DOCSLIB.ORG

Protecting Information Privacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protecting Information Privacy The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2011 Protecting Information Privacy Charles D. Raab Benjamin J. Goold Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the National Security Law Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Citation Details Charles D Raab & Benjamin J Goold, "Protecting Information Privacy" (2011) 69 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report. This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 69 Protecting information privacy Charles Raab and Benjamin Goold University of Edinburgh and University of British Columbia Equality and Human Rights Commission 2011 First published Summer 2011 ISBN 978 1 84206 347 7 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report series The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as a contribution to discussion and debate. Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission research reports, or visit our website: Research Team Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House The Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AQ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0161 829 8500 Website: www.equalityhumanrights.com If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Communications Team to discuss your needs at: [email protected] Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1967198 Contents Acknowledgements iii Executive summary v 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 The aim of the report 4 1.3 Structure of the report 6 2. The changing landscape of privacy 9 2.1 Introduction 9 2.2 Information privacy: challenges, concerns, and responses 10 2.3 Opportunities for reform 13 2.4 Summary 14 3. Why privacy matters 15 3.1 Introduction 15 3.2 Making a case for privacy 15 3.3 Privacy and the state 19 3.4 The future of privacy 22 3.5 Summary 24 4. Information privacy in the UK 25 4.1 Introduction 25 4.2 Overview of the current law 25 4.3 Statutory protections 26 4.4 Common law protections 43 4.5 Guidelines, codes of practice, and ‘soft law’ 44 4.6 Weaknesses of the current approach 44 4.7 Summary 45 5. Complementary approaches for enhancing privacy 47 5.1 Introduction 47 5.2 Self-regulatory approaches 47 5.3 Designing privacy protection into information systems 50 5.4 Public awareness and education 53 5.5 Some regulatory developments abroad 55 5.6 Summary 56 i 6. Moving forward 58 6.1 Introduction 58 6.2 Approach One: a principled foundation 60 6.3 Approach Two: enhanced protection via legislative reform 66 6.4 Approach Three: improving the current regulatory regime 70 6.5 Approach Four: an increased role for the common law 71 6.6 Choosing a new path for privacy 72 7. Proposals for reform 74 7.1 Introduction 74 7.2 Recommendations 75 8. Conclusion 79 References 80 Endnotes 86 ii Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Equality and Human Rights Commission for their support during the writing of this report, and to the various experts and referees who offered comments and suggestions at formative stages and on subsequent drafts. We also thank Fiona McGrath for providing invaluable assistance and for her help in the preparation of the final report. Charles Raab Benjamin Goold January 2011 iii iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive summary Background This report for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission) examines the threats to information privacy that have emerged in recent years, focusing on the activities of the state. It argues that current privacy laws and regulation do not adequately uphold human rights, and that fundamental reform is required. It identifies two principal areas of concern: the state’s handling of personal data, and the use of surveillance by public bodies. Privacy concepts have a long tradition in Britain and can be traced back in common law and, more recently, appear in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today, the right to privacy is contained in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and is incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. As a statutory body, the Commission has a duty to encourage compliance with the HRA and other human rights obligations under international treaties. Developments in information technology and the purposes of state policy and the private sector mean that we are now more vulnerable than ever to unwanted surveillance. There is a growing demand for personal information from both the public and private sectors. New technology allows organisations to store, analyse and share such information in increasingly complex ways. Although recent legislation has attempted to strengthen information privacy, the law has not kept pace with changes in technology and in the uses to which it is put. As a result, evidence suggests that the state is failing adequately to uphold the right to privacy. There has been widespread concern regarding the expansion of government databases and the processing of personal data. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, which governs the use of surveillance by the police, local authorities and other public bodies, is marred by ambiguity, leaving open the possibility of serious errors, inadvertent use of illegal surveillance techniques, and inappropriate use of surveillance powers. Surveillance is increasingly becoming a feature of everyday life in areas we previously considered private. There are concerns about the proliferation of CCTV and its lack of regulation, as well as about the potentially chilling effects of surveillance on, for example, peaceful protest. It is little wonder, in this context, that privacy has become a key public concern. Overall finding The central finding of this report is that the existing approach to the protection of information privacy in the UK is fundamentally flawed, and that there is a pressing v PROTECTING INFORMATION PRIVACY need for widespread legislative reform in order to ensure that the rights contained in Article 8 are respected. The report argues for the establishment of a number of key ‘privacy principles’ that can be used to guide future legal reforms and the development of sector-specific regulation. Key findings • The privacy landscape has been transformed in recent years by a series of landmark legislative reforms, including the HRA, the DPAs of 1984 and 1998, and RIPA. • There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of personal information held by the public sector, due to technological developments and a steady expansion of the role of the state. • The current system has a weak, fractured and piecemeal approach to privacy. Acts such as the DPA and RIPA are riddled with gaps and contradictions, and are also interpreted, administered and overseen by a range of separate regulators, independent tribunals, and courts. As a consequence, it has become very difficult for individuals to understand what happens to their personal information, or what they should do when that information is misused. The current system has failed to protect privacy rights in a number of cases. • The problem is likely to become more acute. The state’s demands for personal information will continue to grow in relation to national security, law enforcement and citizens’ access to public services. So far, this expansion has been accompanied by only a relatively small increase in the powers or resources available to regulatory authorities such as the Information Commissioner’s Office or the various Commissioners in the field of surveillance. • A more flexible, comprehensive approach to privacy is needed, based on a firm commitment to Article 8 of the ECHR. This involves reforming the law and the regulatory system to create a comprehensive privacy protection regime to supersede the piecemeal inventory of measures or ‘tools’ implemented in a disjointed fashion by various agents. The relevant regulatory agencies need to be strengthened. • Law is essential: without legal specification of privacy rights, other instruments are likely to be incapable of providing the remedies that individuals may need. The law needs to be flexible enough to respond to the many and varied threats to privacy. vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The principles written into law or underpinning it must be reflected in the specification of other instruments. These are seen as reinforcements and complements to the law and not as substitutes for, or weaker versions of, privacy laws. • There are many ways of protecting privacy in addition to legal provisions, including self-regulatory approaches, 'privacy-enhancing technologies', ‘privacy by design’, and public awareness and education. Such complementary, non-legal approaches to the protection of information privacy have an important part to play in upholding information privacy rights. Recommendations This report makes four main recommendations: (1) A clear set of ‘privacy principles’ should be developed and used as the basis for future legislation, and to guide the decisions of regulators and government agencies concerned with information privacy and data collection in different contexts. (2) Existing legislation that touches on privacy should be reformed to ensure that it is consistent with the privacy principles recommended earlier, and that it enhances – rather than undermines – the existing provisions of the HRA. At minimum, such reform should consolidate and improve the existing RIPA and data protection regimes in relation to information privacy and surveillance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Update on the UK Coalition Government's
    Statewatch Analysis Six months on: An update on the UK coalition government’s commitment to civil liberties Max Rowlands Contents Part I Introduction Part II The proposed measures 1. The Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill 2. Identity cards, the National Identity Register and the ContactPoint database 3. Fingerprinting in schools 4. The Freedom of Information Act 5. The DNA database 6. The right to trial by jury 7. The right to protest 8. Libel laws 9. The misuse of anti-terrorism legislation 10. The regulation of CCTV 11. The retention of communications data 12. The proliferation of unnecessary criminal offences 13. The Human Rights Act Part III What other reforms are needed? 14. The “database state” 15. The Digital Economy Act 16. Anti-social behaviour legislation 17. Anti-terrorism legislation Part IV Conclusion 1 Part I: Introduction Within weeks of its formation in May 2010, the coalition government announced with much fanfare its intention “to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power.” An easy victory over Labour’s politically bankrupt National Identity Scheme followed, but since then the government’s approach has been characterised by caution and pragmatism rather than an unerring commitment to liberty. This is largely because there are splits within government on many of the key civil liberties issues that fundamentally define the relationship between citizen and state: how long and under what conditions can the government detain us, to what extent should the state surveil us, and what data on us should it hold? These internal divisions have been compounded by significant pressure from the civil service and security agencies to retain Labour policies that served to empower them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservative Party's Credibility Deficit Updated Tax and Spending
    The Conservative Party’s credibility deficit Updated tax and spending commitments April 2010 2 Contents Page Introduction 5 Summary 7 Methodology 8 Tables 10 Broken promises 13 45,000 new single rooms in the NHS 15 5,000 new prison places 19 Reducing taxes on savings 22 More places for science courses, training and apprenticeships 24 Maternity nurses for all 25 Reinstate the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) 28 National Loan Guarantee Scheme 30 Tax cuts 33 Corporation tax and investment allowance changes 35 Freeze council tax for two years 38 Reduce employers’ NICs for some small companies 41 Tax cuts for married couples 43 Inheritance tax cuts 50 Reverse impact of abolition of dividend tax credit 53 Tax reversals 57 Raise National Insurance Contributions thresholds 59 Oppose Broadband levy 61 Oppose cider duty increase 63 Tax increases 65 Non-domicile levy 67 Spending reductions 73 Cut Government “waste” 75 Savings on employment and skills programmes 78 Reduce spending on Building Schools for the Future 83 Reduce eligibility for tax credits 85 Reduce eligibility for Child Trust Funds 88 Reduce government spending on consultants and advertising 90 Reduce “bureaucracy” spending by a third 92 Welfare savings 95 Scrap ContactPoint 98 NHS IT Programme 100 Freeze pay and cap pensions for public sector workers 103 Reduce spending on Sure Start outreach workers 105 3 Scrap some Regional Development Agencies 107 Scrap regional assemblies 109 Scrap identity cards 110 “Cutting the cost of politics” 112 Scrap the Trade Union Modernisation
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservative Agenda for Constitutional Reform
    UCL DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE The Constitution Unit Department of Political Science UniversityThe Constitution College London Unit 29–30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU phone: 020 7679 4977 fax: 020 7679 4978 The Conservative email: [email protected] www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit A genda for Constitutional The Constitution Unit at UCL is the UK’s foremost independent research body on constitutional change. It is part of the UCL School of Public Policy. THE CONSERVATIVE Robert Hazell founded the Constitution Unit in 1995 to do detailed research and planning on constitutional reform in the UK. The Unit has done work on every aspect AGENDA of the UK’s constitutional reform programme: devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, reform of the House of Lords, electoral reform, R parliamentary reform, the new Supreme Court, the conduct of referendums, freedom eform Prof FOR CONSTITUTIONAL of information, the Human Rights Act. The Unit is the only body in the UK to cover the whole of the constitutional reform agenda. REFORM The Unit conducts academic research on current or future policy issues, often in collaboration with other universities and partners from overseas. We organise regular R programmes of seminars and conferences. We do consultancy work for government obert and other public bodies. We act as special advisers to government departments and H parliamentary committees. We work closely with government, parliament and the azell judiciary. All our work has a sharply practical focus, is concise and clearly written, timely and relevant to policy makers and practitioners. The Unit has always been multi disciplinary, with academic researchers drawn mainly from politics and law.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Constructing Children's Identities: Social Work Knowledge And
    Re-Constructing Children’s Identities: Social work knowledge and practice in the assessment of children’s identities. Jane Thomas This thesis is submitted in candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cardiff School of Social Sciences Cardiff University April 2010 UMI Number: U585453 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U585453 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 DECLARATION This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed . f a £ & — ,rrr. ...... (candidate) Date ................................................................................. STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD. Signed 3 — «■——— ~ .....................(candidate) Date ................................. STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent investigations, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. .(candidate)Signed .. .(candidate)Signed Date STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Surveillance Society?
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee A Surveillance Society? Fifth Report of Session 2007–08 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 20 May 2008 HC 58-I [Incorporating HC 508-i–iv, Session 2006–07] Published on 8 June 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chairman) Tom Brake MP (Liberal Democrat, Charshalton and Wallington) Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Regent’s Park and Kensington North) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) David TC Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) Mrs Janet Dean MP (Labour, Burton) Patrick Mercer MP (Conservative, Newark) Margaret Moran MP (Labour, Luton South) Gwyn Prosser MP (Labour, Dover) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Martin Salter MP (Labour, Reading West) Mr Gary Streeter MP (Conservative, South West Devon) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the inquiry: Rt Hon John Denham MP (Labour, Southampton Itchen) Mr Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton) Mr Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contactpoint Database
    The ContactPoint database Standard Note: SN/SP/5171 Last updated: 25 March 2011 Author: Manjit Gheera Section Social Policy Section ContactPoint, or the Children’s Information Sharing Index, as it was originally called, was introduced by the previous Labour Government following concerns that professionals working with children lacked adequate resources to identify children vulnerable to abuse. Legislation was introduced in 2004 allowing the Secretary of State to require local authorities to establish databases in connection with their duties to safeguard children. Under those provisions, ContactPoint was launched in 2009 as an online directory containing basic information on all children in England and accessible to frontline professionals such as teachers and social workers. Following the 2010 General Election, the Coalition Government made it clear that it intended to scrap ContactPoint in due course. The database was shut down on 6th August 2010. The Government is currently considering the feasibility of replacing ContactPoint with a new signposting service for professionals working with vulnerable children. This note provides background information on the ContactPoint database. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy.
    [Show full text]
  • X Marks the Box: How to Make Politics Work for You by Daniel Blythe
    Thank you for downloading the free ebook edition of X Marks the Box: How to Make Politics Work for You by Daniel Blythe. This edition is complete and unabridged. Please feel free to pass it on to anyone else you think would be interested. Follow Daniel on his blog at www.xmarksthebox.co.uk. The book is all about debate, of course – so get involved and tell Daniel and the world what you think there! The printed edition of X Marks the Box (ISBN 9781848310513), priced £7.99, is published on Thursday 4 March by Icon Books and will be available in all good bookstores – online and otherwise. And don’t forget to vote! www.xmarksthebox.co.uk I C O N B O O K S Published in the UK in 2010 by Icon Books Ltd, Omnibus Business Centre, 39–41 North Road, London N7 9DP email: [email protected] www.iconbooks.co.uk This electronic edition published in 2010 by Icon Books ISBN: 978-1-84831-180-0 (ePub format) ISBN: 978-1-84831-191-6 (Adobe ebook format) Printed edition (ISBN: 978-1-84831-051-3) sold in the UK, Europe, South Africa and Asia by Faber & Faber Ltd, Bloomsbury House, 74–77 Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DA or their agents Printed edition distributed in the UK, Europe, South Africa and Asia by TBS Ltd, TBS Distribution Centre, Colchester Road, Frating Green, Colchester CO7 7DW Printed edition published in Australia in 2010 by Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd, PO Box 8500, 83 Alexander Street, Crows Nest, NSW 2065 Printed edition distributed in Canada by Penguin Books Canada, 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2YE Text copyright © 2010 Daniel Blythe The author has asserted his moral rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Information Privacy
    Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 69 Protecting information privacy Charles Raab and Benjamin Goold University of Edinburgh and University of British Columbia Equality and Human Rights Commission 2011 First published Summer 2011 ISBN 978 1 84206 347 7 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report series The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as a contribution to discussion and debate. Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission research reports, or visit our website: Research Team Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House The Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AQ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0161 829 8500 Website: www.equalityhumanrights.com If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Communications Team to discuss your needs at: [email protected] Contents Acknowledgements iii Executive summary v 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 The aim of the report 4 1.3 Structure of the report 6 2. The changing landscape of privacy 9 2.1 Introduction 9 2.2 Information privacy: challenges, concerns, and responses 10 2.3 Opportunities for reform 13 2.4 Summary 14 3. Why privacy matters 15 3.1 Introduction 15 3.2 Making a case for privacy 15 3.3 Privacy and the state 19 3.4 The future of privacy 22 3.5 Summary 24 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Netherlands: Central Databases Challenged by Kees Hudig
    statewatch monitoring the state and civil liberties in Europe Volume 20 no 1 Netherlands: Central databases challenged by Kees Hudig The creation of a database containing the fingerprints of all Dutch citizens is being legally challenged by a group of people supported by the Privacy First organisation. On 6 May 2010 a civil challenge was lodged with the Dutch official complaint involving one or more voters and 62% of High Court in The Hague. A spokesperson for Privacy First said municipalities had official complaints filed. Vrijbit estimates that that the action was taken after a complaint by the privacy around 650,000 voters were unable to vote because of a lack of protection organisation, Stichting Vrijbit, at the European Court valid identification papers [1]. of Human Rights was rejected on the grounds that it should Aaron Boudewijn, a 24-year old student from Utrecht, was initially be heard at the national level. refused a passport because he would not be fingerprinted. He took his case to the local court and launched a campaign, urging The National fingerprint database others to join him. [2] Boudewijn said that he was not opposed On 9 June 2009, the Upper House of the Dutch parliament to the registering of his fingerprints on the passport’s RFID chip (Eerste Kamer) passed a law introducing biometric passports but he refused to accept their storage in a central database, containing an RFID-microchip holding digital information on its arguing that it was unnecessary and that the data was poorly owner (see Statewatch Vol. 19 no 3). European regulation protected against leaks, identity theft and access by third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Department for Children, Schools and Families Departmental Report 2008
    Departmental Report 2008 Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from: Departmental Online www.tsoshop.co.uk Report 2008 Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-Mail TSO PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN Telephone orders/General enquiries 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-Call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 TSO Shops 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD 028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ 0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 606 5588 The Parliamentary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square London SW1A 2JX TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents This is part of a series of departmental reports which, along with the Main Estimates 2008–09, the document Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2008, and the Supply Estimates 2008–09: Supplementary Budgetary Information, present the Government’s outturn and planned expenditure for 2007–08 and 2008–09. Conventions The report relates to England, unless otherwise stated. Financial years are shown as 2008–09, academic years as 2008/09 and calendar years as 2008 or 2009. Dates refer to financial years 2008–09 unless otherwise stated. Figures in a number of tables and annexes have been rounded and therefore may not sum to the total. Further Information Department for Children, Schools and Families Public Communications Unit Po Box 12 Runcorn Cheshire WA7 2GJ Tel: 0870 000 2288 E-mail: [email protected] This document can be accessed from the Department for Children, Schools and Families internet site at www.dcsf.gov.uk Feedback Please send comments on this report to [email protected] Tel: 01268 696708 Production team: Merran Buchanan, John Bundhoo, Neil Hamed, Leigh Sandals, Adrian Walsh and Geoff Wisbey.
    [Show full text]
  • National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences
    National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences: Research, Implementation, and Resources Editors Patricia M. Erickson Wanda S. Fox Daisy Stewart Implementation National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences: Research, Implementation, and Resources Editors Patricia M. Erickson Wanda S. Fox Daisy Stewart Published as an eBook by the National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/Standards_eBook/Standards_eBook.pdf Copyright © 2010 This eBook or any part thereof may be duplicated and distributed for educational purposes. eBook Citation Erickson, P.M., Fox, W. S., & Stewart, D. (Eds.). (2010). National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences: Research, implementation, and resources. Published electronically by the National Association of Teacher Educators for Family and Consumer Sciences. Available at http://www.natefacs.org/JFCSE/Standards_eBook/Standards_eBook.pdf For individual chapters, the appropriate citation is included at the end of each chapter. National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences: Research, Implementation, and Resources Table of Contents Foreword ....................................................................................................................................... iv Preface .......................................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biometric Surveillance in Schools: Cause for Concern Or Case for Curriculum?, Scottish Educational Review, 42 (1), 3-22
    Bryce, T.G.K., Nellis, M., Corrigan, A., Gallagher, H., Lee, P. & Sercombe, H. (2010) Biometric Surveillance in Schools: Cause for concern or case for curriculum?, Scottish Educational Review, 42 (1), 3-22. Biometric Surveillance in Schools: Cause for concern or case for curriculum? Tom Bryce, Mike Nellis, Amanda Corrigan, Hugh Gallagher, Peter Lee and Howard Sercombe University of Strathclyde ABSTRACT This article critically examines the draft consultation paper issued by the Scottish Government to local authorities on the use of biometric technologies in schools in September 2008 (see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/09/08135019/0 ). Coming at a time when a number of schools are considering using biometric systems to register and confirm the identity of pupils in a number of settings (cashless catering systems, automated registration of pupils’ arrival in school and school library automation), this guidance is undoubtedly welcome. The present focus seems to be on using fingerprints, but as the guidance acknowledges, the debate in future may encompass iris prints, voice prints and facial recognition systems, which are already in use in non-educational settings. The article notes broader developments in school surveillance in Scotland and in the rest of the UK and argues that serious attention must be given to the educational considerations which arise. Schools must prepare pupils for life in the newly emergent ‘surveillance society’, not by uncritically habituating them to the surveillance systems installed in their schools, but by critically engaging them in thought about the way surveillance technologies work in the wider world, the various rationales given to them, and the implications - in terms of privacy, safety and inclusion - of being a ‘surveilled subject’.
    [Show full text]