Background
The PCPD received information that an educational institution was planning to install, in their students’ personal laptops, software for monitoring its students’ browsing activities. The PCPD initiated a compliance check to ascertain whether the proposed installation of software would contravene the requirements under DPP1 of the Ordinance.
Responses from the institution
It has been a general practice for the students of the institution to bring their personal laptops to their classes and connect the laptops to the campus network for teaching purposes. In response to the PCPD’s enquiries, the institution confirmed that the software, which was yet to be installed, would entail two functions:
(i) Real time viewing – teachers could, through the institution’s computers, see the computer screens of students’ laptops, which are connected to the campus network. This function is for “real time” only. In other words, no computer screen images would be captured or stored. This function would also allow teachers to share their computer screens with students during classes; and
(ii) Retrieval of browsing history – teachers could retrieve the browsing history of the students’ laptops which would include the addresses of websites browsed after school.
According to the institution, the purposes of the proposed installation of software are:
(a) enhancing the effectiveness of teaching during class through minimising distractions such as games, messaging and web surfing; and
(b) addressing parents’ concerns about internet browsing in the classroom.
PCPD’s findings
As to the function of “real time” viewing, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that it would involve collection of personal data as no images would be captured/stored. However, the PCPD found that the institution did not implement any management control to prohibit its staff members from capturing the students’ computer screens for future use.
On the other hand, the PCPD found that the function of retrieving students’ browsing history was unjustified. It was the PCPD’s view that this function would be irrelevant to upholding “class” discipline, which was the main reason provided by the institution for the proposed installation. Besides, browsing history after school does not necessarily indicate that the websites were browsed by the student himself (for example, he may share his laptop with his siblings).
Outcome
The institution decided not to install the function of retrieval of browsing history on its students’ laptops. Furthermore, it also formulated a policy prohibiting staff members from capturing students’ computer screens through the real time viewing.
Implications
Student monitoring without reasonable cause raises privacy concerns. If not handled carefully, it may also affect the relationship between the students and the educational institution. Before embarking upon any monitoring on students, educational institutions are advised to seriously consider the need for such monitoring, taking into account of the risks involved, alternative means available and the privacy rights of the students. If monitoring is deemed necessary, the institutions must ensure that the Ordinance is complied with. In particular, they must pay heed to the manner in which the monitoring is carried out, the openness of the monitoring policy and the proper handling of the personal data obtained during such monitoring.
uploaded on web in April 2014