back to article King's College London breached GDPR by sharing list of activist students with cops

Kings College London breached Europe's General Data Protection Regulation when it shared a list of student activists with the police and barred the activists from campus during a visit by the Queen, an independent report [PDF] has found. Some 13 students and one member of staff were unable to access any of the campus sites as …

  1. Hans 1
    Holmes

    Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

    I'd have no problem with her as our monarch, provided she could prove the existence of god and thereby her legitimacy!

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

      I would also request a written document signed by god about her legitimacy.

      1. Hans 1
        Coffee/keyboard

        Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

        I would not go that far, that would require god to be literate, which I doubt he is ... if he exists ...

        1. Martin Summers

          Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

          "I would not go that far, that would require god to be literate, which I doubt he is ... if he exists ..."

          Ooh dear, someone's going to be straight on to you about assuming God is male!

          Oh wait... That's me.

          1. Hans 1
            Angel

            Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

            God is neither man nor woman: he is God.

            There, I have cited the brainwashed - no, I do not believe that crap, I have no reason to.

            1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

              God is non-binary?

              1. Cuddles Silver badge

                Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

                "God is non-binary?"

                I understand the Christian god is trinary.

        2. Muscleguy Silver badge

          Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

          Indeed we only know he dictates stuff, not that he can write. The tablets supposedly given to Moses were never seen, locked up in the tabernacle. A bit like the golden tablets the angel Moroni handed out.

          God is hesheit exists almost certainly predates human literacy anyway and what script and language would god use? Cuneiform and Sumerian most likely but who knows?

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

      I don't think that many English kings really claimed divine right that much. And it certainly fell out of favour a long time ago. It died off with the Stuarts. It continued a bit longer on the continent. But England (and I think Scotland) were a lot less absolutist in general terms, and the crown was less powerful in comparison to the aristocracy.

      In major part because kings of England weren't all that rich, having given out too much land for patronage in the years after Norman the Conqueror - so were more reliant on Parliament for money for boring stuff like fighting wars, or having an army.

      1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

        Norman?

        Didn't William the Conqueror nick the lot anyway? I mean, obviously he won ("treason doth never prosper", etc) but...…

        Flanders and Swann, about a later time: "We're nationalizing the monasteries."

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Norman?

          Well I think there was a sort of general feeling that if you won a battle, then God was probably on your side - and if you lost it, he probably wasn't. Some sort of combination of "might is right" and "God helps those who help themselves."

          William got to be a lot more absolute because something like a third of the Saxon aristocracy was dead after Hastings and Stamford Bridge (we've always had a football hooligan problem...). After the North rebelled and got crushed that only got worse.

          Claiming divine right was also too good a way to get away with stuff - so was strongly discouraged by those around them who wanted to maintain their own power. If you're the Pope you don't want the king ordering the church around, and so when Kingy says stuff like I'm only accountable to God, the Pope might cut up rough. And if not the church, then the aristocracy. King John got forced to concede with Magna Carta that he was subject to laws - of course he reneged on it, and then there was another rebellion and he snuffed it before he could lose.

          I think Charles I genuinely believed in divine right, and it's one reason why he miscalculated so badly (and so often) in his dealings with Parliament.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Norman?

            Although Charles 1 was a pain in many ways, his dealings with Parliament were doomed because they had the idea that the little people should pay taxes to run the Royal Navy which protected their ships. (It's all in N A M Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea, for those interested).

            The MPs of the day were exactly like the ERG of today; in politics to promote their business interests.

            When they came to power, as anybody might have guessed, they kicked the common people even harder than the King had done. But the common people never got a choice as to which side they supported.

            1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

              Re: Norman?

              Benson's Cycle,

              I don't think that's really a fair reading of history. Pym was probably more of an arse than Charles. But the point was an English King hadn't had the right to collect new taxes without parliament's agreement since John, if not so rigidly in the early days. You can't just dump 400 years of precedent and law. The reason Charles levied ship tax inland was not to fund the navy. The navy was already funded by the ship tax on coastal areas. He was trying to increase his revenue without parliamentary consent. Inland areas regarded it as a new tax, and thus illegal. Parliament agreed.

              1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                Re: Norman?

                His father had a few novel ideas too. One was to stiff customary tenants of manors in royal hands for many years' worth of rent to confirm their tenancies. The manorial records were seized and gone through with a fine tooth comb and if there were any departures from what the auditors considered to be customary rents the tenants were accused of fraud.

                My area was one that suffered. It's not surprising that it came out solidly for Parliament when his son had a bit of trouble.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Norman?

                I cited N A M Rodger for a very different view. I can't be bothered to go into it here, but for anybody interested your local library (if you can remember what they were) should have a copy (see above).

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Norman?

            Didn't Dubya once say he was only accountable to god?

      2. LDS Silver badge

        Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

        Still. they used it to establish the tradition - and it was used until not much long ago.

    3. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

      I have no problem with her as our monarch, as the alternative would be a politician.

      Sovereign legitimacy is via Act of Parliament, gods opinion was booted out by Cromwell quite a while ago.

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

        We could have an elected head of state who has no real power, like the Irish do.

        Hell, I might even vote for Liz if we did, but I don't think she should get the job just because of who her dad was, and equally, I don't think she should have been forced into the job either.

        1. TRT Silver badge

          Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

          Of course she should be forced. No-one sane would take on that job. It's the sort of role you have to be prepared for from birth. God bless her, she's done a great job for a whole lifetime, but would you actively choose that? That amount of being in the limelight has quite literally destroyed people before now.

          1. LDS Silver badge
            Facepalm

            "It's the sort of role you have to be prepared for from birth"

            LOL - people still living in the XI century, not XXI.... when kings still died on the battlefield.

            It's only a show now, dust in naive eyes... to ensure an easy life to your family.

            But sure, if it's a birth right, you need to be prepared from birth.....

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "It's the sort of role you have to be prepared for from birth"

              Wrong century. Richard III died in battle at the end of the 15th century.

              The last member of the Royal Family to die in a military action was Lord Mountbatten, killed by the IRA in 1979. The 40th anniversary is next month.

              And Harry Windsor absolutely could have been killed in battle in the 21st century.

              1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                Re: "It's the sort of role you have to be prepared for from birth"

                "Wrong century. Richard III died in battle at the end of the 15th century."

                And later still George II was the last king to lead an army in battle (Dettingen, 1743).

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: "It's the sort of role you have to be prepared for from birth"

                  Thank you - good point.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "It's the sort of role you have to be prepared for from birth"

                Fat chance of that happening, more like he would have got other people killed, hence why he was "requested" to return home, and then was transferred to the AAC where Apache's don't operate alone and identifying which one was his would be quite difficult, coupled with Apache's being a very capable foe even against armour, let alone militiamen.....and all so he could play soldier. People forget his wearing Nazi uniform, referring to a Pakistani cadet as "our little Paki friend" amongst other "gems", but thats all forgiven since he set up invinctus right?

        2. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

          Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

          We've got an effectively powerless UK monarch, and I loyally approve. Keeps the career politicians away from the glory. And from the really expensive personal stuff. Imagine if any recent prime minister thought they had the status of national symbol, they would go mad. Or more mad than they actually did. As it is, they have to report in to her regularly, in person. Mind you, I bet she's dreading Boris Johnson.

          I do wonder, however, whether HM The Queen visiting a university during term and exam time and causing this disruption in the first place was a good thing, compared to not doing it. But I wouldn't want her to feel unwelcome.

          1. Stork Silver badge

            Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

            There are other solutions. Here in Portugal the president reviews the proposed laws, and is representative of all Portuguese, also the millions abroad. It is not generally a highly political post, even if the last one (Cavaco Silva) presented a new low.

            I have much respect for the incumbent

          2. Omgwtfbbqtime

            " Imagine if any recent prime minister thought they had the status of national symbol,"

            cough Tony Bliar cough.

            1. BebopWeBop

              Re: " Imagine if any recent prime minister thought they had the status of national symbol,"

              Cough Theresa May cough

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

            The disruption only happened because KCL chose to make it happen.

    4. Hans 1
      Facepalm

      Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

      Prince Charles is a fan of homeopathy (FFS!!!!!) and Deepak Chopra's "Quantum Healing", his sons love Nazi uniforms ... I am not really allowed to deface the ruling monarch, and I am not sure how far I can go before I get banned on here ... it does entail a higher house with hereditary and high priest MP's, in the XXI century - hereditary and high priest MP's in the XXI century!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

        I agree that Charles Windsor has some very funny ideas, though no madder than those of the average (goop) Hollywood celebrity. But can we get this one clear? It was Harry who wore an Afrika Korps uniform. He has also done some other rather silly things not unknown to other young Army officers, most of whom do not have degrees in intersectional feminist studies, but are quite good at getting the lads to take on the Taliban.

        I can make out an argument based on psychology and sociology that it is a good idea to have a non-political Head of State, and an election inevitably brings politics into it (we'd probably end up with King Farage*). The reason is that then the chief executive of the Government cannot be at the top of the tree, which is a valuable check. In the US the President is no longer the President, the one who holds the balance, but a kind of elected Emperor.

        In WW2 in Italy, the King was able to depose Mussolini. But in Germany, there was nobody to depose Hitler, and in Spain the same in re Franco. It was only with Franco's death that the monarchy was restored and Spain started to return to democracy.

        Perhaps the answer is that a monarchy is a terrible system, a democracy is a terrible system, but a democracy which has a notional monarch is perhaps slightly less terrible than either.

        *Because King Nigel would make us even more of a laughing stock.

        1. Hans 1
          Coffee/keyboard

          Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

          I agree that Charles Windsor has some very funny ideas, though no madder than those of the average (goop) Hollywood celebrity.

          Fine, Mia Cyrus or whatever she's called for next monarch then, right ? Just any celeb will do.

          But can we get this one clear? It was Harry who wore an Afrika Korps uniform. He has also done some other rather silly things not unknown to other young Army officers, most of whom do not have degrees in intersectional feminist studies, but are quite good at getting the lads to take on the Taliban.

          Ok, then, I grant you "the prince's son" (without plural), the rest of your rebuttal is off topic.

          In WW2 in Italy, the King was able to depose Mussolini. But in Germany, there was nobody to depose Hitler, and in Spain the same in re Franco. It was only with Franco's death that the monarchy was restored and Spain started to return to democracy.

          All jolly good, but ... may I ask, what does any of this have to do with my remarks on the UK's political institutions, where nobody checks on the PM (position soon to be known as PL for "Prime Liar", if the polls are to be believed) or parliament ... well, except another pain, the house of lard, where a bunch of inbred hereditary bloodsuckers, who have never heard of hardship, let-alone lived it, assisted by a bunch of brain-washed high priests (no I am NOT making this up!) are supposed to be some kind or moral compass ? Seriously, guys, seriously ... I doubt that even a Reality Distortion Field as strong and powerful as Apple's could fend off this ...

          1. Wincerind

            Re: Only monarchy fans allowed, then ?

            "inbred hereditary bloodsuckers"

            The vast majority of the inbred bloodsuckers these days aren't hereditary but are political appointees. Placemen, put there as an attempt at some kind of vote rigging in the "upper house".

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. deive
    Mushroom

    The police need to stop treating protesters as terrorists. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-domestic-extremism

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      A retired policeman I know once talked to me about the difficulty of upholding the right for people to go about their business and the right to protest. But he's absolutely clear that people have the right to protest because what honourable policeman would want to help run a dictatorship?

      There are many different kinds of police.

      1. Tomato42

        yes, there are two kinds of police officers: one that run the police-state and the ones that keep quiet about it

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          But this is about the UK, not the US, RF or China.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            The two types of police are one, bad police and two those who cover for bad police.

            That applies whichever country you are in.

          2. jospanner

            You have cops sleeping with activists to gain their trust, more cameras than anywhere else, and trials of facial recognition.

            But please dear god don't call it a police state!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          The police are not your friends.

          It only appears so when their interests coincide with yours.

        3. jospanner

          Cops are always, at best, complicit.

          1312

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How did they know they were activists in the first place? What was the list compiled from if they were not known to college disciplinary proceedings? Denying it was compiled based on race only makes me believe that is exactly what it was compiled on, either that or there is some other information sharing going on between the police and the college.

    1. EnviableOne Silver badge

      Never Believe anything

      untill its been Denied

    2. Killfalcon

      Possibly membership of student societies or something like that.

      1. hmv

        Student groups are usually part of the student union, which at least in some places is an entirely separate organisation to the university. Which begs the question as to why the physical security team had access to student union data.

    3. Wellyboot Silver badge

      The list is from an anti-israel demo two weeks before. - all in the report.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        >The list is from an anti-israel demo two weeks before

        So they are anti-Israeli (or possibly just anti-Netanyahu, which also includes a large number of Isaelis)

        So people thought that they would be anti a German/Anglican monarch?

        Somebody needs to improve their modern history faculty

        1. TRT Silver badge

          That's a weird logical jump to make. They might be radicalised, say, and disposed to take action against the leaders of the religions of the kafirs, or the heads of state of countries that have supported the zionist oppressors or their allies, or the heads of state of a nation that mounted operations against righteous jihadists. King's has a rather well renowned Department of War Studies; probably one of the very few in existence.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            It is nice how anti-semitism unites such a disparate group as ISIS, Christians, Nazis, anti-Likud Israelis, Labour MPs and now anti-monarchists (or possibly just supporters of the true House of York)

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              You missed "and British Jews who detest the Israeli government" - though they just get hate mail accusing them of being "self-hating Jews".

    4. macjules

      I don't know. "Justice for Cleaners" sounds awfully like a major league terrorist organisation to me though.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        I think that organisation was just a Flash in the pan.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Better than "Cleaners for Justice" the notorious mop wielding ninjas

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. DJV Silver badge

          Splitters!

      3. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

        Re: "Justice for Cleaners"

        Hmm if they choose to ally with other groups you might worry about the kind of chemicals being deployed.

        1. Ken Shabby

          Re: "Justice for Cleaners"

          Ah, so it was a spot check.

          1. TRT Silver badge

            Re: "Justice for Cleaners"

            The uni tried to sweep it under the carpet.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Justice for Cleaners"

          Harpic and bleach and you have a chlorine gas attack right there.

          1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

            Re: "Justice for Cleaners"

            People generally feel empathic towards cleaners.

            All they have to say is am only a cleaner and the tears will start to flow.

      4. DuncanLarge Silver badge

        Cleaners have access to all manner of household chemicals that can be made into any number of "bad" things. I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of a revolutionary group of cleaners!

  4. K

    Somebody somewhere sanctioned this

    Once again.... A public establishment gets away with a breach of the law, and there seems to be no lines of responsibility..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Somebody somewhere sanctioned this

      "A public establishment gets away with a breach of the law, and there seems to be no lines of responsibility"

      They reported themselves to the ICO, the result of which is yet to be determined..? Helps if you actually read the article?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Somebody somewhere sanctioned this

        I'm afraid I will line with the previous comment about "no lines of responsibility". ICO will investigate, and, say in 12 - 24 months it will have imposed a fine (MAYBE) which will be paid by...? Well, definitely NOT the individuals who made that decision to block students's entry. They will receive _no_ punishment whatsoever.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Somebody somewhere sanctioned this

          Again... PREVENT imposes a duty that could potentially conflict with GDPR. The main no-no isn't the sharing per se, but the none consultation with the nominated DPO for the organisation. GDPR isn't a big scary monster which will rip your head off if you include, say, the email address of the various departmental heads involved in the incident in a published PDF of the inquiry, but it does rather impose a procedure to follow to at least audit the decision trail saying if it's OK to do that or not. It's still early days, and they are still establishing a set of relevant "case law" that will act as a guide in future.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Somebody somewhere sanctioned this

            Doesn't it say a bit more about the country that a major public university has a secret banning list of students that it gives to the police and the only offence is some computer offence of sharing their email address without filling in the right paperwork?

            1. TRT Silver badge

              Re: Somebody somewhere sanctioned this

              You have a good point there. It definitely tells you something about the state of this nation. But what *other* criminal offence would there be?

              I mean it's technically not a crime to have a secret blacklist of people is it? Well apart from the processing of data bit. It's what you do with it - like blacklisting people from the building trade for union activism etc. There are clubs that won't have you as a member if you're on a list... all now covered by GDPR. So that's the ONLY crime. I mean it's not morally right, but since when has immorality been automatically criminal? And there are other countries where this is much worse. Are there any nations better at this? Isn't it a reflection of the people?

  5. Dedobot

    Justice for cleaners !?

    I'd ban them too :-)

    1. TRT Silver badge

      "Justice for Cleaners" were only after a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. They weren't looking to clean-up or anything.

  6. Dr Scrum Master

    Intersectional Feminists

    Why aren't they banned permanently? They're a blight on society with their oppression olympics.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Intersectional Feminists

      Why would feminists have a problem with the queen?

      Have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit, I can guarantee afterwards you won't feel oppressed unless you choose a Jaffa cake then all bets are off.

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: Intersectional Feminists

        If you eat all the Jaffa cakes and don't leave any for anyone else, you deserve to be oppressed as far as I'm concerned. And feminists are lovely people as long as you're not an arsehole.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Intersectional Feminists

          Your statement is completely correct, but there is a subtlety.

          As with any group in society, the intersection of the set of feminists and the set of arseholes is not the null set (ahem, Julie Bindel, and recently Germaine Greer.)

          However, this doesn't invalidate the general principle that people who support equal rights for everybody are less likely to be arseholes than those who don't.

          Applying this to the KCL case, people who support equal rights for Palestinians are less likely to be arseholes than people who want to shut up stroppy students.

          Back in the day when I was a student there was a somewhat annoying Trotskyite demonstration outside a college, and some extremely naughty people inside dropped flour on them out of a window.

          The police were asked to intervene and managed to get as far as the Porters' Lodge, where they were duly asked to produce a warrant. By the time the argument was over, of course, there was no trace whatever of the miscreants.

          But those were the days when the college security saw it as its job to prevent annoyances to the young gentlemen and the Fellows, not assist in them.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Intersectional Feminists

            Why would they need a warrant if they were attempting to prevent a crime in progress?

            If that was really a requirement, then Bank Robbers would have all the time in the world to loot the vault.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Intersectional Feminists

              Well, if you understood the actual post, then you'd know that it wasn't - it was merely a delaying tactic on the part of campus security.

  7. cantankerous swineherd

    strange that a university employs barely literate spokesdroids.

    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

      The smart ones had 'prior engagements' when faced with defending this fubar.

  8. smudge
    Big Brother

    Can't help thinking ...

    ... that this must be more than "just" a breach of data privacy legislation.

    Creating a list of names of people "against whom there was neither evidence of criminal activity nor any internal disciplinary findings", and providing it to the police? Not quite libel - but what?

    1. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: Can't help thinking ...

      Since that list of names was illegally given to the police - can we rely on the police deleting their copies of the list ?

      'No' - I thought not.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: Can't help thinking ...

        *cough* PREVENT *cough*

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Can't help thinking ...

      Eh, isn't it's obvious they're guilty of thoughtcrime.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: Can't help thinking ...

        Security for Higher Education Providers: lesson 101.

    3. Stork Silver badge

      Re: Can't help thinking ...

      Standard Operating Procedure?

  9. Wellyboot Silver badge

    Having read the actual report.

    Point 61 in the report show serious over reach by the security & estates department in collecting information and the use of Whatsapp (point 60) for any security or personal related information should be grounds for dismissal, that's far worse than collecting GDPR sensitive info in the first place.

    Taking part in a student on-campus demo two weeks earlier seems to be enough grounds for getting access pulled.

    Is there any insight into the past placard waving & arm linking behaviour of the KCL senior faculty and staff who actually did stand only a few feet from Her Maj?

  10. JimmyPage
    Big Brother

    Apologies are easy ...

    Call me cynical, but given there's fuck all redress for a data protection breach, ever, I reckon the whole thing was premeditated and losing the subsequent court case factored in as an offset to the aim of keeping the great unwashed away from her madge.

    It's like when police "accidentally" kettle protestors, and are slapped on the wrist after the event.

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: Apologies are easy ...

      What court case?

      1. BebopWeBop

        Re: Apologies are easy ...

        Precisely

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Access Control Systems

    From the report it seems that the access control system they were using has at least been installed in such a way that it made denying access to a particular location not easily achievable. I expect they have a number of access zones, each graded as low, medium or high security. All the general access, low security, real estate like lobbies, refectories, libraries and the shortcuts between buildings that the general public would otherwise make use of if they could are probably lumped into one big group, so a script can tick a single checkbox via an API somewhere during enrolment / HR starter process / email account creation (probably Azure / Active Directory, since I believe they are thralls of subscribe to Office365 for most of the mundane stuff). The medium level stuff like research-only corridors and reserved IT suites probably needs a signature on a bit of paper from a tutor or lab manager. The high security areas, like comms rooms, biological services, library archives etc probably needs a bit of paper signed by a head of department or has some HR process attached to it like CBR checks or the like.

    By "lumping" all the low security zones, where everyone should have access, into a single group of zones, you make life easier for the estates and facilities / security staff.

    Each access control point / car reader would therefore receive its own specific whitelist of cards... compare the card to the list and if you are on the list you are allowed, if not you are denied. This stands in opposition to having a blacklist as well, a list which is checked first and if the card is on there then access is denied and no further checking is bothered with. If you had blacklists AS WELL, then you aren't going to be adding too much to those, so it can be a manual process. Less bother than setting up a new grouping of zones which excludes the temporarily high security campus, adding the blacklisted ones to that, then removing the all areas group, only to reverse the process 12 hours later.

    Of course, I expect many of the buildings simply have an open lobby where you flash your card at a meaty guy in a suit / bouncer, and they aren't going to check a white or a black list, they're just going to get suspicious if you look a bit shifty and nervous. It's only when you get to the libraries and "in-campus" unguarded doors that you're going to get your swipe checked.

    In any event, it's an embarrassment, and somewhat disconcerting that they'd go so far as to check CCTV against the access logs in order to determine who might be a troublemaker over one particularly inflammatory incident.

    1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

      Re: Access Control Systems

      Remember that KCL have form when it comes to maintaining their infrastructure even under normal everyday circumstances:-

      https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/19/kcls_strand_data_centre_down/

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Access Control Systems

        Sadly they have longer form than that. The mention of a south London site prompted me to do a bit of checking. The buildings that held my old department have gone which I knew about. So, it appears, has the building that replaced them and so has the department, in fact a whole bunch of science departments. Even my old hall of residence. All the property seems to have been sold out to developers.

        Bastards!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...we bring our operations in house..."

    Is there any irony in the fact that the end of subcontracting for domestic services, security, catering and facilities staff and them being brought back in-house is as a result of pressure from the Justice for Cleaners campaign?

  13. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    What do you expect

    The place was founded by a bunch of sycophantic monarchists to counter the revolutionary threat from the "Heathens of Gower St"

    (Yes I am a UCL graduate, why do you ask ?)

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: What do you expect

      Pff! Panopticon. That's all *I'll* say about the heathen founders of Gower Street.

      1. BebopWeBop
        Happy

        Re: What do you expect

        Well we can say we stuffed our founder - more than most colleges achieved.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What do you expect

          UCL also runs the Orwell Prize for political writing, so perhaps next year the prize will go to an essay about this KCL foulup.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

  14. Jonny Quest

    ICO To the Rescue...not.

    There seems to be no comment on the ICO site about this incident https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/

    1. Alister

      Re: ICO To the Rescue...not.

      That's because they haven't taken any action yet, it's only just been reported to them.

  15. Anonymous Coward
  16. Andi

    Contract?

    These are students paying £9,000 per year for the benefit of studying at that University, right?

  17. MachDiamond Silver badge

    I'm sorry, what?

    "I want to reiterate that discrimination on any grounds is unacceptable and is damaging to our community"

    "Profiling" and Discrimination used properly are tools. I'm using "discrimination" in a broader sense and not for action against somebody due to their skin color. Previously granted access is often suspended when there is a VIP visit or special function. If the group of students is known to be anti-monarchy or has a tendency to show up everywhere with a placard and a rehearsed suite of pithy chants, I expect that the school would not be enthusiastic about their attending an event with the Queen.

    All sorts of places have lists of people that are banned. There are many lists that a state will keep of foreign nationals that will be denied entry at a port or will undergo a higher level of checking. I'm not vociferously political yet I am on a list somewhere as I'm always "randomly selected" for additional screening when I fly and have decided not to fly anymore unless I'm at the controls. Lots of lists are shared. Get asked to leave a casino in Las Vegas and if you have been naughty enough, your name and photo may show up on the watch list of other casinos.

  18. doublelayer Silver badge

    A suggested solution

    As a developer, I'd like to suggest a software solution to this. The relevant modules are presumed to have been imported:

    def dealwith(employee):

    if !employee.ask("Did you have any knowledge of this?"): return

    if employee.ask("Did you report this to the relevant authority?"):

    authority=employee.ask("What authority was that, then?")

    dealwith(authority)

    return

    supervisor_knowledge = employee.ask("Did your supervisor know about this?")

    security.inform("We have another card for you to block out.", employee.cardnum)

    hr.update(employee.id, employment_status=hr.NOT_EMPLOYED, flags=hr.DO_NOT_EMPLOY)

    employee.employed = False

    for colleague in employee.colleagues:

    dealwith(colleague)

    for subordinate in employee.subordinates:

    dealwith(subordinate)

    dealwith(employee.supervisor) # security warning, not trusting potentially unreliable result of variable supervisor_knowledge

    employee.inform("Oh, dear. Unfortunately, you're going to have to leave now and never come back.")

    return

    dealwith(email_to_police.sender)

    print("Done")

  19. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    ICO fine incoming ... or not?

    "Were were subject to malware on our system and breached GDPR" (BA with massive turnover) ICO Result: massive cashcow fine.

    "We willingly gave data from our system and breached our own policies and GDPR" (KCL) ICO Result ...?

    Will be interesting to see what happens with the ICO investigation ... consistency should and would be expected ...

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: ICO fine incoming ... or not?

      I think a lot of it will hinge on if at any time, even in a casual phone call, the cops asked for the information before it was volunteered. Mind you, I'm not sure I'd consent to the processing of my PID if the reason for the processing was compiling a list of dissidents. They'd probably present that as being "processing of data related to the security of individuals, the institution and its teaching, research and other activities". Which of course we would all have no objection to. Right, kids?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022