51–60 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the core issue is the London Metropolitan Police being incompetent (and slow).
Not just incompetent, but callous and cruel toward the citizenry, making themselves agents of capitalist oppression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Title change might be good too, because like others, I thought it was Google Docs snitching on a downloader. A possibly more accurate title would be: "Activist raided by London police after downloading docs found on Google Search"
Ah ok. Fixed. Thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably whoever called the cops turned the password protection on before doing so.
But then they have lied to the police.
Yes. Companies misuse the violence of the state for their own ends all the time (see: Union busting).
This is why people say that the police are an agent of the wealthy to oppress the common people. The wealthy "file a report", and the police "take the report seriously", trampling the rights and stealing precious time of people's lives (and sometimes much worse), but the common people can not do the same to their oppressors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They charged him without any evidence. They were harrassing an activist. It wasn't incompetence. [Edit: the article didn't say they charged him; I was wrong] Well, that's how it looks to me, on the basis of a single report in a tech journal with a sort-of tabloid outlook. Maybe there will be more information in coming days.
> They charged him Eh?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-says-role-cps-deciding-w...
Basically Police arrest, looked at the evidence then took no action as Police decided no crime - therefore not charged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then they have lied to the police.
> But then they have lied to the police. Yes. Companies misuse the violence of the state for their own ends all the time (see: Union busting).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They charged him Eh?
A British term, means formally charged with an offence. Police compile evidence and/or arrest a person. If the Police think there is enough of a case, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decide if there is enough evidence to support a 'charge' https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-says-role-cps-deciding-w... Basically Police arrest, looked at the evidence then took no action as Police decided no crime - therefore not c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But then they have lied to the police. Yes. Companies misuse the violence of the state for their own ends all the time (see: Union busting).
So do normal people, like reporting "suspicious activity" and SWATing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? By investigating a report of a crime, determining it was false, and releasing the guy?
There is no reason to take the guy into custard for downloading a file, he didn't do anything violent, and should be allowed to stay home as long as he cooperates with the investigation. Cooperative people accused of non-violent crimes should NEVER be taken into custody until proven guilty in a court with fair trial.
Uh, so if someone set fire to a bunch of homes in a neighborhood, and there's video of them doing it, but they did it knowing the homes were empty, they should just be left free until the trial is over? I'm sorry but I feel like a lot of online comments on criminal justice are very shortsighted
This article leaves some really crucial parts of this timeline ambiguous. These things happened in some order: 1. Guy downloads stuff from website 2. Guy publishes stuff from website 3. Stuff becomes unavailable on the website 4. Website owners go to police, report “illegal access” 5. Police arrest guy Either the police arrested him, and the company declined to inform the police that these illegally accessed files ha…