4 ms·

>"I'm not sure why the police asking for the list would be disturbing by itself." Unless they have evidence that these individuals either committed a crime or

>"I'm not sure why the police asking for the list would be disturbing by itself." Unless they have evidence that these individuals either committed a crime or intend to, then there are several reasons why that would be objectionable: it's a violation of privacy, it's disproportionate to the harm they pose, and it's an over-reach of police power. >"In any case, the groups themselves may not be extreme, but there may be extremists within the group who police have reason to be interested in, but have not yet identified." I don't think 'extremists' is the right word. It's extremely unlike that we are talking about terrorism, or even the destruction of property. I suspect that KCL feared the normal modes of student protest: occupation, no-platforming, and spectacle. If you read the report, the list at issue is a list of 'student protestors', made up of names from an occupation at KCL opposed to the outsourcing of the university's cleaning staff, a series of climate changes protests, and a protest outside a lecture by a Colonel in the Israeli Defence Force. These kinds of things have occurred at most universities in the UK over recent years, and they are fairly innocuous.

cgriswald 7y ago
> Unless they have evidence that these individuals either committed a crime or intend to... Police routinely ask questions of and about people who are not suspected of a crime in the process of investigating a crime. If a crime occurs and they have reason to suspect that a person in group X knows something about the crime, it's completely reasonable for them to seek out and question members of that group. Requiring police to not only suspect, but have actual evidence against a person in order to investigate is an unreasonable burden and would make all but the most trivial cases impossible to solve. > then there are several reasons why that would be objectionable: it's a violation of privacy, it's disproportionate to the harm they pose, and it's an over-reach of police power. Sure. There are several reasons why a request might be objectionable, but I don't see any of those reasons being seriously and credibly alleged; only assumed or implied.
- Emma_Goldman 7y ago
  >"There are several reasons why a request might be objectionable, but I don't see any of those reasons being seriously and credibly alleged" KCL itself concluded that it was disproportionate and a breach of privacy. It is not only alleged; it is the result of an independent report commissioned by one of the two culpable institutions! >"Police routinely ask questions of and about people who are not suspected of a crime in the process of investigating a crime." KCL shared the names of protestors who they feared might disrupt a visit from the Queen. They did not share them pursuant to the investigation of some further crime. The report suggests that KCL had no evidence that the students would disrupt the visit, other than the fact that they had been part of past protests. Given that fact, the violation of the student's privacy appears entirely disproportionate, and an improper and wasteful use of police resources.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    Yes, but you're talking about KCL. I'm talking about the police. KCL shared the names with police of students who had already been involved in a protest that had resulted in damage and for which they were considering disciplinary action. The police, in response, asked for more information about those students. Exactly what should the police have done differently in your opinion?
    - noodlesUK 7y ago
      I’m not surprised that the police wanted this information. The police are perfectly welcome to want any information, and in most cases can ask you for it, regardless of if you’re allowed to give it away. I’d support penalties for both the police and disclosing organisation if it turns out that the police are using information that was acquired unlawfully in some way.
- olliej 7y ago
  Yet here they had no crime to have evidence about, the only “evidence” of involvement was that they were activists. Much like “we gave a list of campus civil rights activists to the police because we don’t like protests” was also wrong (and illegal). Protests are not illegal, not even in the fairly authoritarian British legal system.

cgriswald 7y ago

> Unless they have evidence that these individuals either committed a crime or intend to... Police routinely ask questions of and about people who are not suspected of a crime in the process of investigating a crime. If a crime occurs and they have reason to suspect that a person in group X knows something about the crime, it's completely reasonable for them to seek out and question members of that group. Requiring police to not only suspect, but have actual evidence against a person in order to investigate is an unreasonable burden and would make all but the most trivial cases impossible to solve. > then there are several reasons why that would be objectionable: it's a violation of privacy, it's disproportionate to the harm they pose, and it's an over-reach of police power. Sure. There are several reasons why a request might be objectionable, but I don't see any of those reasons being seriously and credibly alleged; only assumed or implied.

Emma_Goldman 7y ago
>"There are several reasons why a request might be objectionable, but I don't see any of those reasons being seriously and credibly alleged" KCL itself concluded that it was disproportionate and a breach of privacy. It is not only alleged; it is the result of an independent report commissioned by one of the two culpable institutions! >"Police routinely ask questions of and about people who are not suspected of a crime in the process of investigating a crime." KCL shared the names of protestors who they feared might disrupt a visit from the Queen. They did not share them pursuant to the investigation of some further crime. The report suggests that KCL had no evidence that the students would disrupt the visit, other than the fact that they had been part of past protests. Given that fact, the violation of the student's privacy appears entirely disproportionate, and an improper and wasteful use of police resources.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  Yes, but you're talking about KCL. I'm talking about the police. KCL shared the names with police of students who had already been involved in a protest that had resulted in damage and for which they were considering disciplinary action. The police, in response, asked for more information about those students. Exactly what should the police have done differently in your opinion?
  - noodlesUK 7y ago
    I’m not surprised that the police wanted this information. The police are perfectly welcome to want any information, and in most cases can ask you for it, regardless of if you’re allowed to give it away. I’d support penalties for both the police and disclosing organisation if it turns out that the police are using information that was acquired unlawfully in some way.
olliej 7y ago
Yet here they had no crime to have evidence about, the only “evidence” of involvement was that they were activists. Much like “we gave a list of campus civil rights activists to the police because we don’t like protests” was also wrong (and illegal). Protests are not illegal, not even in the fairly authoritarian British legal system.