But they are taking about monitoring public facing social media - frankly I think it would be daft if they did not do this.
If a be teaching assistant starts publicly posting harmful harmful content there should indeed be systems on place to ensure this is identified and appropriate action taken.
If you post publicly you have to assume everybody, including your employer, might see it.
You definitely have a point with the public facing posts. However, I will disagree with you on two points.
“Harmful content” does not seem to apply here as the article implies that specifically posts criticizing government policies were flagged.
Even so, harmful content could just as well be classified through existing procedures such as members of the public filing complaints rather than simply “keeping score”.
It’s a bit different when your employer is the government as they should be held to a higher standard.
Many outraged educators have rushed to submit subject access requests [SARs] compelling the DfE to release any information it holds under their name, after discovering there were files up to 60 pages long about their tweets and comments challenging government policy or the schools inspectorate, Ofsted.
Cleveland expressed anger that while the department was flagging tweets about schools struggling to balance their budgets, meet the growing needs of pupils without enough staff and deal with unreasonable demands from Ofsted, “nothing has changed”.
The Observer’s story a fortnight ago revealed how the DfE tried to cancel a conference because two of its speakers, early-years experts Ruth Swailes and Aaron Bradbury, had previously been critical of government policy.
This echoes their tactics with Swailes and Bradbury, who assumed that the reason the DfE wanted them to speak on Zoom and not in person was so that officials could “cut us off if they didn’t like what we were saying”.
Another key speaker, Julie Harmieson, director of education and strategy at training organisation Trauma Informed Schools, pulled out in solidarity.
Asked whether they were monitoring the social media of teaching staff, the DfE said it would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases and that it was standard practice to carry out due diligence before engaging external experts.
The original article contains 843 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !privacyguides@lemmy.one
In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We’ve tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the “official” Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other “Privacy Guides” communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
No soliciting engagement: Don’t ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
Don’t repost topics which have already been covered here.
News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don’t abuse our community’s willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.
I’m pretty sure the U.K. Government is keeping files on everybody
“we need to break encryption so that we can stop terrorists and CP!”
But they are taking about monitoring public facing social media - frankly I think it would be daft if they did not do this.
If a be teaching assistant starts publicly posting harmful harmful content there should indeed be systems on place to ensure this is identified and appropriate action taken.
If you post publicly you have to assume everybody, including your employer, might see it.
You definitely have a point with the public facing posts. However, I will disagree with you on two points.
It’s a bit different when your employer is the government as they should be held to a higher standard.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Many outraged educators have rushed to submit subject access requests [SARs] compelling the DfE to release any information it holds under their name, after discovering there were files up to 60 pages long about their tweets and comments challenging government policy or the schools inspectorate, Ofsted.
Cleveland expressed anger that while the department was flagging tweets about schools struggling to balance their budgets, meet the growing needs of pupils without enough staff and deal with unreasonable demands from Ofsted, “nothing has changed”.
The Observer’s story a fortnight ago revealed how the DfE tried to cancel a conference because two of its speakers, early-years experts Ruth Swailes and Aaron Bradbury, had previously been critical of government policy.
This echoes their tactics with Swailes and Bradbury, who assumed that the reason the DfE wanted them to speak on Zoom and not in person was so that officials could “cut us off if they didn’t like what we were saying”.
Another key speaker, Julie Harmieson, director of education and strategy at training organisation Trauma Informed Schools, pulled out in solidarity.
Asked whether they were monitoring the social media of teaching staff, the DfE said it would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases and that it was standard practice to carry out due diligence before engaging external experts.
The original article contains 843 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!