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to,
any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).
24(1) Information which does not fall within subsection 23(1) is exempt information if
exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, exemption from section
1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.’
Section 23(5) is an absolute provision and consequently there is no further consideration
required.
Section 31 (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act states:
(1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information
if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—
(a)the prevention or detection of crime,
(b)the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c)the administration of justice,
(d)the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature,
(e)the operation of the immigration controls,
(f)the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other institutions where
persons are lawfully detained,
(g)the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in
subsection (2),
...(3)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with
section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in
subsection (1).

 Public interest considerations in favour of confirming whether the information is held
There is a general public interest in openness and transparency in Government, which can
help to maintain public trust.
Information relating to the questions asked about the government’s counter terrorism efforts
are clearly matters of public interest. We recognise that there is a legitimate interest in
knowing how terrorists and terrorism suspects are dealt with, and where counter terrorism
efforts are focused. The Home Office recognises there is a general public interest the
subject, and confirming or denying whether we hold the information could increase public
understanding and reassurance, and inform public debate.
Public interest considerations in favour of maintaining the exclusion of the duty to
either confirm or deny
Confirming or denying whether information is held in relation to the relevant questions could
potentially reveal the existence of sensitive information and operational matters. There is
a serious terrorist threat to the United Kingdom and confirming whether or not we hold the
information requested could put national security at risk by jeopardising or negating the
Government’s efforts to prevent acts of terrorism and terrorist related crime.
Confirming or denying whether we hold any information could be detrimental to law
enforcement and provide criminals with knowledge that may allow them to bypass any
security measures that are in place. Confirming or denying whether we hold any information
could also attract unwarranted scrutiny from individuals of interest and could potentially
impede any investigation to bring such individuals to justice.
There is an overriding to need to protect national security and law enforcement interests and
we conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in not confirming or denying whether
we hold information on this particular subject.
This response should not be taken as confirmation that the information you have requested
is or is not held by the Home Office.