Does Google's et all EULA cater for this as fairly sure many childrens phones track them and fall foul of this.
Oyster cards in London, your journeys are tracked, consent not asked for. Let alone giving special privilege for children.
Then the whole aspect of under-age (children) commiting crime and evidence. A smart lawyer could abuse the whole aspect to squash any evidence that placed them at a scene of a crime as they never gave consent and if they did - they didn't know what they were doing.
Basically - if a school can't rely upon consent from children - nobody can.
>Does Google's et all EULA cater for this as fairly sure many childrens phones track them and fall foul of this.
Google are subject to multiple GDPR investigations as we speak. They have already received a number of large fines.
>Oyster cards in London, your journeys are tracked, consent not asked for. Let alone giving special privilege for children.
TFL have a legitimate need to know where you tapped in and out in order to calculate fares. As long as they aren't using that data in an identifiable form for other purposes and they delete it as soon as practicable, they're compliant. A facial recognition system collects far more data than is minimally necessary to track school attendance, which is contrary to the principles set out in Art. 5.
>Then the whole aspect of under-age (children) commiting crime and evidence. A smart lawyer could abuse the whole aspect to squash any evidence that placed them at a scene of a crime as they never gave consent and if they did - they didn't know what they were doing.
That evidence is necessary for the purposes of mounting a prosecution so processing it (in accordance with the rest of the GDPR) is lawful under Art. 6. Consent is only one lawful basis for processing personal data; it is not always necessary, nor is it always sufficient. Consent does not give anyone carte blanche to do as they please under GDPR, particularly where that consent might not be fully informed or freely given.
Basically - if a school can't rely upon consent from children - nobody can.
I think that is a fairly well established legal principle. In many places, a contract cannot be enforced against a minor no matter whether it was freely entered. Statutory rape laws say it doesn't matter if the minor consented. And so on . . .
"Statutory rape laws say it doesn't matter if the minor consented" that is probably an extreme example that some might find unpalatable, but it does support the point.
Oyster cards in London, your journeys are tracked, consent not asked for. Let alone giving special privilege for children.
Then the whole aspect of under-age (children) commiting crime and evidence. A smart lawyer could abuse the whole aspect to squash any evidence that placed them at a scene of a crime as they never gave consent and if they did - they didn't know what they were doing.
Basically - if a school can't rely upon consent from children - nobody can.