 |
 |
Al: Thanks for these clarifications. I can appreciate the points you raise about allegations of cheating in your testing rooms. Have you asked students who use this accommodation what their feelings are about video surveillance while they are taking an exam? (e.g., a focus group) Just wondering -- this could go either way. The informed consent mechanism you mention is just right. DPPS can provide very good advice on your second question. - Dave Al Puzzuoli writes: > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for raising these points. I should clarify our primary reason > for considering cameras in the first place. Students who are registered > with the RCPD can opt to take tests in our office. We have a number of > testing rooms which offer assistive technologies and other > accommodations as needed. The addition of cameras to these rooms would > help insure the integrity of the testing procedure. It would also > serve to protect students if any allegations of cheating were to arise. > Before students are allowed to utilize our alternative testing > environment, they are asked to sign an agreement. If cameras are added, > that fact will be clearly reflected at the top of that agreement. > > Another, and perhaps separate problem is the issue of security. We have > several blind spots in our office. For example, the entry way is not > directly visible from the reception area. We need a way to monitor > traffic in such areas, to insure doors are not left open, etc. > Thoughts as to solutions for either of these issues would be great. > > Thanks, > > Al > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of David A Gift > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:29 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] Thoughts on Internet Surveillance Cameras? > > Traditionally MSU has tried to discourage the use of surveillance > cameras, particularly in classrooms and areas where students study, or > where personal privacy is expected. The rationales have been simply a > general effort to protect individual privacy, and the chilling effect > that cameras can have in many social contexts. Having said that, > cameras have been deployed in areas where security or sensitive/valuable > assets are a particular concern and where video surveillance makes sense > as a security technique. > > When considering use of surveillance cameras, I'd encourage you to think > about: > 1. How can you minimize or avoid the use of cameras? > 2. Would other security methods or technologies do as good or better > job? > (e.g., the DPPS proximity card system for locking rooms, which can > include motion-detector alarms that are armed by the security system) 3. > How will you make users of the space aware that they may be remotely > observed? > 4. Make sure that Internet access to the cameras and to any recorded > images/video are properly and well secured. > 5. Consider well how long you intend to store recorded images or video > captured by the cameras, and have and follow the University's policies > and practices for release of any recorded content to other parties, > including law enforcement. > > - Dave Gift > > > Al Puzzuoli writes: > >> We have a number of rooms in which we would like to install >> surveillance cameras. The images from these cameras should be >> viewable remotely via some sort of secure UI. The cameras should also > >> be configurable so that they would start recording based on certain >> triggers such as motion, changes in lighting, etc. The D-Link >> DCS-6620( http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=410 ) seems ideal in >> terms of features, but since we want to deploy 11 of these, a less >> expensive alternative would be nice. >> >> Any experiences o recommendations would be great. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Al Puzzuoli >> Information Technologist >> Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities 517-884-1915 120 >> Bessey Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1033 http://www.rcpd.msu.edu >> > >