Shocked to have been secretly recorded at work.

[Whataninvasionofprivacy]

I work as a TA in school, and last week at the end of a lesson, the teacher called me over and indicated (behind the kid’s backs) to the class cupboard. She then whispered “Will you turn off the iPad?” I wasn’t sure what she was on about, but she then whispered that she’d just recorded the entire lesson, but didn’t want the kids to know. She had been told to do this by a senior staff member.

Am I being ridiculous to feel annoyed by this? I’m sure I should have been told beforehand. Also what about parents who don’t normally consent, they had no choice in this case.

So could you answer my question- what possible harm could come to a child being filmed for training purposes?

I find the horror from parents strange. I don’t see the same outrage from parents about taking their kids to shopping centres, leisure centres, libraries- all of which ‘film’ your kids.

it seems the only difference is a sign in a public place that says CCTV in operation. Then everyone thinks it’s ok!

the irony is you are more likely to have a dodgy peado working in a store with CCTV than in a school. At least school staff will have been checked.

1. You're not just talking to parents here - you're talking to professionals who deal with gdpr on a daily basis.

1. Try reading the thread.

1. I'm sad my numbering doesn't work.

If the law says something can happen as long as you are informed or made aware, and the policy informs and makes you aware, then it's relevant.

Nobody said it 'trumps' anything. Just that the eventualities are set out and covered ahead of time, which satisfies the requirements.

Having something buried in a policy is not sufficient to inform them. They must be told they are being filmed at the time - and agree to it.

Buried isn't really a literally term. If it is clearly set out and part of an agreement, which has been read, understood and signed then it should be sufficient.

I've signed to say I understand that my work emails can be monitored. Apart from the fact that they're scanned for certain terms on the safeguarding software, I assume they are tracked and just act according to the rules I agreed, in that I'll copy in my SLT line manager when emailing a child or a parent, I'll write as I would in a letter, I'll address people formally etc. I don't expect to be let know that they'll be viewed tomorrow at a set time so I can prepare, delete, change or show something specific.

I'm not talking to you as a parent, I am talking as a professional who has worked in this field and advised on the law around covert recording for years

Buried isn't really a literally term. If it is clearly set out and part of an agreement, which has been read, understood and signed then it should be sufficient

again this tells me you have totally inadequate knowledge of legal privacy frameworks to be posting in the manner you are.

the concept of “burying clauses” is absolutely an issue in privacy (and other areas of law) and the courts have repeatedly made it clear the importance of clear, unambiguous, affirmative consent in this space.

So could you answer my question- what possible harm could come to a child being filmed for training purposes?

@Rubixcoobe the harm manifests when things go wrong, the iPad gets stolen, the platform that the images are stored on breached, or the cloud storage hacked.

your question is that same as “what possible harm could come to a person accessing their banking details on line?” The answer to which is none if the data is kept safe and secure. It it’s not kept safe and secure then harm is possible. People have already posted about the specific sorts of harm that do manifest in these circumstances.

it seems the only difference is a sign in a public place that says CCTV in operation. Then everyone thinks it’s ok!

There are lots of posts on this thread explaining how CCTV is significantly different. The courts and the supervisory authorities and EDPB have explained how it is significantly different.

CCTV as a public safety solution is nothing like filming children for the purposes of improving training.

so what is the law trying to protect children from exactly?

and what is the point of a law that potentially causes more harm than good ( in that it inhibits teachers learning from and improving their performance) ?

I assure you that it is not illegal.

If you think it's illegal, then have you written to Tesco, and all of the other big retailers, to inform them of this?

So you agree with me that the blanket statement "people cannot be recorded without consent" is incorrect?

I have already answered this earlier in the thread:

There are enormous data breaches from "secure" platforms happening constantly, including organisations that spend far more money on data security than do government education departments. It is bizarre to have such trust in institutional data protection against all evidence to the contrary.
But even presuming against a data breach. Say that "data" showed a couple of children passing unknown items to each other because they did not know they were being recorded. Say the teachers noticed this, and know there's a drug problem being investigated by the police at the school. Based on the consent form you yourself shared, that video might be shared by teachers with the police. Many teachers go well beyond their legal obligations to assist police, even inadvertently breaching other obligations in doing so (I have seen it a number of times in my own career),
Now the police have a video of 30 children, including at least two who may be charged with an offence, that none of them knew was being recorded, in their own school.

To add to my own answer; imagine the two children passing something on the video are of an overpoliced minority community (like my own children). Imagine what they were passing wasn't related to drugs after all.

They have now had their first interaction with police as people under suspicion for a criminal act (a very scary thing for anyone to go through let alone a child), and will feel less trust in the police and an enormous breach of trust and disenfranchisement in the institution- the school- that they might have supposed was there to support them and keep them safe.

If you aren't parenting children who are subject to racism and over criminalisation in their society you might not understand why the prospect of the above scenario is something their parents worry about. But it is, and with very good reason.

I'm not understanding the comment, "will you turn off the ipad" - could you clarify

The arrogance to think data protection law is written with teachers in mind. We’ve peaked.

Schools/teaching is one area where data protection is ridiculous and needs some actual guidance from people who have worked in schools and understand. The amount of information that doesn't get shared, regularly leaves staff at risk, and the amount of ridiculous paperwork required to sign up to a free online platform is hours of trawling through GDPR regulations.

This thread raises questions not only about teachers’ lack of GDPR training but also whether they receive any basic safeguarding training too? It doesn’t seem like it.

We get so much safeguarding training.

GDPR (rightly) wasn't designed for education. However the impact it has on education is not proportional to the fines a potential breach could attract.

Yet you see no risk in signing up to a free online platform? Or harm in teachers covertly recording children? Or their personal data being stored on an unsecured laptop?

She wanted me to turn off the recording as she was filming, unbeknown to me.

Obviously there's some risk, but I'm not sure it warrants a 23 page form to use it in school, especially when no pupil data is being shared. The one for pupils data (name, email and score) is 50ish pages.

Covert recording isn't OK obviously.

Unsecured laptop.... Bloody glad to have a laptop tbh. But when it doesn't function like a home laptop because there's so much stuff you can't access, it hinders the job, and ultimately student progress, because I can do less in the time I have available.

Free? Iris costs schools a small fortune.

I’m not a teacher, so not sure where the arrogance comes from. But I am a citizen of a democracy and I am allowed to question the efficacy of laws and the need for them. It’s why laws are amended and repealed.

When policies are formed and laws passed, there is debate about unintended consequences and trying to make sure that passing a law doesn’t harm the rights of others.

and by that I don’t mean teachers.

I would argue that banning teachers from filming their classes isn’t great for society as a whole because it results in teachers who aren’t as well trained.

as a pp noted - they are worried about a film of their child’s activity being handed to police. ( which is fair enough concern). However, I’d argue that this is a fairly small risk ( especially in a primary school). By contrast, the risk of having a poorly trained teacher is far higher and may result in worse academic outcomes.

A DBS check isn’t fool proof sadly.

Massive difference between cctv cameras permanently set on walls and some individual whipping out an iPad and secretly recording children from desk height.