Universities must consider 'reasonable expectations' of students when deploying tracking technologies, says expert

Kathryn Wynn of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said universities must account for "the reasonable expectations of students" when deploying tracking technologies and effectively inform them about their use of the technology prior to installation.

Wynn was commenting after the Evening Times reported that Glasgow University was in the process of removing devices that it had installed on some desks which recorded how frequently that desk space was being used. Some students complained about the use of the devices, according to the report.

In a statement, a Glasgow University spokesperson said the monitors it used "were fitted to desks in two parts of the university to help us understand when people used different spaces". They "recorded only that a space was occupied and did not gather any additional or personal information", they said.

"Colleagues were advised in advance that the study was going to take place and that it was wholly anonymous", the spokesperson said.

Wynn said that universities that use desk-use trackers could be deemed to gather personal data if a desk to which they are fitted is designated for use by a particular individual, as it would allow information to be gleaned about that person's location and activity. In those circumstances the processing of that data would be subject to data protection laws, she said.

In other cases where the desk-use trackers are deployed on desks that are for general use by students or staff, it would be fair to assume that the information gathered would not constitute personal data, Wynn said.

However, Wynn urged universities to conduct a data protection impact assessment before installing monitoring technology of any kind to not only ensure they comply with data protection laws but also avoid causing undue distress or discomfort to students or staff.

"It is useful for UK universities to keep in mind the purpose of the provisions of the Data Protection Act, even if they come to a conclusion, based on a literal interpretation of the law, that their use of monitoring technology would not involve the collection and use of personal data," Wynn said.

"The use of monitoring technology has the potential to be considered overly-intrusive by students or staff. Distress and discomfort could simply stem from discovering that monitoring technology is being used and not being aware of why the institution has deployed it and what information it might gather. Universities may be able to point to potential benefits that students and staff might enjoy from their use of that technology. However, the existence of such benefits does not negate the fact that universities must be cognisant of individuals' rights and freedoms," she said.

"It is important that universities widely communicate their intended use of monitoring technologies. They should a variety of platforms to get the message across, from notice boards in hallways to social media channels – a single blanket email to students is unlikely to be sufficient to have the desired effect," Wynn said.

"Transparency will help debunk any concerns students may have about 'snooping' and is a necessity for universities where they plan to use monitoring technologies that do involve the collection of personal data, such as technologies to track attendance at classes, use of online course material, or exam results, to intervene directly in students' learning," Wynn said.

Specialist in education technology Joanne McIntosh of Pinsent Masons said: "The use of data analytics within the education sector is likely to increase over the next few years. Therefore, when devising their digital strategies, universities need to think carefully not only about how such technologies and the data collected can help them formulate their long term plans or improve student experience but also about how best to communicate the use of those technologies to those affected."