NetSupport DNA, Telegraph Article.

[Primus]

Happy Christmas holidays everyone.

 

 

Safeguarding-in-schools generated information, can be the trigger for staff to begin a Channel referral for children into the Prevent programme, and reporting statistics. 1 in 3 of all referrals come from the education sector today, yet 70% of referrals into the Channel programme in 2017-18, resulted in no action for the individuals, so improvement is clearly needed somewhere in that process, to reduce over-referrals. We also get concerns from staff (and more rarely young people) usually where they feel it is not possible to speak up on their concerns on use of these software in school; on over blocking of content, on how to delete flags assigned to the wrong child, or flags created without real cause.

 

 

With respect no further action being taken on a referral does not mean that schools are "over-referring".

 

On the subject of staff concerns I'd like to know how many of them actually understand the technology they are concerned about - people can often be afraid of things that they do not understand. In my opinion your website and blog are incredibly alarmist and without a factual underpinning - have you ever actually worked in a school? Do you have a technical background to be able to understand the claims you are making?

 

I notice you have declined to take down your blog in response to the DNA newspaper article - the commentary on it is most amusing - why on earth would children or their parents be able to control the settings of a piece of software which solely runs on school owned computers and within the school's network?

 

When I worked in industry if I used the employer's computer or Internet connection I was under no illusions that this is their equipment and connection and they are able to see what I am doing and where I am going - why should it be any different for a child in a school?

[Al_NetSupport]

It feels an irreconcilable position. There are many who will be able recount lives saved by schools who have picked up on children at risk of suicide, self harm or online grooming (alongside the IWF), and those that feel the information might be used to wrongly involve an external agency.

 

I believe the lives saved justify the use of these tools and many, many school leaders agree it’s an essential tool and one that could not be replaced by eyes and ears alone (unless we had twice as many staff).

 

Schools use a wealth of tools to monitor activity , assess learning and keep children safe online, to do this without retaining data about the child is simply not possible - context is always the key to any judgement and it can’t be made without any history.

 

As she mentions , I am meeting Jen from DefendDigitalMe in January to hopefully expand understanding on how our products actually work, but I’m a realist, we are unlikely to have much common ground other than we both want to keep children safe.

 

As always, appreciate everyone’s support and comments. I know many have seen children really helped as a result of solutions like ours.

[jenatddm]

Should you not have had this meeting first to have an informed understanding of the software and how it works?

Al can verify how often I have asked NSDNA for just that this year, both written and face to face. We met and had a walk through of the product at Bett this year for example. But that's not what we were asked to comment on.

[jenatddm]

It feels an irreconcilable position.

[...] but I’m a realist, we are unlikely to have much common ground other than we both want to keep children safe.

 

It's not at all an irreconcilable position. Safe, fair, and transparent use of personal data should not be for any company providing tools that process children's data, especially in such sensitive and important work, with such a range of lasting consequences. I believe we'll have more in common than you think. For any company it's going to be a USP to offer good support to schools on anything data related given the challenges of GDPR. Improving consistent materials for schools, for families and children is going to be one positive part of that. See you next month.

[Primus]

Al can verify how often I have asked NSDNA for just that this year, both written and face to face. We met and had a walk through of the product at Bett this year for example. But that's not what we were asked to comment on.

 

So you commented on an article that is so factually inaccurate the newspaper concerned had to remove it but you aren't prepared to remove your own commentary? You then further acknowledge that you are seeking further information from NetSupport's MD about how the product works but you feel qualified to give such a commentary in advance?

 

If you're looking to work with the industry that produces these products and the schools that use them then this is most certainly not the way to do it!

 

Your commentary on this matter comes across as nothing more than uninformed scaremongering and the original article being pulled is testimony to that.

[jenatddm]

 

[1] With respect no further action being taken on a referral does not mean that schools are "over-referring".

[2] On the subject of staff concerns I'd like to know how many of them actually understand the technology they are concerned about - people can often be afraid of things that they do not understand.

[3] Why on earth would children or their parents be able to control the settings of a piece of software which solely runs on school owned computers and within the school's network?

[4] When I worked in industry if I used the employer's computer or Internet connection I was under no illusions that this is their equipment and connection and they are able to see what I am doing and where I am going - why should it be any different for a child in a school?

 

 

re 1. You're absolutely correct. This is why it says what it does and not that schools are "over-referring". The whole process needs transparency to identify where the 70% is, and where and why that % happens.

re 2. Again, this is exactly the point. Staff (if children are using the systems under their watch) must understand the technology, and should be able to comfortably raise those concerns in school. It's why we're keen to get decent materials on this published, bearing in mind there are a wide variety of products on the market and not every one operates as NSDNA does -- and the blog doesn't talk about NSDNA (except the text Al approved) but is generic across the range of softwares in the sector. The concerns staff have are sometimes when a switch is made from one product to another.

re 3. This is too nuanced for here, but again, bear in mind we're talking about sector wide improvements, not specific to one product. We have been told by schools we have researched, that around half use the software on personal devices and BYOD policy. Not all monitor only in school, or school hours. The caching question will be good to clarify for everyone too.

re 4. It's very different for a child in a school -- different legislation, different rights, different risks, and power imbalance between an adult-child, and employment versus compulsory education and so on. It's important that schools understand that to be processing data fairly and lawfully. As I wrote, this is a challenging, complex area of data processing in the public sector, conflating important areas of safeguarding and child protection with the politics of Prevent.

 

It sounds as though after the suppliers have vetted, it would be good to run draft materials by the Forum and you can take a look.

 

Have a good holiday.

[Primus]

re 1. You're absolutely correct. This is why it says what it does and not that schools are "over-referring". The whole process needs transparency to identify where the 70% is, and where and why that % happens.

re 2. Again, this is exactly the point. Staff (if children are using the systems under their watch) must understand the technology, and should be able to comfortably raise those concerns in school. It's why we're keen to get decent materials on this published, bearing in mind there are a wide variety of products on the market and not every one operates as NSDNA does -- and the blog doesn't talk about NSDNA (except the text Al approved) but is generic across the range of softwares in the sector. The concerns staff have are sometimes when a switch is made from one product to another.

re 3. This is too nuanced for here, but again, bear in mind we're talking about sector wide improvements, not specific to one product. We have been told by schools we have researched, that around half use the software on personal devices and BYOD policy. Not all monitor only in school, or school hours. The caching question will be good to clarify for everyone too.

re 4. It's very different for a child in a school -- different legislation, different rights, different risks, and power imbalance between an adult-child, and employment versus compulsory education and so on. It's important that schools understand that to be processing data fairly and lawfully. As I wrote, this is a challenging, complex area of data processing in the public sector, conflating important areas of safeguarding and child protection with the politics of Prevent.

 

It sounds as though after the suppliers have vetted, it would be good to run draft materials by the Forum and you can take a look.

 

Have a good holiday.

 

Nope you're still talking nonsense and I'd have zero interest in reading anything produced by you or your organisation. If I was a supplier I'd tell you to stop wasting my time and get lost!

[jenatddm]

So you commented on an article that is so factually inaccurate the newspaper concerned had to remove it but you aren't prepared to remove your own commentary?

 

Our response was here. Happy to discuss any of it, including what and why would you have us take down anything. Then a post to respond to the article being pulled, which included text approved by Al. But to be honest, phone would be easier if you want to go through, so can give you tel. no via PM if wanted.

[Primus]

Our response was here. Happy to discuss any of it, including what and why would you have us take down anything. Then a post to respond to the article being pulled, which included text approved by Al. But to be honest, phone would be easier if you want to go through, so can give you tel. no via PM if wanted.

 

Why on earth would I want to discuss it further?! Your blog and posts on here make it clear you're on some kind of uninformed crusade - you do not understand the context schools are working in or the technology schools are using.

[DrCheese]

I do have to agree with Primus - This is mostly scaremongering. I raised the issue about monitoring at home and from your blog you've also singled out other companies like smoothwall for this. I also note on your reponse blog you've bolded this issue.

 

It is an issue, yes but

 

If a school lends a school device to a pupil either for a temp rental or an ongoing amount of time, then yes the school should absolutely put filtering and monitoring on these devices.

 

In the case of Smoothwall or other school proxies, normally this is done by routing all filtering back into the school and out via the schools Internet connection, which is then logged. The same is done in a lot of companies for their staff access

 

Failure for schools to do this would then lead to complaints from parents that their child has accessed inapproriate content on a school provided device and the school then may be liable for any actions that result from this (i.e a child is groomed etc) & I can see the press now - "School provides tools for predators to groom children in their own homes!" "Student accesses ISIS training material on school laptop!

 

This really isn't any different than most work places, if you're on a work OWNED computer be it at work or using it at home, then generally the company reserves the rights to pull all access on the device and use it how they see fit. It's their equipment & you have no rights to use it for whatever purposes you see fit.

 

*However* The school or workplace should make it transparent that this is the case, usually by refusing to issue such a device unless the user signs the policy to say that's the case & then potentially making it fairly clear on an ongoing basis that this is going on (Desktop wallpaper message etc)

 

This is up to the school/workplace however & not something Netsupport can control. I also need to point out that you can do a lot of what you are worried about with a billion different other tools out there. Even with no software installed, it's fairly trivial for a workplace to view what a user has been doing on a work owned device that they have administration access to. Again, it's not your device, it's the companies.

 

Lastly

 

You *need* to see a difference between School/work owned devices & BYOD devices, which are a different kettle of fish entirely. School/work have no rights to that, but they do still reserve the right to monitor/filter internet use if you wish to use their on site wifi.

They simply make it a condition of access & the reply will be "If you don't like it, don't use it" as normally these are provided as a free benefit and not required to do your day to day learning/job role.

Edited December 23, 2018 by DrCheese

[synaesthesia]

So again what it actually boils down to is perhaps some schools likely need to communicate better. Yes, we use filtering and security software which is mandatory on all school owned properties. It is able to do x, y and z and it will help us take every precaution possible for keeping your child, safe online as well as help protect the school, its staff and other students; a link to the product(s) we use for this is accessible here. Data is stored according to our data retention/protection policy. If you'd like to know more, please let us know and we'd be happy to provide more information.

 

It doesn't need much, it doesn't need national toilet roll material (I prefer Andrex tbh, the Daily Mail isn't exactly soft, strong or absorbent) to scaremonger. Awareness raising absolutely, but words should be chosen carefully. The internet is a dangerous place and it has brought about more safeguarding concerns and measures than most of us would care to count, but at the same time we have the tools to help protect, and the same tools are an extremely good aide alongside pastoral support for picking up potential problems that may not be apparent in general demeanour. It doesn't need demonising.

[mavhc]

I hear there's companies in usa that are installing software on all our devices every month, and we don't even know what it does! And we're paying them to do it!

[Achandler]

I think we should just go back to pen and paper, and remove computers from schools, but definitely stop the Internet in schools. Sure it will probably ruin the child's education but at least they then can't harm themselves, be monitored, produce data on themselves etc, then the digital mourners would be quiet.

 

The same people who complain about monitoring in a school, probably let there children loose on the Internet at home with no filtering, they have there own devices that the children "only use for educational purposes" of course but will then complain when little Bart/ Betty/ Dante/ Esmerelda access a site which offends them (not them, not the actual child).

 

The blog produced by Jen will sit on the Internet with all the other rubbish that is out there, that someone once wrote, MMR jabs will give you child some illness for definite etc. Then people can follow them, be paranoid about the world all watching there child (who is consequently in hospital with measles because someone put on the Internet that MMR was bad), having recovered from Polio earlier this year (that vaccine is dangerous as well I'm sure) and will then cry foul that the world is against them.

 

 

If the poster is really interested in protecting a child's interests (I'm not talking about the rubbish in this thread), then they need to be tackling Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Netflix, in fact almost every website a child logs into or uses, as they are tracking literally everything they do on the Internet all the time, as I would estimate the vast majority of people just click yes to everything when they access websites, sign up to accounts etc.

 

We live in a world where you are most likely caught on CCTV daily, your movements are being tracked by your phone and your data is being mined and exploited no matter what the EU has tried to do.