5 ms·

>"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 conclud

>"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.