Students break ‘covert’ camera outside boys’ restroom

A group of students who ripped a “covert” camera outside a boys’ restroom at an Auckland university say they were surprised and concerned by the location of the camera, and believed it might have captured them “exposed.”

However, Rutherford College principal Gary Moore says there was nothing sinister about the closed-circuit television camera, which had been operating for many years, and was there to protect students and use it in case it happened. some incident.

The boy who removed the camera is now being asked to pay for the damage caused by its removal and to replace it after it was returned to him but it no longer works.

One student, who declined to be identified, said he and his friends first noticed the camera when they saw a light flashing in a small box mounted on a wall outside the bathroom entrance.

He said when they found out he felt like “the school was filming us.”

In addition to their fears, they were concerned that it had been labeled a “cable junction box” rather than “CCTV in operation.”

The students weren’t sure how wide the lens was, but thought they might have been able to capture them in the exposed bathroom.

They removed the camera, but were eventually caught and asked to return it and pay the cost of the damage.

The student thought the camera might have been there in an attempt to catch the students smoking, but said it was “inappropriate” and made them uncomfortable.

Moore confirmed that the camera had been taken and was ultimately returned.

He wasn’t sure how long the camera had been in place, suggesting “a significant period of time,” but it was there to keep an eye on students going to and from the area.

“Sometimes it has helped to prove something, that someone has suggested, sometimes it has helped to safeguard someone who has had an accusation against him … I do not remember that he was not there, but that does not mean that it was not changed or updated in my 14 years here.

“It’s not like it went up.”

The camera did not point to the bathroom. Instead, the view simply captured those entering and exiting the bathroom and lobby area.

“It projects directly into the front door and is a straight line to the lobby back to block D, where they come in from block D.”

He said he was “disappointed” that the student “had taken matters into his own hands assuming it was something he was not” and wished he had simply asked what the cameras were for.

“Most schools will have cameras to be honest, to see who is in and out.”

The student had told the deputy principal, who conducted the investigation involving the boy and his parents, that he “was suspicious of the legality of the hidden camera.”

Moore denied that the camera was hidden, saying: “It is not hidden. It is clearly in view.”

However, when told it didn’t look like a normal camera, he accepted it and said it was one of the school’s oldest CCTV camera models. Others were the more modern circular-style cameras.

When asked if he had informed the school community about the presence of CCTV cameras, Moore said that he probably had not done so this year due to Covid and that it was not something he would have promoted through newsletters.

The student also claimed that the school told them not to mention the cameras to other students, a claim that Moore was unaware of.

Kim Shannon, head of education infrastructure services, said schools did not require parental permission to install CCTV.

However, the guidance of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is that there should be notices about the presence of cameras and current policy guidelines on storage and access to the information collected.

Decisions about the use and installation of CCTV in schools are the responsibility of the school’s board of directors and the principal, he said.