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.

No doubt you should be recording this behaviour and playing it back at a staff meeting, for SLT to reflect upon!

I am from Scotland, which was known to have a world class education system at the time, even for people like me from a poor family. You imply I didn't get a good education. How do you know what education I got? Answer - you don't. I struggle to understand in all honesty why you seem to think good education is dependent on filming people without their knowledge or consent and in contravention of GDPR. With all respect, it might open your eyes to educate yourself in GDPR. I won't be replying to any more of your messages. Your last message may have been typed very quickly as I observed it had grammatical errors in it. All I have been saying is people should not be filmed without their knowledge or consent. This is not because I say this. It is the law and it is the law for a good reason in my view. You can have a different view if you want to.

As another adult in the lesson, I absolutely would expect to be told I was being recorded. The faux outrage of but the teacher needs it to review is fine but as an adult being secretly recorded I'd be pretty shitty.

To all the teachers saying that teachers need this to better their own teachings, why then wasn't I asked to secretly hide the iPad and film her? She knew about it, I didn’t, yet it was supposedly for her benefit. She obviously wasn’t acting herself, as no one who is being recorded does.

Quite.

A really important question

In SPADES!

OP I wish you every strength in raising this. I'm really glad for people like you, willing to take a stand. Do not be fobbed off. I hope you've managed to contact union/ACAS and got support in RL too.

Its also irrelevant to the issues of using video to develop teaching skills or consent to be recorded. Nelson's "customers" supplied their own photographs to him to use as the basis for images of horrible abuse. They were not coming from Iris or any similar service.

Videoing practice for learning and development is common across a number of professions including teaching. Its used because it works and its less intrusive/more practical than bodies in the room (or the reactor or the operating theatre etc). Its a very useful tool to be able to see yourself working or to see a more experienced hand working on a new technique or process.

There are specialised providers in each sector who will manage recording, secure storage, restricted access and expiry. The problem here is not the principle of recording teaching practice for staff development, its the lack of consent and the amateurish methods used.

Recording needs to be transparent, clearly explained (including explanations of access control and expiry dates) and consent obtained from the relevant parties. Its hard to see who the OP's scenario can be legal.

So schools need to assess the likelihood of this type of consent being practical or feasible (I imagine parental consent for each and every recording? Or does a single parental consent form suffice and does this mean the children have the autonomy to say at any given point they no longer want to be recorded?) and to weigh up the potential for any breach. Of course in reality, this will likely mean the buck is passed on to individual teachers to ensure they follow school policy. Given the general attitudes shown in this thread, I doubt it's a practice that will be smooth sailing, and we'll see a mirth of litigation in due course.

Nelson's "customers" supplied their own photographs to him to use as the basis for images of horrible abuse. They were not coming from Iris or any similar service.

You have no idea where his ‘customers’ got their images from.

The evidence was given in court.

There was no evidence that any of his customers were teachers who had photographed a screen displaying a teaching practice video. IME these services block screenshotting or copying and its normal practice to review such videos with at least one other person. In that situation colusion would be required even to take a phone photo of the screen. Quality would be too low for decent synthetic image generation.

Making stuff up around an entirely unrelated court case doesn't help anyone have a rational discussion on how or where to use a very useful tool.

The issue here is of transparency, due process and consent. There is no need to throw in "extras".

The Nelson case was used as an example to rebut comments (from teachers no less 😱) that no harm could flow from images of children being stolen: “who would want a recording of my phonics class lolz”

Patently there are many harms that could result. Those who think that if an iPad was lost/stolen or an educational platform hacked those images would not end up on the dark web are frankly a safeguarding risk themself.

You think the photos were obtained legitimately?

There was nothing in OPs case to stop her screenshotting. But that is beside the point. It is still illegal to film children without their consent and that of their parents in this way. By the sounds of things Iris is trying to normalise illegal practice but suggesting it is ok so long as parents sign a document they think refers to open filming of nativity shows. So now we have a bunch of teachers who think secretly filming children is ok, who think it is ok when their colleague does it. And who have been given an excuse to trot out when caught (it was for training guv, honest).

How Nelson's customers obtained their pictures is irrelevant UNLESS they obtained from from a secure commercial system used to record teaching practice. They were not (according to the evidence supplied in court - feel free to go read up on the court reports).

The whole point of the thread is that the system in place in this school seems not to be a commercial secured system like Iris and and the school seems not to have obtained the relevant consents.

Where on this thread is the evidence that Iris is normalising illegal practice in any way?

Remove all your whataboutery and the facts from this thread are:

• local device being used to record the TA without the TA being aware
• er, that's it.

We don't need fabricated claims that a commercial company is inciting law breaking.

The one key fact of consent is the fact which matters. I would also want details of how the data is being managed and processed to establish whether or not that is in the law.

Any imagery or voice recordings could be used for harm. You could also be run over every time you leave your front door. Security models and controls are developed to reduce the risk to a level which is acceptable when measured against the benefits just as traffic controls and education are used to balance the risk of crossing the road.

I've not used Iris but similar systems I have used in a different profession do not store imagery or voices on local devices. Everything is stored on secured storage across the network. Access and expiry is tightly controlled (rather more so than eg your medical records or some regions' police records).

There is evidence that recording practice is useful in training across a wide range of jobs. To justify using recordings for training the controls and security need to be in place and consent obtained.

If consent has not been obtained or the management of the data is not compliant and justified then the school is breaking the law. Everything else is whataboutery.

Oh my...the fact that TAs are treated as different class of being to teachers at your school explains a lot. If generally not seen as equal humans then it is not a big step to disregarding basic courtesy and equal rights.

Where on this thread is the evidence that Iris is normalising illegal practice in any way?

”I’ve had a quick read of the Iris website. They are advising schools to rely on “Public Task” as their legal basis with the caveat that they are not providing legal advice.”

1. The OP has not stated that Iris is in use. That was an assumption from other posters

2. that is standard advice from providers for all secured systems (including medical records) as some controls have to reside with the customer. Hence the need to establish what the school protocols are and how they enforce them.

It is not remotely evidence that a commercial company is " normalising illegal behaviour". Good luck defending that one in a defamation case.

Maybe all these posters shouting about said company should’ve been a little bit quiter then? Many posters randomly jumped up on here to plug Iris and link it to this thread without any suggestion from the op that was in use. Very weird behaviour and it is the instance of those posters keep bringing said commercial company up and all their benefits - which dragged them into this thread. When it literally has zero to do with what has happened to op.

So, I have phoned ACAS who couldn’t give me a straight answer, but told me that if I raise this I could be seen as a whistleblower. He suggested I call the ICO who said there is no straight yes/no as to whether what they did is illegal and it’s up to the school to show me they have complied with their own legislation.

Seems I will have to suck this up and move on.

Incidentally the Iris website is not advising schools to use Public Task - they are (correctly) listing it as one of the options available in conjunction with the raft of other controls required to run these systems.

What is written on the website is not what you have claimed.

I think there is a general respect and staff wellbeing problem at your school. This issue could be brought up in the wider context of how TAs are treated as lesser beings within your school. It sounds like a shake up is needed with the school culture.

Indeed any images could be used in a harmful manner. That is why we protect them through appropriate technical and organisational controls. Just because we can’t protect every image doesn’t mean we should protect none.

pointing out the sort of harm that exists in the face of extraordinary denial from teachers (supposed safeguarding experts!) that there is any risk at all is not whataboutery.

Incidentally the Iris website is not advising schools to use Public Task - they are (correctly) listing it….

how on earth could task performed in the public interest be a viable option here? What would be the underlying law it was grounded in?

This. And my concern is that there appears to be a woeful lack of training for teachers in the importance data security- who see it as pearl clutching nonsense to bother to use appropriate software to take or store recordings.

I'm uncomfortable with video-training becoming the norm in schools because of the potential for data breach by those who may be well-meaning but see themselves as too busy to read or adhere to guidelines, as well as those who just see the extra line of security needed as pearl clutching or too expensive to bother with. As is perfectly demonstrated on this thread, many will buy into the concept (video training = good teacher) but time and time again, fail to consider the importance of security and will look for a cheaper/easier way under pressure.

That's my personal opinion and I linked to the article to show full well what can happen when images are stolen for use on the dark Web. A point was made upthread about how stolen/hacked images can be used to locate which school a child is at. Given this monster encouraged his accomplices to locate the children involved, I thought this was a very relevant example to show what horrors can (and do) happen on the dark Web. I'd be far happier with no video footage taken in schools, than with Tech companies and school management ticking boxes that largely save themselves, but which in practice leaves individual staff members to carry the can when they can't/don't meet the seemingly impossible obligations to keep things lawful and secure.

So you're giving up? You should at the very least register with the teacher and seniors that you do not consent to being filmed without your permission.