University of Melbourne’s surveillance tactics deemed unlawful: A breach of privacy and trust

• Victoria’s deputy information commissioner ruled that the University of Melbourne‘s covert surveillance during a pro-Palestine protest was unlawful, citing concerns over privacy and transparency.
• The university monitored individuals through campus Wi-Fi, matched connection data with student IDs and security footage and examined employee emails, identifying 22 students and scrutinizing ten staff members.
• The commissioner’s report found no clear legal justification for the Wi-Fi tracking and staff email monitoring, while also criticizing the university’s privacy documents and policies for lacking transparency.
• The incident reflects a broader trend of surveillance creep in universities, with similar cases at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Central Florida, raising concerns about the erosion of privacy and civil liberties.
• The ruling underscores the need for transparent policies and informed consent in the adoption of surveillance technologies, serving as a cautionary tale for other institutions and highlighting the importance of upholding privacy and freedom in academic settings.

The deputy information commissioner for Australia’s Victoria state has declared the University of Melbourne‘s (UniMelb) covert surveillance tactics during a pro-Palestine campus protest to be unlawful.

The decision condemns the university’s use of digital tracking tools against students and staff. It also raises critical questions about privacy, transparency and the growing use of surveillance technologies in academic settings. The controversy began earlier this year when the university faced scrutiny for its response to a May protest held inside the Arts West building.

Rather than engaging in open dialogue or utilizing standard disciplinary processes, university officials opted for a more intrusive approach: monitoring individuals through the campus Wi-Fi network. This involved matching connection data with student ID photos and security camera recordings, a tactic that ultimately identified 22 students and examined the email accounts of ten employees.

The deputy information commissioner’s report highlighted that the university lacked a clear legal basis for this surveillance. While the use of CCTV footage was deemed within legal boundaries, the report found the use of Wi-Fi tracking in disciplinary investigations to be unjustified. The monitoring of staff emails was also flagged for breaching expected privacy norms.

Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch argues that Wi-Fi tracking violates students’ constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy and due process, turning campuses into “surveillance states that profile, punish and extort compliance under the guise of ‘safety’ while enabling authoritarian control over personal medical and behavioral choices.”

UniMelb COO Katerina Kapobassis acknowledged that the institution “could have provided clearer active notice” to those being monitored. However, she defended the actions as “reasonable and proportionate,” citing safety concerns as justification. Kapobassis also noted that the university has since introduced revised digital monitoring policies and updates to IT governance.

Despite these assurances, the official findings painted a starkly different picture. The university’s privacy documents, Wi-Fi usage terms and digital policy frameworks were all criticized for lacking transparency. According to the report, users were effectively left unaware of how their location and communication data might be used against them.

A growing trend of campus surveillance

UniMelb is not alone in its use of surveillance technologies. The report’s findings have been welcomed by civil rights organizations and student-led groups, who point to a troubling pattern of surveillance creep within higher education.

Historically, universities have been bastions of free speech and open discourse. However, the increasing use of surveillance technologies threatens to undermine these core values.

In 2015, the University of California, Berkeley, faced similar criticism after it was revealed that campus police had been monitoring student activists. In 2017, the University of Central Florida was accused of using social media monitoring tools to track student protests. These incidents highlight a growing concern among students and faculty about the erosion of privacy and civil liberties on campus. (Related: School surveillance overreach: A threat to privacy, free speech and student well-being.)

The implications of UniMelb’s actions extend beyond the immediate case. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for other institutions that may be tempted to use surveillance technologies to monitor student and staff activities. It also raises important questions about the role of technology in shaping the future of higher education.

As universities increasingly rely on digital tools to manage campus life, the need for clear and transparent policies becomes more pressing. The deputy commissioner’s report emphasizes the importance of informed consent and the right to privacy, principles that are often overlooked in the rush to adopt new technologies.

Watch Scott Kesterson talking about AI and surveillance state below.

This video is from the Brighteon Highlights channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

U.S. SCHOOLS use ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE TOOLS to monitor students’ digital behavior without consent or knowledge.

Swiss after-school care center to put TRACKERS on students.

Stanford student paper reveals China’s efforts to infiltrate university, steal research.

Sources include:

ReclaimTheNet.org 1

ReclaimTheNet.org 2

Brighteon.ai

Brighteon.com