Office for Security and
Counter-Terrorism
2 Marsham Street, London
SW1P 4DF

Tel: 020 7035 4848
Fax: 020 7035 4745
www.homeoffice.gov.uk

OSCTFOI@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk

Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Mr Gallagher
ryan@rjgallagher.co.uk
FOI Ref: 43342
26 April 2017
Dear Mr. Gallagher,
Thank you for your e-mail of 27 March 2017, in which you request the following:
On Sunday 26 March, home secretary Amber Rudd appeared on the Andrew Marr show,
and was questioned about the dangers of encryption and WhatsApp in the context of
terrorism.
Rudd stated that she would be having a meeting with companies and organisations this
week (27 - 31 March) to discuss the issues. Quote: "I am calling in a lot of the
organisations who are relevant to that this week to ask them to work with us to deliver the
answer ... a fairly long list but it's also some of the smaller companies as well, to make
sure there's no hiding place for terrorists."
I would like to request, under the Freedom of Information Act, a list of the participants that
have been invited to - and are expected to attend
- the above mentioned meeting. If you could respond to me on this within
20 working days it would be much appreciated.
Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
We can confirm that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested.
The roundtable was attended by senior representatives from online platforms, including
from Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft. The meeting did not cover encryption, but
instead focused on the issue of online terrorist content. Further information regarding the
discussions at the roundtable can be found in the statement from the four companies
named above at Annex A below.
However, after careful consideration we have decided that releasing a full list of
participants that were invited and in attendance is exempt from disclosure under sections
24(1) and 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
This provides that information can be withheld where information is provided in confidence
or disclosure would compromise national security and the public interest falls in favour of
applying these exemptions.

 Arguments for and against disclosure in terms of the public interest, with the reasons for
our conclusion, are set out in the attached Annex.
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 43342. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you
could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
Information Access Team
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
e-mail: info.access@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

 Freedom of Information request from [Mr Gallagher] (reference [43342])
Information requested
On Sunday 26 March, home secretary Amber Rudd appeared on the Andrew Marr show,
and was questioned about the dangers of encryption and WhatsApp in the context of
terrorism.
Rudd stated that she would be having a meeting with companies and organisations this
week (27 - 31 March) to discuss the issues. Quote: "I am calling in a lot of the
organisations who are relevant to that this week to ask them to work with us to deliver the
answer ... a fairly long list but it's also some of the smaller companies as well, to make
sure there's no hiding place for terrorists."
I would like to request, under the Freedom of Information Act, a list of the participants that
have been invited to - and are expected to attend
- the above mentioned meeting. If you could respond to me on this within
20 working days it would be much appreciated.
Response
The information is exempt from disclosure under sections 24(1) and 41 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
This provides that information can be withheld where information is provided in confidence
or disclosure would compromise national security and the public interest falls in favour of
applying these exemptions.
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.

 Section 24 – National Security
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.
Public interest considerations in favor of releasing the information
The Home Office recognises that there is a general public interest in transparency and
openness in government. Such openness would increase public understanding and inform
public debate. In the context of this request, we recognise that there is a legitimate interest
in knowing those companies and organizations that were invited to the meeting to discuss
how they can work to implement and deliver Prevent and other counter terrorist objectives
by collaboratively working together to combat terrorism especially in the online space.
Public interest considerations against releasing the information
Disclosure of the information in scope of your request would reveal those organsistions
that are working with the Home Office to combat terrorism especially in the online space.
By releasing the names, we are informing the public which sites host the most content and
therefore potentially providing information that could make it easier for those searching for
this material to locate it on the internet.
This would serve to undermine the Prevent Strategy, and hence weaken and prejudice the
national security of the UK. There is a serious terrorist threat to the United Kingdom and
disclosure of 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.
Section 41 is also engaged.
Section 41 (1)(a)(b) - Information provided in confidence, provides that:
(1)Information is exempt information if—
(a)it was obtained by the public authority from any other person (including another
public authority), and
(b)the disclosure of the information to the public (otherwise than under this Act) by the
public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or
any other person.
Section 41 is an absolute exemption. However, we still need to consider the public interest
in disclosure, because the law of confidence recognises that a breach of confidence may
not be actionable when there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. Releasing the
information about individuals provided in confidence would breach confidential commercial
relationships with the Home Office and could result in breach of confidence action against
the Home Office. It would also damage our standing in dealing with individuals who would
not have confidence to engage with us in future, and may decide to take action against us.
We do not find an overriding public interest in disclosure in this case.

 Balance of the public interest
We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in withholding the information.

Date

[03/04/2017]

Annex A
Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DF

Dear Home Secretary,
Thank you for the constructive discussion today on the challenges that terrorism poses to us all.

We welcome the opportunity to share with you details of the progress already made in this area
and to hear how the UK Government is developing its approach in both the online and offline
space. Our companies are committed to making our platforms a hostile space for those who seek
to do harm and we have been working on this issue for several years. We share the Government’s
commitment to ensuring terrorists do not have a voice online.
We believe that companies, academics, civil society, and government all have an interest and
responsibility to respond to the danger of terrorist propaganda online—and as an industry we are
committed to doing more. Companies increasingly share best practices with one another, and we
have seen that sharing lessons learned across sectors can improve our collective response to this
challenge. Each of our companies also commits to urgently improve that collaboration, with
appropriate transparency and civil society involvement.
We will look at all options for structuring a forum to accelerate and strengthen this work, ranging
from existing international, multilateral organizations, developing dedicated non-governmental
organizations, to enhancing and broadening the current informal collaboration sessions that
companies already conduct.
We recognize three initial goals for this collaboration:
First, to encourage the further development of technical tools to identify and remove terrorist
propaganda. Companies apply unique content policies and have developed - and continue to
develop - techniques appropriate for or unique to their own platforms. Nonetheless, there is a
significant opportunity to share the knowledge gained in these varied efforts to develop innovative
solutions.
Second, to support younger companies that can benefit from the expertise and experiences of
more established ones. Working against terrorism is not a competitive issue within the industry and
we pledge to engage the wider ecosystem of companies that face these challenges. The British
Government can support this work by ensuring the 300 organisations that have a relationship with

 the Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit are aware of the support available from industry peers
and potentially convening those organisations where necessary.
Third, to support the efforts of civil society organisations to promote alternative and counternarratives. Our companies all have already invested in existing programs to support civil society,
but programs like the Civil Society Empowerment Programme highlight the potential benefits of
greater collaboration. Again, the industry does not see this work as one where we compete, but
rather as an opportunity to provide support whose value is greater than the individual contributions.
As you recognised, this work must be global in nature and must also avoid duplicating existing
efforts. The innovative video hash sharing database that is currently operational in a small number
of companies is one recent example of successful collaboration. That work has been strengthened
by engagement with the European Union, and illustrates the effectiveness of voluntary,
collaborative efforts. We anticipate that the next meeting of the EU Internet Forum will be an
opportunity to update member states on the progress of both the hash sharing effort and the forum
discussed today.
We are grateful for your support in ensuring that the Government and technology industry work
together to tackle this vital issue.
Yours sincerely,

Hugh Milward, Senior Director (Corporate, External and Legal Affairs), Microsoft UK

Nick Pickles, UK Head of Public Policy and Government, Twitter

Richard Allan, VP Public Policy EMEA, Facebook

Nicklas Lundblad, VP Public Policy Europe, Middle East, Russia and Africa, Google