11–20 of 182 posts
Maybe we should think about how we make schools spaces of freedom for our children rather than turning them into the next panopticon.
It said there were less intrusive ways that their attendance could have been detected without involving camera surveillance."
Yeah, especially considering the students do not have a choice about being there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR doesn't specify what you can't do with personal data, it specifies what you can do. Personal data is private by default; you can only use my data if it is explicitly lawful for you to do so. If you're not absolutely sure that what you're doing is in line with the GDPR, you shouldn't do it. That's by design, not by accident. The GDPR's fundamental principles are set out in article 5. You should collect the le…
Afaik the ruling also stated that parents abd children dont have a resonable ability to consent towards a school.
Good. Not only does this ensure that the students enjoy privacy, monitoring children in school with surveillance systems could have come straight out of foucault's discipline and punish. Maybe we should think about how we make schools spaces of freedom for our children rather than turning them into the next panopticon.
Especially considering that kids have poor judgement, tracking things in school that could be in any way used later against the individual is dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR doesn't specify what you can't do with personal data, it specifies what you can do. Personal data is private by default; you can only use my data if it is explicitly lawful for you to do so. If you're not absolutely sure that what you're doing is in line with the GDPR, you shouldn't do it. That's by design, not by accident. The GDPR's fundamental principles are set out in article 5. You should collect the le…
The issue with the GDPR as worded and this ruling is that they remove the possibility of informed individual decisions. In this case it seems that all involved were informed and OK with it but that did not matter. I would also think that knowing where pupils are at all times is quite a legitimate aim for a school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR doesn't specify what you can't do with personal data, it specifies what you can do. Personal data is private by default; you can only use my data if it is explicitly lawful for you to do so. If you're not absolutely sure that what you're doing is in line with the GDPR, you shouldn't do it. That's by design, not by accident. The GDPR's fundamental principles are set out in article 5. You should collect the le…
The issue with the GDPR as worded and this ruling is that they remove the possibility of informed individual decisions. In this case it seems that all involved were informed and OK with it but that did not matter. I would also think that knowing where pupils are at all times is quite a legitimate aim for a school.
Considering the only words the person who oversees both high schools had to say on record was that the technology is "fairly safe", I am somewhat doubting that the parents had a fully formed view of what the potential downfalls of the program are if/when it is breached or misused, or even malfunctions.
I think when we are dealing with advanced tech such as facial recognition it is analogous to the informed consent issues doctors face. How can someone possibly obtain informed consent from non-experts over something that requires years of schooling to understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR doesn't specify what you can't do with personal data, it specifies what you can do. Personal data is private by default; you can only use my data if it is explicitly lawful for you to do so. If you're not absolutely sure that what you're doing is in line with the GDPR, you shouldn't do it. That's by design, not by accident. The GDPR's fundamental principles are set out in article 5. You should collect the le…
The issue with the GDPR as worded and this ruling is that they remove the possibility of informed individual decisions. In this case it seems that all involved were informed and OK with it but that did not matter. I would also think that knowing where pupils are at all times is quite a legitimate aim for a school.
I'd argue exposing their children to mass surveillance in school and face recognition was not in the best interest of the child. I'd go further and argue that the parents violated the GDPR themselves, by mishandling or allowing a third party to mishandle with parental consent the data of their kids. This was at least grossly negligent. If I was making the decisions about fines, I'd have fine the parents a minor fine, too, just enough to make them (and other parents reading about it) think about such things next time somebody comes around with an indecent proposal to collect their kids data.
Also, we place, in my opinion rightfully so, certain restrictions on individual choice and decisions. For instance, you cannot kill your neighbor for your pleasure even if they gave you informed consent. These restrictions are of course not set in stone, as e.g. the assisted suicide discussions show, or gay marriage.
There are certain areas that seem benign at first, like e.g. health care providers getting you to wear "health" monitoring devices for a reduction in premiums... until the reductions become so severe that you cannot really opt out anymore, if any health care provider will even take you after you opt out. Or "voluntary" drug tests to get a job, or when already employed. Everybody knows these dejure voluntary tests are defacto mandatory.
I'd argue that mass surveillance and even biometric processing in schools falls in this category too; looks somewhat benign in the beginning, until it isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR doesn't specify what you can't do with personal data, it specifies what you can do. Personal data is private by default; you can only use my data if it is explicitly lawful for you to do so. If you're not absolutely sure that what you're doing is in line with the GDPR, you shouldn't do it. That's by design, not by accident. The GDPR's fundamental principles are set out in article 5. You should collect the le…
The issue with the GDPR as worded and this ruling is that they remove the possibility of informed individual decisions. In this case it seems that all involved were informed and OK with it but that did not matter. I would also think that knowing where pupils are at all times is quite a legitimate aim for a school.
"Children merit specific protection with regard to their personal data, as they may be less aware of the risks, consequences and safeguards concerned and their rights in relation to the processing of personal data."
Recital 43:
"In order to ensure that consent is freely given, consent should not provide a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data in a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller, in particular where the controller is a public authority and it is therefore unlikely that consent was freely given in all the circumstances of that specific situation."
A school cannot rely on consent as a lawful basis for processing the personal data of pupils.
Meanwhile in the US, we still use a 10 digit number for our identification, regardless of who is holding it. I'm not sure which is worse :/ EDIT: phone numbers are 10 digits, SSN is 9.