At Least They Didn't Use Tasers
So it appears that the British police detained a university student and a staff member for six days because:
The student was doing research on terrorist organizations for his masters degree in politics, accessed a 1500 page al-Qaeda training manual from a US Government website, didn't want to pay the printing fees, and emailed it to a friend who had free printing privileges (I gather) as a university staff member. Then another staff member apparently saw the document on the computer it had been printed from and freaked.
The comments over at the story pretty much cover most of the obvious and immediate reactions to this story. For my own sake, I recognize and respect the desire/need to be vigilant, and I don't think it's inappropriate for the second staff member to have alerted authorities, and if I'm getting the chain of events right, I also don't think the university was necessarily wrong in punting the investigation to law enforcement. And I'm sure the cops had/have some protocol that was implemented which led to this result, but as one of the commenters put it, the protocol shouldn't countermand the work of the Mk. 1 Human Brain. (Although, really, we're probably more on like Mk. 3.5 or something.) It shouldn't have taken six days to figure out (1) the chain of events; (2) the student's course of study; (3) the provenance of the information. So that is distressing as far as the police work goes.
What's more distressing to me than the policework, because as a bourgeoise white guy I'm more immediately invested in academic freedom than civil liberties, is the response of the University of Nottingham:
A spokesman for Nottingham confirmed that the police had been called after material was found on the computer used by a junior clerical member of staff. “There was no reasonable rationale for this person to have that information,” he said. “The police were called in on the basis of reasonable anxiety and concern. In response to that, the police made a connection with a student who, we understand, was impeding the investigation and arrested that person.”
He added that the edited version of the al-Qaeda handbook was “not legitimate research material” in the university’s view.
WHAT THE FUCK.
"There was no reasonable rationale for this person to have that information"??? I gather that they're talking here about the staff clerk and not the student, and while from a literal standpoint that makes sense, WHAT THE FUCK!!! There's no reasonable rationale for me to have bought a book on Shamanism (which I recently did), since Shamanism isn't my job, except for, you know, PERSONAL INTEREST. Again, this was PUBLIC INFORMATION posted on a FUCKING GOVERNMENT WEBSITE. (A foreign government, yes, but the USA!) This guy is a dick. As to whether the material itself was "not legitimate" as a research tool I can't say, except to wonder: was it illegitimate because it was edited? Should he have acquired an unedited (i.e., classified) copy? Even if it was inappropriate as a primary source to use in citations, is it illegitimate for background material in the student's research? How about the fact that the kid is A FUCKING STUDENT WHO WAS SEEKING OUT INFORMATION.
Look, I'm going to take a second look at some dude on the bus reading a book called How You Can Use Make Bombs With Common Household Items, but the idea that there would be no rational reason for him to have the book, or that it was illegitimate for him to be reading it, is ridiculous and frightening. If I were studying World War II, even if I were focused on the Pacific Theater, it wouldn't be crazy for me to have a copy of Mein Kampf around, would it? (Or, again, just for personal interest. Doesn't make me an anti-semite.) Or to get out of the universally despicable and into the merely distasteful, I have a copy of The Bell Curve. Now, I bought it because my university library's copies were all checked out and I was up against a deadline for a paper, but even if I didn't have such a particular reason for owning it, I might have bought it out to satisfy this dangerous human impulse called intellectual curiosity. Ownership of a book, reading a book, is indicative of curiosity and/or interest, not endorsement, and that a university official of all people would hedge against that vital fact (instead of just tossing some mealy mouthed "Mistakes Were Made" rhetoric and moving on) is disgusting.
The student was doing research on terrorist organizations for his masters degree in politics, accessed a 1500 page al-Qaeda training manual from a US Government website, didn't want to pay the printing fees, and emailed it to a friend who had free printing privileges (I gather) as a university staff member. Then another staff member apparently saw the document on the computer it had been printed from and freaked.
The comments over at the story pretty much cover most of the obvious and immediate reactions to this story. For my own sake, I recognize and respect the desire/need to be vigilant, and I don't think it's inappropriate for the second staff member to have alerted authorities, and if I'm getting the chain of events right, I also don't think the university was necessarily wrong in punting the investigation to law enforcement. And I'm sure the cops had/have some protocol that was implemented which led to this result, but as one of the commenters put it, the protocol shouldn't countermand the work of the Mk. 1 Human Brain. (Although, really, we're probably more on like Mk. 3.5 or something.) It shouldn't have taken six days to figure out (1) the chain of events; (2) the student's course of study; (3) the provenance of the information. So that is distressing as far as the police work goes.
What's more distressing to me than the policework, because as a bourgeoise white guy I'm more immediately invested in academic freedom than civil liberties, is the response of the University of Nottingham:
A spokesman for Nottingham confirmed that the police had been called after material was found on the computer used by a junior clerical member of staff. “There was no reasonable rationale for this person to have that information,” he said. “The police were called in on the basis of reasonable anxiety and concern. In response to that, the police made a connection with a student who, we understand, was impeding the investigation and arrested that person.”
He added that the edited version of the al-Qaeda handbook was “not legitimate research material” in the university’s view.
WHAT THE FUCK.
"There was no reasonable rationale for this person to have that information"??? I gather that they're talking here about the staff clerk and not the student, and while from a literal standpoint that makes sense, WHAT THE FUCK!!! There's no reasonable rationale for me to have bought a book on Shamanism (which I recently did), since Shamanism isn't my job, except for, you know, PERSONAL INTEREST. Again, this was PUBLIC INFORMATION posted on a FUCKING GOVERNMENT WEBSITE. (A foreign government, yes, but the USA!) This guy is a dick. As to whether the material itself was "not legitimate" as a research tool I can't say, except to wonder: was it illegitimate because it was edited? Should he have acquired an unedited (i.e., classified) copy? Even if it was inappropriate as a primary source to use in citations, is it illegitimate for background material in the student's research? How about the fact that the kid is A FUCKING STUDENT WHO WAS SEEKING OUT INFORMATION.
Look, I'm going to take a second look at some dude on the bus reading a book called How You Can Use Make Bombs With Common Household Items, but the idea that there would be no rational reason for him to have the book, or that it was illegitimate for him to be reading it, is ridiculous and frightening. If I were studying World War II, even if I were focused on the Pacific Theater, it wouldn't be crazy for me to have a copy of Mein Kampf around, would it? (Or, again, just for personal interest. Doesn't make me an anti-semite.) Or to get out of the universally despicable and into the merely distasteful, I have a copy of The Bell Curve. Now, I bought it because my university library's copies were all checked out and I was up against a deadline for a paper, but even if I didn't have such a particular reason for owning it, I might have bought it out to satisfy this dangerous human impulse called intellectual curiosity. Ownership of a book, reading a book, is indicative of curiosity and/or interest, not endorsement, and that a university official of all people would hedge against that vital fact (instead of just tossing some mealy mouthed "Mistakes Were Made" rhetoric and moving on) is disgusting.
Labels: Vaguely Political
posted by medrawt at
19:30
<< Home