Australia¡¯s academic union has criticised universities¡¯ over-surveillance of their staff, even as Universities Australia (UA) bristles at regulatory advice to consider more surveillance of their employees, students and visitors.

A National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) survey of its Victorian members has unearthed claims that work-from-home trends have fuelled so much covert observation of academics that universities have turned the resultant data into an income stream.

The survey, which attracted 455 responses, was conducted to inform the NTEU¡¯s to a . It found that up to nine in 10 university workers were subject to workplace surveillance, with 53 per cent aware that they were being watched and another 35 per cent unsure.

Working from home did not shield respondents from the watchful eye of their employers, with up to eight out of 10 staff under surveillance ¨C typically through monitoring of their computers, emails and internet use or through time- and performance-tracking software.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

On-campus surveillance also involved the use of video cameras, heat tracking, number plate recognition and software installed on computers. These devices were used for task allocation and performance management but also for disciplinary action ¨C including dismissals ¨C and for monitoring union activity.

Ninety-one per cent of respondents said they had not been consulted about their employer¡¯s surveillance practices, and 82 per cent said they had not been informed. Fifty-two per cent said their workplaces had no published policies on data surveillance, while another 43 per cent were unsure.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

¡°Microsoft Teams is the biggest surveillance tool,¡± one respondent confided. Another said universities ¡°assumed¡± that academics consented to ¡°their lectures being recorded and used for AI in the future¡±.

The NTEU submission cites this as an example of the ¡°monetisation of workplace surveillance data¡±, which is becoming ¡°increasingly valuable¡± for ¡°AI model training and benchmarking¡±.

The submission describes the Victorian tertiary education sector as ¡°a case study in workplace surveillance¡± and calls on the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner to audit universities¡¯ compliance with the state¡¯s Privacy and Data Protection Act.

Meanwhile, Universities Australia (UA) has come out swinging against a Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Teqsa) suggestion that universities compel students and staff to carry identification cards on campus so that security officials can distinguish them from ¡°external actors¡±.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

In ¡°¡± prompted by last year¡¯s pro-Palestinian protests, Teqsa said universities should also outline entry ¡°conditions¡± on signs at campus access points, and consider equipping security guards with body cams.

In a to Teqsa, UA questioned whether such proposals were proportionate or ¡°implementable¡±. CEO Luke Sheehy said warning signs and identification requirements conflicted with the ¡°open nature¡± of university campuses as ¡°both working and community spaces¡±.

Sheehy said universities needed to find the right balance between ¡°exclusionary and precautionary practices¡±. Requirements to carry identification cards ¡°could disproportionately affect certain groups¡± and be interpreted as ¡°overpolicing and racial profiling¡±, he warned.

Teqsa acknowledged the ¡°challenges¡± in managing outsiders. Although consultation on its proposals have closed, its ¡°final guidance materials¡± have not yet emerged.

51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com