
Get formal permission or just drop it!
But hey try telling that to 'The Federation' aka Govt-Big-Data-Inc, who felt sharing NHS patient data with Google-Deepmind was just fine with us too.
Plans to expand the vast National Pupil Database to include information on why kids leave mainstream education have been slammed by privacy campaigners. The government's stated aim is to better understand how and why pupils end up with alternative provision (AP) by adding more detail to the information collected in the annual …
Well, they're becoming more and more like Google every day - mass collection of data, and making money off it. The Tory manifesto title should have been "You Are The Product", and they should have been upfront about the fact that lower taxes for a while mean saying farewell to youyr privacy, forever.
government minister Lord Ashton of Hyde* countered that the sharing of individual-level pupil data is "already highly regulated" and runs according to a "rigorous process".
That's fine providing the regulations are fit for purpose. It doesn't excuse lack of consideration as to their fitness.
*Does he have a neighbour, Lord Hyde of Ashton to make things symmetrical?
It's all just too creepy, and inflicting it on school children who could then be affected throughout their adult lives is unforgivable. It is a bad idea to collect so much data in the first place as it can never be guaranteed to be kept secret, and the bigger the database the more attractive it will be to hackers (or anyone who finds a government laptop left on a train). Besides the obvious "for money" answer, why on Earth would this supposedly confidential data be shared with anyone? There is simply no excuse for it.
why on Earth would this supposedly confidential data be shared with anyone
The Guardian asks how many children have been excluded, and how do their statistics match the whole pupil population. Or can schools continue expelling all the below average students the week before the exam and now claim that any evidence of this is top secret?
"The Guardian asks how many children have been excluded"
select count(*) from all_pupils where excluded='Y' [*]
No sharing of pupil level data required.
I don't have a problem with detailed data being collected to monitor schools and ensure they aren't gaming the system - it's the retention and sharing 'for other purposes' that is the issue. If this is really about monitoring the educational institutions there is no reason for the information to 'haunt' pupils throughout their life - there's no reason to ever tie the data to an individual once they've finished education.
The real issue is WE do not trust that THEY will use this data only for the purposes they are stating or look after it properly.
Settle down everybody, settle down, now, would all the year one boys line up on that side of the hall and all the girls on the other side please. Chop, chop, please hurry up. Now then, the girls will all get a pink barcode tatooed across their foreheads and the boys will get theirs in blue. Does anybody have any questions? Good, then we will begin.
Expect that as a reason for it.
Some proportion of kids being pulled from mainstream education will be due to religious zealots not wanting their offspring exposed to something that may conflict with their particular world view, e.g. they may object to messages such as gays are not scum, there are lots of different religious / non religious viewpoints on a subject etc.
So, they have that excuse
The reason given may be anything. But the usual reason is to keep a record for the proof they are owed money for the service they provide.
Such a good service. The one that was not giving 4 or so of us who could do the higher exams the chance. Because only 2 of us were still bothering with the repetitive work, and the teacher considered it too much effort to get an order in for 2 different exam papers...
... or the time the lecture walked in, showed us what our project was, walked up to the computer said "do the things on the software like this", then walked out. No, they did not demonstrate anything, they literally said "like this" and walked out. Sadly they obviously had no knowledge of how to work the software in any basic form themselves.
But if a child so much as dares take in a packed lunch and forfeit the already paid for school dinners which include only the choice of everything they are allergic to... then the courts will be out for their parents*!
*Ok, that one I've not seen in person, but heard of. The one I have seen in person is the kid getting sent back home from school, because the shorts were ever so slightly the wrong shade of navy blue!
Jen Persson is quite right to be concerned about pupil data being shared with 3rd parties. As well as GOV.Uk sharing the NPD data, schools also share data from their MIS systems with a wide array of 'service providers' with little regard for the legality.
"Everyone else shares data with provider X, so we'll be OK...just tell the parents via the data privacy notice...no-one reads them anyway...we don't have to report breaches...it's not our problem if the data processor messes up...a slap on the wrist is the only risk...and we *love* those shiny nice-to-have reports".
My son sent a SAR to one such 'carefully selected' provider who were so woeful they even denied storing pupil data or being a data processor at all. A few emails later and the SAR response duly arrived. How can schools justify sharing pupil data with suck feckwits!?!?!
The Earl of Clancarty (great title) is right to call for a statutory code regarding the use of pupil data. As he points out "..children are currently disempowered in relation to their own personal data in schools."
The DfE might well be "actively reviewing its data-sharing processes with third parties" ahead of GDPR, but this is also urgently needed at the school level.
It's a pupil database where data is retained indefinitely
Let's be real f**king real here.
This is a long term strategy to get a clean load on the next sock-puppet who calls for a "National Identity Card" but actually means cradle-to-grave surveillance of where you are and what you are doing.
Because if it's not then it's a huge f**king waste of resources.
This obsession some senior civil servants have with having every piece of information on everyone is not a sane policy. It's a personality disorder
This post has been deleted by its author
This is just the tip of the iceberg on data collection and the inappropriate use of technology/data. Increasingly schools are using biometric authentication for the highly secure task of paying for food. The schools then tout the bull that no personal information is stored as the fingerprint is turned into a number. They then also fail to tell you that you can opt out.
The kids all have ID cards with a photo on and a chip (probably MiFare) that when they use it shows the picture of the pupil in the system so that the catering staff can see it it the correct person. It does exactly the same with the biometric. The kids hate biometrics because it is slower.
In the case of my kids, the school techy has no idea other than the name of the company providing the service and that it is encrypted.
If you speak to the company they tell you the data is encrypted in a database and no personal information is held (WTF). They cannot even tell you if the servers/service is running in the UK, probably because it is in AWS or Azure at the cheapest rate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/privacy-concerns-raised-as-more-than-one-million-pupils-are-fingerprinted-in-schools-9034897.html
If you speak to the company that runs the system
American lawmakers held a hearing on Tuesday to discuss a proposed federal information privacy bill that many want yet few believe will be approved in its current form.
The hearing, dubbed "Protecting America's Consumers: Bipartisan Legislation to Strengthen Data Privacy and Security," was overseen by the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Therein, legislators and various concerned parties opined on the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) [PDF], proposed by Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA).
Brave CEO Brendan Eich took aim at rival DuckDuckGo on Wednesday by challenging the web search engine's efforts to brush off revelations that its Android, iOS, and macOS browsers gave, to a degree, Microsoft Bing and LinkedIn trackers a pass versus other trackers.
Eich drew attention to one of DuckDuckGo's defenses for exempting Microsoft's Bing and LinkedIn domains, a condition of its search contract with Microsoft: that its browsers blocked third-party cookies anyway.
"For non-search tracker blocking (e.g. in our browser), we block most third-party trackers," explained DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg last month. "Unfortunately our Microsoft search syndication agreement prevents us from doing more to Microsoft-owned properties. However, we have been continually pushing and expect to be doing more soon."
Period- and fertility-tracking apps have become weapons in Friday's post-Roe America.
These seemingly innocuous trackers contain tons of data about sexual history, menstruation and pregnancy dates, all of which could now be used to prosecute women seeking abortions — or incite digital witch hunts in states that offer abortion bounties.
Under a law passed last year in Texas, any citizen who successfully sues an abortion provider, a health center worker, or anyone who helps someone access an abortion after six weeks can claim at least $10,000, and other US states are following that example.
California lawmakers met in Sacramento today to discuss, among other things, proposed legislation to protect children online. The bill, AB2273, known as The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, would require websites to verify the ages of visitors.
Critics of the legislation contend this requirement threatens the privacy of adults and the ability to use the internet anonymously, in California and likely elsewhere, because of the role the Golden State's tech companies play on the internet.
"First, the bill pretextually claims to protect children, but it will change the Internet for everyone," said Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law professor, in a blog post. "In order to determine who is a child, websites and apps will have to authenticate the age of ALL consumers before they can use the service. No one wants this."
Democrat lawmakers want the FTC to investigate Apple and Google's online ad trackers, which they say amount to unfair and deceptive business practices and pose a privacy and security risk to people using the tech giants' mobile devices.
US Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) and House Representative Sara Jacobs (D-CA) requested on Friday that the watchdog launch a probe into Apple and Google, hours before the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, clearing the way for individual states to ban access to abortions.
In the days leading up to the court's action, some of these same lawmakers had also introduced data privacy bills, including a proposal that would make it illegal for data brokers to sell sensitive location and health information of individuals' medical treatment.
Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.
That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.
The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.
Brave Software, maker of a privacy-oriented browser, on Wednesday said its surging search service has exited beta testing while its Goggles search personalization system has entered beta testing.
Brave Search, which debuted a year ago, has received 2.5 billion search queries since then, apparently, and based on current monthly totals is expected to handle twice as many over the next year. The search service is available in the Brave browser and in other browsers by visiting search.brave.com.
"Since launching one year ago, Brave Search has prioritized independence and innovation in order to give users the privacy they deserve," wrote Josep Pujol, chief of search at Brave. "The web is changing, and our incredible growth shows that there is demand for a new player that puts users first."
Apple's Intelligent Tracking Protection (ITP) in Safari has implemented privacy through forgetfulness, and the result is that users of Twitter may have to remind Safari of their preferences.
Apple's privacy technology has been designed to block third-party cookies in its Safari browser. But according to software developer Jeff Johnson, it keeps such a tight lid on browser-based storage that if the user hasn't visited Twitter for a week, ITP will delete user set preferences.
So instead of seeing "Latest Tweets" – a chronological timeline – Safari users returning to Twitter after seven days can expect to see Twitter's algorithmically curated tweets under its "Home" setting.
Some authorities in Europe insist that location data is not personal data as defined by the EU's General Data Protection Regulation.
EU privacy group NOYB (None of your business), set up by privacy warrior Max "Angry Austrian" Schrems, said on Tuesday it appealed a decision of the Spanish Data Protection Authority (AEPD) to support Virgin Telco's refusal to provide the location data it has stored about a customer.
In Spain, according to NOYB, the government still requires telcos to record the metadata of phone calls, text messages, and cell tower connections, despite Court of Justice (CJEU) decisions that prohibit data retention.
A US task force aims to prevent online harassment and abuse, with a specific focus on protecting women, girls and LGBTQI+ individuals.
In the next 180 days, the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse will, among other things, draft a blueprint on a "whole-of-government approach" to stopping "technology-facilitated, gender-based violence."
A year after submitting the blueprint, the group will provide additional recommendations that federal and state agencies, service providers, technology companies, schools and other organisations should take to prevent online harassment, which VP Kamala Harris noted often spills over into physical violence, including self-harm and suicide for victims of cyberstalking as well mass shootings.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022