Surely this is no different to say opening the sqn or the end of the night when a cadet is on their own waiting to get collected. We’ve all been there and by the grace of god have come away unscathed.
You are correct, of course - but, if you were HQAC, given that they have the luxury of having a blank canvas to write their VPN policy, would you write it, knowing that you would be routinely allowing staff to have 1:1 time online? Of course you wouldn’t. Any such policy is asking for trouble.
Asking a second CFAV to log on is a sensible and proportionate measure, which protects our young people, and potentially, individual staff and organisational reputations.
In answer to your first point - Streams videos can fail to upload (our first ever VPN did), can be edited, and can be deleted. What is to stop a predator using the few minutes alone online to say something/share webcam, and then going to Streams to delete/trim the video?
In answer to your second - Surely the point about safeguarding measures is to reduce the risk to ALARP of the three concerns you’ve already noted. Having a second member of staff helps achieve this, and isn’t unreasonable, given we would normally be involved in cadet activity at that time.
I totally agree, but that doesn’t mean we can discount any risk to cadets or staff from online training.
Of course you are correct - but surely anyone who has completed any form of child protection training can at least understand that online platforms can be a force for good, but are open to abuse if not correctly moderated.
Now, IMO going the Merseyside wing route, and forcing Sqns to have a WSO present to check that they are running nights IAW the rules is a step too far, and will do more harm than good.
Okay… Let’s consider that.
Three possibilities, including the one you’ve raised.
-
Cadet makes allegation against innocent staff member.
Staff member is sensible and has the recording on. Allegation is received. Video record is checked. Staff member is proved innocent. -
Staff member says or does something unintentionally silly. Cadet makes allegation. Recording is checked. Conduct is observed. Staff member is “counselled” about the error of their ways.
-
Predatory staff member does something inappropriate.
a. Staff member has the recording on. Allegation is received. Recording is checked. Staff member is proven guilty. Staff member is an idiot.
b. Staff members turns the recording off, or goes back afterwards to edit it. Audit shows evidence tampering. Recording is checked. No evidence to prove staff member’s claimed innocence. Staff member undergoes investigation exactly as they would in the real world.
How is that any worse or any more potentially problematic than a real world situation where a staff member says or does something inappropriate quickly in the classroom after all bar one of the cadets has left the room?
What I’m suggesting isn’t discounting anything. It is simply applying the exact same logic and control to the lesser-risk virtual world that we already do in the greater-risk real world.
Staff are in that same “momentarily alone” situation incredibly regularly in the real world and we (sensibly) don’t consider it to be a problem.
“But there are other staff in the building”… So? If they weren’t there to actually witness the incident (or alleged incident) then they have nothing to contribute and so can be completely cut out of the equation, which makes the online world absolutely no worse than the real world.
We don’t concern ourselves with that “risk” in the real world (for example by insisting that staff move around the squadron in pairs at all times) so why should we concern ourselves in this online situation, in which the “risk” is even lower?
I agree with ALARP, but where the risk has already been reduced to be as low as possible it can’t be made any lower by adding additional and unnecessary requirements.
If we are to carry this reactionary logic under the justification that it is ‘necessary to reduce the risk’ then, by extension, we should also be installing CCTV recording in every Squadron room, and requiring that the recordings are sent to Wing immediately following the end of the night; Mandating that two staff members are present in each other’s company at all times on duty; and That every Sqn parade night is prior authorised on SMS.
And that would in fact be greater security and safeguarding “controls” than found in most prisons.
It would be considered totally unnecessary in the real world and it is therefore also totally unnecessary in the virtual world.
There’s a real tendency in this organisation to introduce processes and to state that they are required because [x, y, z]… Demonstrably this is often done without properly thinking them through and in fact much of the time these processes and controls actually don’t improve or help to achieve the desired outcome, which makes them totally superfluous. They are therefore simply extra work with no benefit and as such they shouldn’t be implemented.
This is one area that I feel is a bit strange.
If the purpose of the Streams recording is for safeguarding audit purposes, then why do the bader accounts have access to it? Ideally the recording ID should automatically be logged on SMS somehow and then in the event of an incident that video ID can be requested.
The argument that we can edit the video etc is surely flawed as I’d hope the logs would show that the video has been tampered with after the recording was completed.
One thing on which I remain utterly steadfast amongst all this debate and, given the volume of discussion, I feel is worth reiterating is that having each night as an SMS event brings no benefit to safeguarding whatsoever and absolutely shouldn’t be a requirement.
6 Likes
I think there is a case of over thinking a problem here. HQAC never have and never will understand the practicalities of being a CFAV, as we can all bear witness, hence they come up with things that look good on paper, but in reality they are not really doable. I’ve lost count of the times over the years I’ve taken single cadets to things, otherwise they’d never get the chance. Though as a result of this current situation that won’t be happening for a long, long time for any ATC activity. My car will be single occupancy bar family members.
WRT to those with delectation for predatory behaviour. These people are from my understanding, devious and wouldn’t do it on an ‘official’ system, where they can be very easily identified. Also the art of grooming I don’t think lends itself to what that ATC has decided to use in this period. Add into this the timescales and ways this happens, you cannot see some video lesson being the best way to attempt or conduct it. You would also suspect if it was going on, it would already be.
1 Like
This is one of those occasions where the planets have aligned and you and I appear to be in agreement.
But for one minor point which I’d make that some of these devious people are in fact stupid and might try it on an official system. Generally speaking though I’d suggest that you’re right.
I think that safeguarding, because of the emotive nature, is one of those areas where people are far too ready to accept anything proposed at face value, whether or not the reality supports the claim.
I’d say that to the contrary it is in fact one of the areas where logic and critical thought absolutely should outweigh emotive reactions.
I’m guessing because Teams and Streams are not designed with safeguarding in mind? It’s a business application that has been adapted.
I think the issue with altering/deleting the recording is such actions could be explained away - lets say you turn on your webcam, and reveal yourself to be sat in just underwear. Nothing illegal, just not very appropriate.
Your story: “I was trying to download it to report it to my WSO, and because I’m a tech biff, I accidentally deleted it”
Was it accidental or intentional? We’ll never know, because the recording has gone.
With an extra CFAV online, you have an independent witness.
Off topic slightly, but your understanding is wrong (and I have to say, dangerous). I have known cases in my current wing, and my old one, where things have been overlooked precisely because of that type of thinking. Predators will use whatever they can to access young people and further their aims. The official nature of Teams may actually make it more attractive.
I totally agree with that. I don’t for one minute think that just because we’re working from home, and we’re all using teams, that we’re somehow more at risk of doing something silly. I’d like to think I’m not getting all ‘Brass Eye’ on the subject, but I can see instances where having a second CFAV might just prevent a lot of heartache and worry.
Incredibly opportunistic people - there are numerous cases doing the rounds now, including across borders, where current circumstances have been exploited.
There’s a possibility that a nefarious individual in a cadet force would be able to twist the online learning environment to add perceived legitimacy to other actions towards a victim during grooming.
By that logic, all of the stuff in that panorama programme (and besides) that happened at unit buildings or at camp accommodation would never have happened.
The relationship and the mechanism for grooming can be strengthened by formal/official situations.
When I say devious they are unlikely to be open about it, given that when cases like this come up in the media, you never get a sense they were shouting about it from the rooftops. It’s all very ‘cloak and dagger’. You can’t see anything as open and being recorded for posterity like an online lesson being used, unless they are complete idiots. My perception is one of targeting their prey, instigating little chats in plain sight, that are not overheard to initiate other more ‘clandestine’ contacts. As I say sitting in a virtual lesson where, it is being recorded and or someone could be listening ‘off camera’, not the place I suspect, as if nothing else it is traceable. If they and their victims were open about it, they’d be caught in no time.
Watch some of the radicalisation training films to see how these things come to pass and under the noses of people you might like to think are on top of such things. Openness is not something either party expound.
As I say I feel the potential for this happening while we are under house arrest has been overthought, by people. More likely to happen in bog standard parade settings.
You’re thinking like a CFAV. Now think like a predator.
How do you remove the recorded bit? Hit stop recording. How do you avoid people listening in? Tell everyone the VPN is over, but ask Cpl Bloggs to stay online. And there you are. You have an official RAFAC resource for you to carry out your grooming.
Worried about being caught? Use the usual tactics to make sure Cpl Bloggs doesn’t shout for their parents. Video Evidence? Go back and trim the video to point just before you asked Bloggs to stay online. As far as the video is concerned, and the other cadets, you’ve said the VPN is over, and everyone left. Why has it been trimmed? Because you kicked the table as you got up, and said some nasty words you didn’t want Streams to hear.
The videos are not being (as far as I know) routinely screened, so no reason for anybody to pick up on those facts, unless you’re the subject of an investigation. And all they’ll find is a video that is a few minutes shorter than it should be - but you’ve got an excuse for that, already haven’t you? You might get chopped from the Sqn, but you’ll probably avoid a criminal record.
All of this could be prevented, by the way, by making sure two staff are present before cadets are admitted, and after they’ve been dismissed.
I’m very aware that this is very much a worse case scenario, but it’s HQAC job to think about issues like this, and try and put in place systems and processes to try and prevent it. An extra staff member is an easy and free first line of defence.
1 Like
Where is all this about editing the videos coming from?
Can they be edited or uploaded?
Yes, you can. There is the option to trim the video, as well as delete it completely. You can also edit the transcript that is generated. You can upload and download the videos as well.
Surely to mitigate any hearsay from cadets (not talking about any potential predators purposely trying to coerce Cdt. Bloggs) the CFAVs should have an option to eject all from the meeting, and if that option isnt currently available surely it can be suggested to MS for voting and implementation.
That seems to defeat the point!
Do you understand the scale of Microsoft? 400 million people use Windows, and as large as this organisation is, I don’t think there’s going to be any direct path through which to suggest features.
To my knowledge there isn’t an option to eject all, but there is an option to eject individuals (three dots menu next to a person - same place as the remote mute button).
There’s two (official) forums for feature requests:
https://microsoftteams.uservoice.com
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-teams/bd-p/MicrosoftTeams
As is usual for feature requests though, things live on there for years before they’re actually implemented.
1 Like
There’s also the option to jump ship yourself if things get too uncomfortable.
But still I fail to see that being the lone staff member left in the meeting with one cadet for two or three seconds is anywhere near the concern that people are suggesting it is.
3 Likes
The situation about being alone with a cadet is more likely and potentially much more opportunity for anything untoward on a parade night. Although in the future if you’ve got to be 2m from them, less of an opportunity.
This, I think, is worth consideration. Is the Teams recording anchored to the individual who initiates it? If this is the case, if that individual doesn’t cycle through the chat and participant elements of the meeting, one assumes they will not display in the recording, unless it is interactive / there are some other means of assessing?
I suspect there are back office means of assessing this, but if the recording is simply a recording of an individual’s screen then there would be a risk of activity occurring in “chat” that was not visible.
1 Like