Internet Filtering for staff

[TronXP]

We are having some discussions about the internet filtering that staff have on our system.

 

I would like some information from you edugeek members please.

 

1) Is there any legal reasons for staff to be filtered on the internet if so any references?

2) In your school are your staff filtered?

3)If so are they filtered the same as students??

 

And if you don't mind could you leave your name, establisment and job title (or pm me it)

 

Thanks to you all in advance

 

Andy

[Domino]

We here filter staff - mostly to avoid time wasting (also if you remove the ability to do wrong doing, no one can be accused of it)

 

However they do have more freedom than students (webmail, youtube, etc), but we've only recently had this ability since installing Smoohwall School Guardian.

 

Before that we were running through a single filter - which was less than ideal.

[jcollings]

We are having some discussions about the internet filtering that staff have on our system.

 

I would like some information from you edugeek members please.

 

1) Is there any legal reasons for staff to be filtered on the internet if so any references?

2) In your school are your staff filtered?

3)If so are they filtered the same as students??

 

And if you don't mind could you leave your name, establisment and job title (or pm me it)

 

Thanks to you all in advance

 

Andy

 

1. Not sure if there is a legal reason although I guess you have a duty of care to staff.

2. Staff are filtered her

3. It is exactly the same filter as students use.

[Guest monkeyx]

We use squid (linked to AD) to filter for staff and students. Staff have a different set of filters for students. Staff filters cover personal mail systems, as we want them to use the school mail system for work not hotmail et al.

 

We also use logging capabilities of squid to link usernames to all web sites visited.

 

There has been a need at times to retrieve usage details for both staff and students. We use sarg to help with this.

[RabbieBurns]

we have just turned off the main filtering proxy for the staff.

 

The only thing they have been warned about is opening unknown pages when the whiteboards are switched on.

 

There was that case in america where a woman supply teacher let the students see an adult popup and got the jail. (well, thats america)

[ConTheITGuy]

I guess it is also handy for the teachers to know what is and isn;t available to students while planning lessons.

 

 

Andy

[OutToLunch]

1 - Not that I know of.

2&3 - Staff are logged (and made aware they are logged) but not filtered here. Haven't had any problems with that route...

[SYNACK]

Here staff are filtered. We also do it to stop the staff wasting to much time. It also a safety thing as it helps prevent the staff from getting themselves into trouble.

 

They are filtered slightly less severely than the students

[pallen]

Filtered the same for staff and pupils. Staff need to be protected to ensure they dont accidently access things they shouldn't, especially when working with children.

 

It is also in our AUP that the network is provided for work use only. As a result it cuts down the need for surfing for holidays etc, and anything that is suitable for the staff should also be suitable for the pupils.

[tom_newton]

Would suggest that similar rules apply as for any commercial employer - duty of care, etc.

 

Wonder if Tony has any comments?

[dave.81]

Staff aren't filtered bar adult sites, they are logged though.

[amfony]

i dont know about tony, but anthony does! (thats me by the way)

 

We filter our staff, one because we pay alot for our web filtering (surfcontrol AKA websense now) so why not use it hey, two because staff shouldnt have free-for-all access to any resource so why internet? three to stop time wasting and the like.

[ArchersIT]

IMO all internet access should be filtered at a certain level. If no filtering is done then, as some other people have mentioned, there may be "Duty of care" problems in the event of an issue.

 

Staff are now filtered the same as students. When the filters were different we kept getting fault calls that the internet was not working as "The students cant see this web page - it is fine on my laptop"!

 

This does not seem to cause many problems.

 

Jonathan

[tom_newton]

@Anthony - you seem to make a good substitute for Tony da Shep (AKA grumbledook)

 

If you really are paying the crazy money that surfsense/webcontrol are asking, please do talk to me or one of our down-under resellers - we can definitely save you some coin!

[SpuffMonkey]

Yes - same for staff and students during school hours, more relaxed out of school hours - this was mainly for 2 reasons - as above, you get a lot of irritating calls about students not being able to get to pages that the teacher can, and also that the teacher's login becomes a lot more appealing to hack, if they have unrestricted access.

[richard.thomas]

We filter staff through the same proxy when they're using networked workstations, but their laptops just get filtered by the ISP.

It's useful for them to know what the students can and can't access, and that way they can ask for something to be unblocked if it is a real resource!

[GrumbleDook]

Would suggest that similar rules apply as for any commercial employer - duty of care, etc.

 

Wonder if Tony has any comments?

 

I am posing the question to Becta and NEN today, in conjuction with EMBC. I will feedback when I have their input.

 

There are a number of things that affect this and I would rather wait until I have a complete answer before responding.

[tom_newton]

^^^ I won't say i told you so.... but when it comes to policy..... ;-P

[Domino]

everybody knows Tony's nickname is 'the policy-badger'

 

[tscnmuk]

We have just moved over at county (yesterday actually), from a sytem where staff were completely unfiltered to a system where they are filtered just as much as the kids. This has gone down very well indeed as you can imagine!

 

The reason was one highlighted above, if nobody can access anything that they are not supposed to then nobody can moan about being accused of anything. Apparantly we have had several members of staff on several sites already moaning about not being able to access facebook

 

Tom

[Captain_Caveman]

Our staff have always had the same access as the kids, this is done via RM filtering and our own ISA server, for one thing it saves the hassle of teachers planning a lesson around a web site only to find that the kids can't access it. We've recently had a few teachers wanting us to get them videos from youtube though so we're now using a two tier approach on the ISA server - there's now a staff only 'allowed' list of sites that are blocked for the kids, at the moment there's only youtube on it but it may grow in the future (but it won't be including bebo, facebook etc)

[GrumbleDook]

After a quick exchange with a very helpful person at Becta (Thanks Jon) I have the following.

 

Similar to the way we have spoken about packet / traffic filtering within your own school network the key to this is the AUP and making sure that all staff are aware of what is going on and being both consistent and transparent. An important factor to remember that in the eyes of a service provider staff members are 'users', admittedly they may have different requirements to other users such as students, but in the same way that students may require different levels of filtering (KS1-KS2-KS3-KS4-KS5-Adult Learners) we may also have to tailor appropriate filtering and access.

 

If we first take the Safeguarding children in a digital world: Developing an LSCB e-safety strategy document (Local Safeguarding Children Boards) in particular section 3 (developing an e-safe infrastructure) as well as looking at AUPs and dealing specific incidents.

 

If we look at dealing specific incidents the biggest one I can point to within this document is dealing with allegations. The section of 'Responding to allegations made online' demonstrates the need for all adult communication and access within a school to be monitored, filtered and logged. This is for the protection of staff against allegations and to allow for legal investigations into such allegations. If you look no further this is an important arguement for staff monitoring and logging. We should have monitoring and logging even if we allow them unfiltered access ... and remember that unfiltered may only be the lowest available level depending on your connection to an ISP / RBC. We also have to remember that RIPA applies to some extent. We talked about this today within the EMBC and we should remember that the monitoring and checking of files and traffic is perfectly ok when it is your job to do so! The issue comes when giving *anyone* access to information. Should the local scout master want to check what one of his troop has been up to, then it is not appropriate to release this information ... the same way if a Union wants information then RIPA applies. The police and council (if it is not the section that already has rights to this information) want to see things then RIPA comes into force.

 

Then we go on to E-safety (revised). Whilst this document as been around a bit Jon has pointed out the handy checklist in Appendix 3 ... pages 48 and 49 have details specific for staff. Again, brilliant information for those needing staff to sign AUPs.

 

Jon also highlighted areas from the ICO that are relevant to monitoring as well.

Employers and the Data Protection Act - Organisations - ICO

 

See section 5, pages 11-14 of the quick guide available at the above link. More detailed advice is provided on pages 53-72 of the full data protection employment practices code, also available here.

 

Pages 53 - 72 of the employment practices code that Jon mentions above has a number of good references to automated, electronic monitoring. From page 55 ...

• using automated checking software to collect information about workers, for example to find out whether particular workers are sending or receiving inappropriate e-mails
  

shows that the DPA does cover monitoring employees but it has to be targeted for a particular reason. As with all data it has to be used for a specific purpose and only authorised controllers should be accessing this information and soley for the purpose stated. The recent additions to the wiki about CCTV are another example of recording information electronically has to be controlled, for a specified purpose and accessed by authorised people.

 

In the event of staff filtering of emails and internet this means that the automated systems will remove a large element of this, the software is doing this for you and you are solely looking at the exceptions ... the areas that are automatically flagged up as in breach of a set of rules (those in the AUP). This is a reasonable use of the information under the AUP.

 

I am still reading (well ... re-reading actually) the docs Jon pointed me at and comparing them against the recent AUP stuff on the wiki. If there are any changes I will let people know.

 

Another thing to remember is that there has been a large push on eSafety in most LAs (across all RBCs and LAs really) so it may be that your local AUP has been updated. Please check this for information about AUPs for users other than children and young people ... ie staff, adult learners, etc. Most LAs have updated there AUPs due to the push of ThinkUKnow from CEOPs too ...

 

So, actions ...

1. Create an AUP that covers all users, either as a whole body or by splitting references to students, staff, other adults (eg governors, adult learners, etc) and other agencies that may use your facilities
   
2. Publish your AUPs and make sure that you get signatures from *all* people who use your facilities.
   
3. Publish those who have access to the information and procedures involved in dealing with information found.
   
4. Ensure that you have all your procedures tied in together, as they should all be tied in together ... disciplinary, grievance, data protection, etc.
   

 

I hope this covers most things ... if there is anything else let me know. I have passed the thread on to a few others to have a look too.