Continued public outcry against the University of Melbourne. This follows disclosures it had surveilled student demonstrators during a May 2022 sit-in at the West Arts Building. The university employed Wi-Fi location data, student card facial recognition and CCTV footage to identify the students participating in the protest. As a result of this investigation, misconduct proceedings were initiated against 20 students. This disregard for privacy has prompted significant concerns about the university’s compliance with Information Privacy Principles (IPPs).
The sit-in protest came in the wake of students protesting multiple issues impacting the university community. The university’s vice-chancellor (chief executive) acted quickly after learning of the occupation. He then told all of us in the Arts West Building to get out, right now. It was the university’s approach to monitoring that has set off a firestorm.
The inquiry launched into the university’s response started after press accounts exploded in late July 2024. The Privacy and Data Protection deputy commissioner has opened an investigation. Now, they are looking to see if the university’s use of Wi-Fi data constitutes a privacy law violation. The results showed that the university had, in fact, violated two separate IPPs.
Katerina Kapobassis, chief operating officer for the University of Melbourne, responded to the investigation’s findings. She acknowledged that while the tracking was deemed “reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances,” there were significant shortcomings in communication regarding how personal information was utilized.
“Acknowledges that it could have provided clearer active notice to students and staff members in relation to the use of Wi-Fi location data, and a number of remedial actions are progressing.” – Katerina Kapobassis
The Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC) emphasized the severity of the breach, stating, “Because the collection and use of the data involved the surveillance of students and staff, and surveillance by its nature is antithetical to human rights, the breach was serious.”
Kapobassis held steady in support of the university’s response. He claimed that they had “fully, openly and responsively” cooperated with the deputy commissioner throughout the investigation. She noted that measures have already been implemented to correct deficiencies flagged in the report.
“The university has already completed a number of actions that are proposed in the final report, and all others are progressing.” – Katerina Kapobassis
Additionally, she promised to engage regularly with the university community as changes are made to begin to live up to the positive rhetoric. She underscored that the agency remains committed to privacy and increasing transparency in the future.
“We will ensure the university community is kept informed as these changes are made.” – Katerina Kapobassis
