An interloper can reactivate a lesson at 11pm, and send an invite to an individual 13 year old (or 11 year old, or younger) alone in their room, under the guise of being a classmate wanting help with homework
So that's 11yrs old or 13yr olds. Meanwhile, OP is talking about age 16-18.
Even for 11-13 yrs old, under that scenario, the interloper needs to
know the @ name of the person they want to target
who won't grass them up quickly, so they need to choose the right target early to not be detected
target has to want to interact with the sender (who may not be anyone they want to ever interact with, how would interloper know who target usually interacts with )
target maybe needs to happen to "be alone" the target time
target has to think it's normal to use TEAMS not usual modes of interaction with impostered person
target has to think it's fine to interact at the time proposed
target has to be available then, not busy doing other things
target has to see the invitation in time to make the proposed illicit meeting
target has to think they want to 'help' interloper with that specific homework, that target ever helps anyone
target has to think it's reasonable to be asked to help the person that interloper is impersonating
Target has to not realise they are talking to imposter, who could be easily revealed depending on the true relationship between target and the genuine account holder
or target has to naively go along with suggestions by the imposter and potential exploitation at this point, and not grass them up to an adult
There are a lot of hurdles for our would-be interloper. Approaching random kid on the street would be a more successful strategy.</div></div>
Don’t know where to start with this really.
<ol><li>Needs to know name. You can see the names of all co tributes when you reactivate meeting
</li></ol>
<ol><li> Needs to choose target who thinks this is a normal way to interact on Teams. Um. It is? That’s what happens if there is no lobby. Students reactivate lessons and get together on them. I’m sure your kids have done/ tried the same
</li></ol>
3.Interloper needs to know things about target, maybe they do? All previous interactions are visible. And interloper might know target in real life anyway, ie younger cousins classmate, etc which is what we had trouble with
4.Target needs to be alone? Not necessarily. There could be multiple targets, and the ones who are alone homed in on
<ol><li>Target needs to see invitation, no, it rings
</li></ol>
<ol><li>Target need to not be busy, well at 11 pm they probably aren’t
</li></ol>
<ol><li> 16-18 year olds are less vulnerable. No not really. In our local sixth form college there was an interloper who hooked in quite a few students, advertising paid Part time apprenticeships In a Accountancy. Earn high bucks evenings and weekends, come out with a qualification in 6 months, berg up your UCAS application, and cv etc. Interloper was south out by excited teens wanting to have something great to show for their lockdown. Of course it was money laundering, and worse than criminal records, they hit themselves entangled with one of the most vicious gangs in my part of London. One of my ex students was involved. Clever boy. He hadn’t had to leave the area, but one of his A level friends Has, along with his whole whole family.
</li></ol>
If I t know why we are arguing about this. No one disputes teams without a lobby is a huge safeguarding concern. Most children will have entered a reactivated lesson last lock gown, at some point or other. There isn’t any question about their danger. The discussion was entirely about whether it is safe or dangerous to turn off the lobby temporarily, then turn it back on. There is a poster who thinks it’s fine. They might be right. But my school is not irritated to take the risk