31–40 of 182 posts
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.
I thought we use a passport or drivers license for identification?
> According to the DPA ruling, although the school secured parents' consent to monitor the students, the regulator did not feel that it was a legally adequate reason to collect such sensitive personal data. It’s this kind of second-guessing which is extremely concerning about GDPR-type regulation. Not that the information was not secure, or leaked, or mishandled, or consent wasn’t obtained, but even if all that is do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Choosing between European internet laws and having a tech sector, I'd pick having a tech sector any day. It's all totally unnecessary strangling of innovation. The entire idea that you own data pertaining to you is absurd.
This is not a dichotomy. We can have a tech sector that’s also compliant with laws like GDPR.
1. The Short-Run Effects of GDPR on Technology Venture Investment: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3278912
"The regulator noted that although some parts of the school could be deemed to be "public", students had a certain expectation of privacy when they entered a classroom. 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.
Seriously though, where exactly is the privacy if attendance is taken either way?
The school could simply use RFiD cards for tracking attendance.
"The regulator noted that although some parts of the school could be deemed to be "public", students had a certain expectation of privacy when they entered a classroom. 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.
Eyeball surveillance. I remember school. The teachers eyes were far more piercing than any camera. Seriously though, where exactly is the privacy if attendance is taken either way?
"The regulator noted that although some parts of the school could be deemed to be "public", students had a certain expectation of privacy when they entered a classroom. 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.
Eyeball surveillance. I remember school. The teachers eyes were far more piercing than any camera. Seriously though, where exactly is the privacy if attendance is taken either way?
There is no need to record more information than this. The expectation of privacy is exactly this: that any information that is not needed is not recorded.
Human teachers are unable to capture or keep recorded all the extra information they see with their eyes. Cameras do.
Collected data can be used later - for example, the school or teachers can sell face models to advertisers, shopping mall owners, data brokers, Facebook, Google etc. So it is a right decision to shut down such a dubious project. The school could simply use RFiD cards for tracking attendance.
So You could have a tracking on a map of a dot moving, but as soon as you associate that dot with a person in the same dataset - that causes dramalama. But you can have that dot associated with a person in a separate dataset held by somebody else and skirt around the fact that the same dataset is held, albeit obfuscated at a remedial level that placates the technothuds.
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…
Choosing between European internet laws and having a tech sector, I'd pick having a tech sector any day. It's all totally unnecessary strangling of innovation. The entire idea that you own data pertaining to you is absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Recital 38: "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 imba…
Oyster cards in London, your journeys are tracked, consent not asked for. Let alone giving special privilege for children.
Then the whole aspect of under-age (children) commiting crime and evidence. A smart lawyer could abuse the whole aspect to squash any evidence that placed them at a scene of a crime as they never gave consent and if they did - they didn't know what they were doing.
Basically - if a school can't rely upon consent from children - nobody can.