Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Parents refuse to allow learning robot in class

162 replies

Yabbers · 20/02/2019 17:55

link

Kier has an auto immune condition and can’t attend school when he is poorly which is half the time. A fantastic piece of kit, a learning robot, is used in 850 schools around the world, but 11 of 400 parents have refused to allow this into his school in Edinburgh. It is considered to be so secure it would take millions of years to break the encryption and there have been no incidents in all the years it has been used.

AIBU to assume these parents are Mumsnetters who bandy about “Data Protection” and “safeguarding” and because of this non existent risk have stopped this child being a part of his class.

OP posts:
Decormad38 · 20/02/2019 17:56

I don’t know enough about the detail of this equipment to comment. Sorry.

Purpleartichoke · 20/02/2019 17:58

Unless it is a very small school, couldn't they just move the objecting students to a different class?

Greensleeves · 20/02/2019 18:00

Perhaps if you gave a bit of information about the nature of parents' objections, rather than just an opportunistic swipe at overprotective MNers? What were you hoping to achieve by framing your OP in that way? Confused

dreichuplands · 20/02/2019 18:09

OP you are making some pretty big assumptions all ways round about this issue.

SmashedMug · 20/02/2019 18:12

Non existent risk? Everything is hackable if someone wants to put the effort in. Also, it's claimed in the article that it's safe at the end where the child is. Perhaps other parents don't trust Keir's parents to keep it safe and secure. Maybe they are concerned it wouldn't be used in a secure environment and they have no say in who has access to Keir and his robot.

Drawward · 20/02/2019 18:13

I think I would be one of the people raising an objection.
Firstly I think its a good idea and would like to see some more work put into it but these would be my problems with it:
You are right that to intercept the stream and crack it is hard work, its much easier to obtain or brute force the log in information. If the iPad is stolen does it auto sign in? Can someone with access to the iPad use it with out the child's consent? As you cant see the child as well as them being able to see you then you don't know who is on the other end logged in.
Giving it the ability to look 360 degrees and zoom means that you don't know what exactly its capturing.
They mention no way to record in the app and that's fine but many screen capture apps exist that will let someone record the video.

Katterinaballerina · 20/02/2019 18:15

Yes YABU. MNers who don’t want there children’s photos on public websites ( the most common complaint) do not = parents who have objected to this specific tech.

Why couldn’t they put it at the front of the class facing the teacher, so no DC are on screen Confused

SmashedMug · 20/02/2019 18:15

I also think it's quite amusing that the dad says "It is impossible to record the video stream, or take a screenshot of what's on the screen at home." and the article is accompanied by a photo of the screen in action which completely negates what he said 😂

Katterinaballerina · 20/02/2019 18:16

‘ability to look 360 degrees and zoom’

Sheet of cardboard behind it bent in two ^

WhatTheNightBrings · 20/02/2019 18:17

Hmm, There's obviously more to this story.

The trial was supposed to take place in October 2017. What happened?

There's obviously enough concern that parental permission was sought in the first place.

toriatoriatoria · 20/02/2019 18:20

Perhaps if you gave a bit of information about the nature of parents' objections, rather than just an opportunistic swipe at overprotective MNers? What were you hoping to achieve by framing your OP in that way?
^ This

SparklyMagpie · 20/02/2019 18:21

Echoing what the majority of posters are saying. You've not really given us a lot to go off here

XmasPostmanBos · 20/02/2019 18:29

Its a new technology and parents are right to question the security of their children and the potential for things to be recorded. This is a trial and they have already discovered a problem which needs addressing. If the security of the unit can be tested and guaranteed then it will be a good thing going forward.

Contraceptionismyfriend · 20/02/2019 18:37

I would need more information than what you've provided here before I agreed to this.
Were they given more details?

CheshireChat · 20/02/2019 18:41

Well, those 11 families might be the ones with genuine safeguarding concerns like adopted children and those fleeing DV, not necessarily just being difficult.

I do feel sorry for the boy, maybe limit the 360 view and just focus on the teacher?

Original poster
Yabbers · 20/02/2019 18:43

The trial was supposed to take place in October 2017. What happened?

The school refused to let it in because of the objections of a small, vocal group of parents after they heard the father talking about it on BBC radio. Edinburgh City Council, claim they have been “working with” everyone. The father has produced all the technical information he has been asked for but the parents just simply refuse to accept it.

OP posts:
Original poster
Yabbers · 20/02/2019 18:46

Well, those 11 families might be the ones with genuine safeguarding concerns like adopted children and those fleeing DV, not necessarily just being difficult.
In which case they can work with the school to solve those issues.

That assumes there is an actual risk to their children, which there is not.

would like to see some more work put into it but these would be my problems with it
More than the decade of development and the successful use of it by 850 families around the world, you mean?

OP posts:
CheshireChat · 20/02/2019 18:47

But it doesn't say anywhere whether they agreed to compromise and limit the 360 view/ completely block recording.

Original poster
Yabbers · 20/02/2019 18:48

If the security of the unit can be tested and guaranteed then it will be a good thing going forward.
It has been tested. It is guaranteed.

OP posts:
dreichuplands · 20/02/2019 18:49

It is perfectly possible the families have genuine safeguarding concerns, they have the right to refuse their dc being filmed and have done so. However frustrating this is for the family that wanted to do the filming there will be more traditional work rounds for them.

AnneLovesGilbert · 20/02/2019 18:50

YABU and goady.

Original poster
Yabbers · 20/02/2019 18:50

But it doesn't say anywhere whether they agreed to compromise and limit the 360 view/ completely block recording.

It doesn’t record.

Given what he went through and how much he wants his child to get an education, I wouldn’t say he would be likely not to accept a compromise.

OP posts:
GoGoGadgetGin · 20/02/2019 18:51

That assumes there is an actual risk to their children, which there is not.
Tad dismissive of concerns. Where would the screen be and would anyone in the vicinity of the child using technically also be part of the classroom?

SmashedMug · 20/02/2019 18:52

It has been tested. It is guaranteed.

How do you guarantee no one is recording it at the home end? Or that the iPad is being used outside of the home and in view of other people? You can't. So it isn't guaranteed.

Original poster
Yabbers · 20/02/2019 18:53

there will be more traditional work rounds for them.
Ever had a child off long term sick? Those “traditional” work rounds isolate children and lower their attainment levels. But hey - doesn’t matter as long as the masses are happy, eh?

OP posts: