A major privacy breach has accidently released confidential and personal information of students.
A mass email, which named 70 Archaeology students, showed their exam grades and highlighted those with learning disabilities.
Minutes after the data was sent, the department wrote another message asking students to “delete it straight away”.
The personal information named students with dyslexia and showed exam results that have not been finalised. An administrator claimed: “I think I mangled it when saving, so it is meaningless and misleading. I will re-send your anonymised marks.”
University rules say that “only your examination candidate number identifies you until marking has been completed.” But some of the marks which were listed next to candidates’ names have not yet been externally marked.
One 3rd year Archaeology student told Vision: “This was clearly an honest mistake, but it puts some students in a very difficult position and could cause them embarrassment.
“Most people are open about their grades and learning difficulties, but for some people this is a private matter and should have remained so.”
He added: “Now that everyone can see my exam number, none of my results can ever be anonymous.”
The privacy breach has also raised questions over the fairness and anonymity of future marking within the department. It is unclear whether tutors and lecturers will be able to access the data.
The Archaeology Department were contacted by Vision but did not comment on the incident.
But, the administrator who sent the confidential data told students: “Lesson learned – when you download a new version of Excel make sure you check your work carefully. Twice.”
As someone who suffers with dyslexia I find this very worrying that something like this could have happened.
However it does seem as if it was a simple mistake and I think everyone can recall a time when they have accidently sent out an email by mistake.
It also highlights the issue of new software installation on to computers; the university has over the past months been updating PC’s with the latest versions of Microsoft office. The University should have made provision for staff to be taught about any changes to the software.
But as long as the department has learnt their lesson and other depts. make sure they don’t do the same then this should not happen again.
We have a fantastic administrator here in archaeology and i think this is very unfair to have published this. the administrator has done more for us than you could know, she the most hard working person i know and is always a friendly face within the deparment, yes this should no have happended but its an honest mistake and i’m sure that in the furture we will all make similar mistakes if we havnt already
i’d like to know who sent this on to vision and which person in our year commented, as i think they should be ashamed of themselfs, just remember this the next time you make a mistake…you would not want it to appear in the newspaper would you?
The Archaeological administrator is wonderful and I think most people who study archaeology do not care about that greatly about the mistake that she made. She is very helpful at times of need and she did her utmost to retify the mistake that she made.
I think that the fact you have a screen shot of the image shows the disrespect of some people in my year by NOT deleting the document striaght away. Surely this is worse? As not a genuining error?
I am a third year archaeologist and dyslexic and whilst yes this was an annoying mistake, it is hardly the end of the world. The department have been increadibly appologetic, including sending out seperate emails to those with dyslexia. This is really not a big deal. However, vision publishing student numbers in the image above is, as our details can be found using this, meaning that the screan shot above can be used to work out who got what grades in the moduales show. Furthermore the Archaeologits who must have forwarded on the email to Vision is doing exactly what he/she is so angry with department for. Forwarding private information to campus press.
As a thrid year archaeologist, all I can say is we have a fantastic department and admin team. It was a genuine mistake. However the person who infromed Vision should be uttly ashamed of themselfs, especailly showing them the document which they have used in as the picutre! What a absoute hypocrite, and its equally hypocratical of vision to blur out names but not the candidate numbers!
The fact that this has been published within Vision has not helped the situation. You have brought attention to this matter again which now means that the people that have not deleted the email or were unaware of the reasons behind it being ‘incorrect’ in the first place are now aware.
The administrator is one of the most helpful, respectful people that I have met within my time at university and has always kept confidential information as of the upmost importance.
Everyone makes mistakes. It was an honest one and this should be forgotten.
Storm in a teacup. If one thinks about how things are run for a second, it’s obvious that most marks in archaeology can’t be properly anonymous anyway. And our administrator is great, she really goes out of her way to help students; this is really unfair on someone who does her job brilliantly.
Also, what Polly said about the screenshot!
Unless you’re really pathetic, you’re not interested in other individuals’ marks, only your own and how it compares in general. And if you’re the sort of person that treats marks as the sum of one’s worth, then I’m sure you’ve caused enough unpleasantness before this mishap to render it inconsequential.
I believe support given to the administration team within the above responses fully reflects the feelings of the majority of the archaeology student body. The mistake was genuine and I trust that the appropriate action has been taken to avoid the incident being repeated and appropriate apologies made. The administrator has been exceptionally supportive and friendly with regards to all aspects of my academic and personal life whilst I have been a part of this department. I do not have a problem with this story being published. However the “conscientious” third year student is just as responsible for infringing data protection laws, by further passing the confidential document onto a third party body outside of the third year students recipients of the mistaken email. We are an extremely small and tight nit group and the passing on of the data to the press (rather than the purely the story) is completely out of order and should be met with ramifications for the individual(s) involved.
I am really impressed with the response of the Archaeology students on the comments, I know if this happened to my results, I would be very angry with the department, it seems you feel a lot more connected to your department and admin staff than I do.
And to be fair to Vision, the article does say it was an ‘honest mistake’
It is the photo as Ross has highlighted that is the issue here
Whoever forwaded this to vision has done the same thing the department did, however this time with intent…they should be ashamed…
yes we are very close to the department here, it is a lovely place to study, we are very lucky!
I agree! What I find really annoying is the screen shot in this article, and I’m really disappointed by whoever sent this in. I don’t really understand why they would.
I’d actually completely forgotten this had happened – so this article has been an unnecessary reminder.
I agree with Ross, and many other commenters here that the forwarding of the email to Vision is completely unacceptable.
It was obviously a mistake, but your article goes against what the majority of the year feel. Even if you consider this trash to be a news-worthy article, what are you trying to achieve?
This seems to be nothing but a callous attempt to force a witch-hunt, and I hope others see it for exactly what it is.
Also, my number is on that list, and I would appreciate it if Vision would remove the image. You can blatantly identify at least 2 individuals from your screenshot, along with their marks and candidate number.
I will look into pursuing the matter further.
Cheers.
Firstly, this might not exactly be in the spirit of the comments so far, but some of the marks on the screen grab are really low.
Secondly, Adam, I don’t think you can blame Vision for ‘going against what the majority of the year feel’, unless they were going to seek the opinion of over half of the students how would they know that. I personally would be upset if my data was leaked by the university.
This article therefore isn’t ‘trash’, it shows that the University doesn’t have a sufficient system in place for protecting our data. There shouldn’t be the possibility of mistakes like this happening.
And finally, I am sure the whole point of your exam number is that is nobody else knows it apart from youself, so I don’t see why Vision are getting told to take it down, it seems they have done a lot more than your department to protect your private data.
The marks under Section A are for one essay in an open exam, which generally is the one that people get lowest. It was one of the first exams we did. It is also a small percentile of our year. Some people got first in this screen grab anyhow so maybe you should mention that too!
Plus its not exactly relevent and just a bit bitchy and makes the rest of the comment pointless.
The exam numbers with pretty poorly blurred out names does not really make in anonymous.
I disagree with you ‘Impartial’, I think you obviously make a valid point and obviously coming at it form a neutral perspective is great.
I feel that the article is trash. I believe it has taken what was a small internal matter that many have forgotten even happened and “exposed” it as some “major privacy blunder”.
My main concern, and perhaps I didn’t make this clear in my original post, is that a peer in my department has shown complete disrespect for mine and everyone else’s privacy by allowing Vision access to this email.
The first time round was a mistake, and we were told to delete the information. For it to first be kept and secondly passed in is what I find disgraceful. I agree, perhaps measures should be in place to ensure this doesn’t happen again, but what measures would these be?
However low the scores are is irrelevant.
Impartial: But they havent done a good enougth job at clearly blurring peoples names! Yeah some of the marks are really Low, People had enougth of a Issue with their class peers being able to see them, let alone now the whole student body bacause A) One of our peers sold our year out and B) Because Vision did a damn awfull job at keeping confidentality. Your commenting on the grades just goes to prove why Vision shouldnt have used this pictur.
The Admin team are unbelievably helpfull and understanding! I just hope the next time the individual who infromed vision (whoever they are) makes a mistake doesnt try and seek forgiveness as evidently they cannot give it!
“Firstly, this might not exactly be in the spirit of the comments so far, but some of the marks on the screen grab are really low.”
How is that any of your business!? Congratulations on the posting the most vapid comment so far.
I’m a third year archaeologist and although the **MISTAKE** was made and I was disappointed I am in no way up for a witch-hunt and I would have hoped no one else would be. Apparently that’s not true as the screen shot was not only given to vision but also published. I’m really impressed by the response of other third years here and hope that the person responsible for sending in this screen-shot (I hope it wasn’t the whole document come to think of it) realises that they have done nobody a service and quickly learn that brash actions like this have consequences. The adminstrator at the centre of this is such a hard worker and does not deserve to be strung up like this.
Firstly, I would like to note that this is a newsworthy story. A department administrator as made an epic blunder, a blunder which could have caused exceptional problems. But the fact is that it didn’t! The students within the department accepted that a genuine mistake was made and these things happen.
However, the publication of this document (the screenshot of results) is outrageous, how dare you [Vision] take our personal, private data and publish it! We, like others have said, are a particularly close department who, in the most part, were not too affected by this mistake, but to give our candidate numbers and results for not only the entire University, but the entire world to see is shameful.
The story is just, the image is not and it should be removed immediately and you should receive severe ramifications for putting it there in the first place, as should the person who sent it on to you!
I’d just like to emphasise the statement made by Veronica above that ‘Impartials’ remarks upon the low marks were completely irrelevant, and not necessary for the topic at hand.
With regards to the article, it needs pointing out that the exam numbers and names were sent out completely accidentally, and steps were made to apologise and to amend this mistake.
Also, it is totally unnecessary to include the above screen shot. It gets rid of what may have remained of our anonymity. As Adam stated above, you can clearly see the names of at least two of the candidates. There also remains the fact that the person who sent this to Vision should be ashamed of themselves, as if it wasn’t bad enough that all students within the archaeology department saw the results, now the whole Vision will see it as well. Thanks very much.
Leave the person responsible alone, she’s the most helpful person in hte department and she made a mistake. It’s not like this was sent worldwide…only the 70 students involved got it so we were al lin the same boat and this has been blown miles out of proportion.
Incidentally, one of those names and candidate numbers in the screenshot you’ve given is mine, you can tell, so please take it down. I don’t mind if some people in my own year know my candidate number tanks to an honest mistake, but spreading it around to the entire student populace is far worse.
This is an absolute witch hunt you’re running here.
Comment edited by a Moderator
Can vision just please answer this for my own peace of mind. Did the ‘person’ who sent you this information give you the document or a blurred screen grab because from the description under the picture
‘Vision has blurred the names of those whose personal details were leaked’
suggests that the person did not send you blurred image.
If they sent you the orginal document or an unblurred picture, i think the person should send a group email apologising to us and Vision should inform us all of its deletion.
From the reaction, I can see why the Archaeology students are mad at the person who forwarded the email to Vision, seeing as you all seem to very much like the department.
However, I don’t understand why you are all having a go at Vision, I have seen the screen shot on the front of the paper and I couldn’t read anyone’s names and I most definitely cant read any on the online version.
As far as I’m concerned Vision did a good job of protecting your anonymity, all they have released are a series of student exam numbers, which nobody but yourself and admin people know, so there is no way of these numbers ever being traced to an individual.
Well there are people in our department, who are not in our year, who would not have recieved the mistake BUT know many peoples names. If you are aware of names in our year, you can tell.
Vision can confirm that the image we received was blurred, and as such no names were visible. However, in an attempt to completely protect the students involved Vision blurred the names further.
thanks. Good to know
Indeed, good to know…now if only they would remove the last 3 digits of peoples candidate numbers, then anonimity could be achieved
Apparently vision are happy to protect themselves (ie the comments they arent posting) but not the student body – great to know!!!
and blur the image more on the front page of the website… maybe they are achieving things in small steps so they can get lots of pats on the head!
This is a very unfortunate mistake by the department, and shows how easy it is for confidential information to get out.
I am very concerned that names appear next to exam candidate numbers, especially seeing as exam results are not finalised.
Out of interest, when did the exams take place? If it was back in Week 1, it is a poor show by Archaeology to take 8 weeks to mark the scripts.
If private data is being sent around the university, the documents should be password protected. It is easy to do, and prevents privacy issues such as this from occurring.
Matt
Vision has removed a post that was made under the name of somebody else. This person came forward to Vision to say it was not by them and would like the comment removed.
All other comments have been accepted.
We got these results weeks ago, someone obviously got bored and decided to send it now.
The department does prints out of the marks for the year below us.
It is not the point when these exams were taken, the marks shown are not even from this year.
The department of course keep a comprehensive list of each candidates names and results, unfortunatley the worng attachment was sent, this was a genuine mistake and not a privacy issue!
Vision – stop wasting time vetting all the content of all messages and get on with vetting your own content, the image should have been removed by now, after all these comments you’d think you’d have the decency to.
I would like to echo the comments of my peers with regard to our fab administrator and add soemthing further regarding this issue.
I think it is unfortunate that whoever sent this info to Vision felt the need to do so. It has only made what is frankly a non-story even worse adn the perpetrator will not even have their 15 mins of fame as they didn’t have the courage to take the credit! I call this cowardice. If you do something like this then you put your name to it.
Just take it down already! This gives both the module titles and the candidate numbers in a list…it’s not hard for anyone to put 2 and 2 together and figure out who we are, even if the names aren’t displayed, as there were only about a dozen people in each of these modules!
With respect, this image is causing concern for third year archaeologists and it is not a neccessary image that is needed to get the point of the article across.
Yes we are unhappy that this has come to press however we are more concerned about our personal details being spread further.
Yes it is blurred but for piece of mind, it seems like a small task to do.
I can understand the newsworthy status of the article, however the screenshot is completely unecessary and could easily be removed…considering the number of complaints i can see in these comments i am becoming more apalled by vision by the second, sure keep the article but remove the sceen shot!!! IT does not matter if it has been blurred, in a small tight knit year group, even blurred names become easy to recognise and the module groups also make it easy to identify. I have always preferred to read Vision to Nouse…seems i wont be any longer.
I should say, first of all, that while I am not a 3rd year, I am a student in the archaeology departmemt. I am very impressed with the loyalty shown here, by the commentators, to both the archaeology department and its administrators. Most of us in the department have had reason at some time during our university careers to thank the departmental staff for their helpfulness. The very reason the results have been distributed via email is to save many of us an unecessary trip into King’s Manor.
It seems to me that this is simple human mistake, of the type made by all us at one time or another. Vision, however, in its understandable zeal for investigative journalism (maybe we have a budding Woodward or Bernstein) has taken this mistake and blown it out of proportion. I am sure that the archaeology department takes the problem seriously, and that there will be steps taken to prevent this particular error in future.
Furthermore, whether individuals can or cannot be identified from the screen shot in Vision is irrelevant, the possibility that they could be recognised clearly exists. Therefore, the shot should not have been used and ought to be removed. There appears to have been an error of judgement here among the Vision staff, a salutory lesson perhaps?
The thing is tho – this is on the front page of the newspaper, do you think they blurred the names enougth like they have done on the online one? I doubt it
I see lots of people have spoke of a witch hunt, it seems there mgiht be a witch hunt developing against Vision here.
Obviously they tried to blur out the names and apart from one Surname that you can maybe just make out, they have done a good job of blurring it.
Many of you commenting have also for some reason got angry about your Exam number being displayed, this is a personal number that you shouldn’t be telling people. Obviously Vision knew this and therefore thought that it was fine to publish them as they are all anonymous, when the names next to them are blurred out.
Maybe Vision could blur out the exam numbers as well, because obviously people are quite upset about it, but I don’t think they have any need to do it.
Well this is a reblurred version, it is more blurred than when i made my original comment, which was Im guessing after it was sent to print.
I agree with the comments already made by other third years – our admin department are fantastic and the person in question, I’m sure all archaeology students will agree, has bent over backwards for our entire three years here in order to help people. This was an honest mistake that I along with most others in my year had completely forgotten about as it’s hardly a recent event and I’m sure everyone bar the person who sent this would agree that the appropriate apologies have been made and we’ve all moved on.
I’d deleted the email before I even found out what it was and I do think it’s completely hypocritical of whoever fowarded it on to have done so. We are a tight knit group in archaeology and this matter should have stayed within the department, it’s got nothing to do with the rest of the uni and I certainly don’t appreciate someone at Vision taking it upon themselves to put people’s private data (poorly blurred out or not) on the internet for the world to see.
I’m more than happy to be an archaeology student at york but I’m ashamed of Vision for deeming this ‘story’ news-worthy and for trying to incite a completely ridiculous witch-hunt.
I haven’t been following what’s been going on, since my comment as I’m at work, but I would like to thank Vision for at least improving the blurring.
I don’t agree you should have the screenshot in the first place, but still… it’s an improvement.
Cheers.
Hi everyone. Thanks for your comments. Would just like to clarify a few things…
– Vision was informed about this from a number of sources independently – some were not even Archaeology students. I have also been told that other students (not any of these) took the story to regional/national press who have not yet run it.
– All of the people emphasised that the administrator was excellent and that this was an honest mistake. I personally insisted to the editors that this part stayed in the article, and they obliged. Also, the administrator was intentionally not named at the various sources’ request. Vision understands that this should not be a name and shame matter but we felt (as did the sources) that this should be reported on.
– I can confirm that NO ONE at Vision has seen the full document. I received a single screenshot (pictured). This was then blurred before being sent to Vision. The original screengrab was immediately deleted by me. Vision then blurred it even more to ensure anonymity. We feel that it was adequately blurred (as did YUSU), but due to these responses, we are in the process of further blurring out the names.
– Vision had intended to run this as a small story on an inside page. However, due to improper behaviour by YUSU and breaches of the YUSU Media Charter, the front page was changed. I hope the full detail of this will be allowed to be brought out soon but, all I can say for now is that the fact that this was on front page is entirely the fault of YUSU.
Above all, I would like to emphasise that the various sources of this story were well intentioned. If you have any issues with the story I would ask that you direct them at myself, Vision or YUSU, not the sources.
Thank you.
@ Matt Bailey
The exam was before Christmas, and the marks were recieved during week 6. Obviously, I do not expect the lecturers to mark our exams over their Christmas break.
It does seem a long time, but I’d rather wait and know it’s been marked well than get it back within a week or two and risk having it remarked.
I don’t really understand what all the fuss is about. Firstly it may have been a mistake, honest or not mistakes make front page news all the time. Secondly you cannot read a single name on the front page or on the website, surely to everyone other than the candidate the candidate number is useless anyway.
But only a third year archaeology student could of sent you the document, which is what people have the most issue with
Thank you for the clarification Martin. Is this the version that was printed on the front page? I look forward to seeing what these breaches were.
Cheers.
you still shouldnt have exactly got a unblurred version yourself martin. So whoever sent that to you SHOULD appologies to the people in the screengrab.
@Eve.
I was informed about this story by several sources, not all of whom were Archaeology 3rd years.
I’m sorry, but the intention of it being displayed shouldn’t matter. You have swathes of the relevant year asking for this screen shot to be taken down, including those directly affected. That should be enough.
You know what I was fine when the email went round I honestly did not care. What has made me angry is that OUR department has been sold out by someone in OUR year. and the person I feel most sorry for is the person who is Dyslexic as now everyone knows thanks to visons pathetic attempt to cover the names
candidate numbers are hardly private, they are put up on most departments notice boards, and you can’t read any of the names!
I do not see the point in this article, this issue had been sorted and forgotten about weeks ago. A wrong attachment was made to an email and was soon corrected. The person concerned has always been lovely and helpful and has been genuinely sorry for the mistake. Most of our year had not even realised had happened in the first place!
I also agree with my fellow third year archaeology students above that this screen shot should be taken down. We are a small department, with small groups and we can tell. For me at least I find that picture damaging to privicy countless times more than the original mistake by spreading it further. Please take it down now, and delete your copy of the screenshot.
I know this, and this is the usual method in Archaeology too. What I disagree with is that the “news” is dated, overblown, and smacks of a witch-hunt.
I agree students have a right to know this. I did not know that this was front page news, and there is no mention in the article (this online version at least) that this is in retaliation to breaches of the Media Charter.
We are just trying to make sure that an individual member of the Administration Dept. is not unjustly singled out for making a rare mistake.
Cheers.
@Eve What’s it matter if some of the people who sent it are third year arch students? and I don’t see how they’ve sold us all out as you dramatically put it!
I think the wealth of comments here give huge credit to the students within the department and their understanding and empathy toward a potentially harmful error.
I think the issue here is that within the department it had already been ‘put to bed’ and by reporting on this, Vision has quite clearly aggravated the situation unnecessarily.
Martin’s clarifications of his sources are helpful and Vision is obviously making every effort to further increase the anonymity of the screenshot.
I understand the nature of printing and that circumstances change at last minute, however, Martin – I do not feel you can justify the presence of this story residing on the front page by highlighting potential YUSU errors, a scapegoat one may suggest.
I also take into consideration numerous people’s points regarding candidate numbers and of these being known only by the students themselves. This may be the case, but you must understand that to see your private data on the front page for all to see would surely make anyone paranoid about how anonymous their candidate number actually is.
It is a shame that it has come to this – especially as all involved and therefore of any relevance here, have forgiven and forgotten (for those that even felt the need to forgive and forget in the first place). Efforts by Vision on their website to further blur the text is appreciated, however the names appearing on the front page must be accredited with an apology I feel.
I agree that the person involved should not be singled out for a witch hunt.
But it seems to be that, far from being sensationalist Vision went out of their way to tone the story down, they say that it was ‘accidently sent documents’ when they could just put ‘sent documents’.
They also quote students as saying that it was an ‘honest mistake’, which they had no need to do.
They also explained that the Archaeology department tried to rectify the mistake straight away, again if it was a witch hunt this wouldn’t be a very good way of doing it.
And in regards to names, I am a 3rd Year Archaeology student and I cannot decipher a single name, but well done to Vision for responding to peoples concerns and blurring the names even more. Hopefully that will appease those who seem to have super human sight.
I think that it is certainly a blunder, yes, but it is not clearly represented how hard the admin staff works in the archaeology department, or any other, i’m guessing. I agree with Adam Cliff, that this article has the scent of a witch hunt. Yes the students were shocked at first, but many of us have completely forgotten about it now – to be honest no one really cares what eveyone got, my opinion listening to the 3rd years is that they are far too buisy with their degrees!! poorly done vision!!
@ Anon: Agreed
completely agree with anon’s comment about the tone of the article. Surely if this were a sensationalist witch hunt there would not be the concern from Vision to highlight that this was an honest mistake. Far from being sensationalist the piece is actually admirably balanced.
Thanks for the clarification Martin, I for one agree with some of the more rational comments here, that the article wasn’t particularly sensationalist.
The story was definitely newsworthy, as it shows that private data of students can be leaked, even if it is a mistake, that is a serious issue, and surely there should be policies in place to stop these mistakes been able to happen.
Also I thought it was interesting what Marting said about YUSU, I imagine if this story had only been inside the paper then it wouldn’t have caused nearly as much upset.
I would perhaps say it was an error in judgement to put this on the front page, due to the fact that it is an old story that only affected a minority of students. This is especially sad as there are several very strong stories in this edition of Vision: the courtyard, rising crime and the Haiti raffle were all very newsworthy stories which may now not get the exposure they deserve.
However, I can understand that Vision was not expecting the kind of response they have had to the story.
To those asking for the image to be taken down, please do think about it, the names are now completely blurred and candidate numbers are completely anonymous so there is no reason for Vision to take it down. It is a good visual aid to the story, I can see why Vision used it, they and YUSU obviously felt it was sufficiently blurred to be published and they have now gone beyond that.
@ Martin
There still remains the fact that at least one of our fellow third years sold us out, as you have direct quotations from the emails that were sent as apologies to just the third years, thus helping to aggravate the situation even further.
The point remains that the situations should just have just been left as it was, there was no reason for anybody (inside or out) to go to Vision, especially in what resulted in a front page article.
I think it is a wonderful show of support how the majority of students have rallied round the department and admin staff over this matter, even going so far as to set up a Facebook group in support of the staff.
What I find appalling, like most who have posted, is Vision putting this story on the front page and using a screenshot of the ‘offending’ attachment. For one thing, the person who sent that attachment, blurred or not, is breaking privacy laws and also doing with intent what was previously done in error. That person should be throughly ashamed of themselves.
Using a dispute with YUSU as an excuse to bump this ‘story’ up to the front page sounds to me, who doesn’t have much of a journalism background, as a lame excuse in the extreme. And please, if only from the online version, REMOVE THE SCREENSHOT!. People who are directly affected by this have asked for it to be removed, and you should respect their wishes. Further blurring is not what was asked for. If you need an image, I can send you one of King’s Manor to replace it.
On the subject of anonymity, someone has already said that one surname can just about be read. That is one surname too many. Again, remove the screenshot. As for the anonymity of the admin responsible for this unfortunate error, they are known within the department and therefore their anonymity has hardly been preserved in this instance.
“To err is human, to forgive divine.” The students forgave the admin weeks ago. This ‘non-story’ has had no benefit whatsoever, merely raking over what should have been forgotten.
Just as an update for anyone who can’t find it.
The group I had going on Facebook (mentioned above) in support of the Archaeology admin staff in this case has been reported and closed down. I don’t know who did it, or why, but Facebook didn’t even tell me anything. It’s just…gone.
The response on here has been ridiculous.
Of course this is a valid story. Even if it is a mistake, the fact that it is possible for an admin member of staff to send out the results of 70 students ‘by accident’ surely suggests there is something wrong with the overall system, and that it could happen again, and next time the students involved may not be quite so forgiving.
Looking at the copy of the paper and the version here, obviously more blurring has occurred, but I couldn’t work out any names and I don’t think anyone else, unless they were really looking for it could either.
@ Nick…
So which part of your above posting validates the story? It was obviously a mistake (why would an admin deliberately send the wrong info to numerous students?), even though you seem to doubt that this was done accidentally. The system has been updated (as mentioned before) and on this occasion the students have been forgiving. This is an old story around the department and dragging it into the light again serves no valid purpose.
It would likely be possible for those in the know (other students and friends of those concerned) to work out some of the names on the list if they so wished. This possibility alone should have weighed against the list being published in any way, and Vision’s further blurring just goes to show they feel their earlier attempts were inadequate. The fact remains, the screenshot should be removed…
@ 1st Year
Of course I accept that it was done by accident, I don’t think a member of staff would send peoples details on purpose. What I was trying to say is that, the fact that by attaching the wrong document, and the click of a button 70 peoples exam results and their names could be released, suggests that the university have a lax attitude to our exam results and their confidentiality, and that if it happened before it could happen again. I believe people have said the admin person was unfamiliar with a software upgrade, but it still remains that the same thing could happen again, despite how familiar you are with the latest version of excel.
As other people have suggested, perhaps some kind of password protection, or warnings on documents that contain sensitive data would protect our data better.
And no it doesn’t suggest they felt it was inadequate, it suggests that they were merely acting to reassure people who felt quite emotional about it.
@ Nick…
Thanks for clarifying your position. Phrases like “Even if it is a mistake…” and ” ‘by accident’ ” from your previous posting made your feelings on the matter unclear.
Archaeology students have been assured that measures to prevent this happening again have been put in place. They may even be the measures you suggest above. The admin in question was quoted in Vision as saying “Lessons learned” and that seems to reassurance enough for the majority of students in the department.
As for Vision “acting to reassure people”, they could do that best by removing the screenshot completely, but on that issue we shall have to agree to disagree.
I do hope the same acceptance of ‘lessons learned’ and the measures that have been put in place to ensure it doesn’t happen again, is applied to your lovely Courtyard expose story.
The administrator in question has been at the department for all the four years I have, and long before as well. This is the only mistake we’ve ever known them make. Vision should not have been forwarded the spreadsheet, which could only have come from a 3rd year, because it contains private information. They certainly should not have published it, even in blurred form.
It seems to me that the University has a very lax attitude to our private data, and this is not attacking the admin involved, the fact that they are so well regarded, experienced and, judging by the responses, very good at their job, suggests that it is far too easy for our personal data to be leaked.
I would be interested to hear from the University what ‘lessons have been learnt’, I fear it may have been left to the unfortunate admin to just make sure they double check things, which is surely not good enough when handling such sensitive data.
There should be a system in place that protects against human error.
While I have great sympathy to the member of the department who sent out this document, I do not believe this Vision article ‘smacks of a witchhunt’
For example, the name of the member of staff who sent the file (which would be very easy to find out, as everybody doing Archaeology knows it) does not appear anywhere in the article, and as mentioned elsewhere on the comments board, it is shown many times that archaeologists were not annoyed, merely concerned, and that everybody accepted this to be ‘an honest mistake’
The head of department has sent an email today claiming that this story should NOT have been published; I couldn’t disagree more. The fact that this leak was accidental does not take away from the fact that from now on I (and every other archaeologist) can very easily check the grades of everybody else in 3rd year.
While this does not bother me (or many other archaeologists), I do know of several students who are very protective of their personal data, and as such, this breech is in the public interest, if only to ensure such a mistake does not happen again.
Edited by moderator according to comment below
— My previous comment should have read ‘The head of department has sent an email today claiming that this story should NOT have been published; —-
one thing i think vision do not understand is that despite blurred names for archaeology students these become easy to work out, particularly the paper version. Also academic staff do not have access to our marks and only ever see a candidate number against a mark, therefore even though the marks were accidently sent to third year students, by putting it in the paper you are allowing people like lecturers or other staff and students to be able to work out names…even my housemate managed to identify someone he works with just by knowing he does archaeology and – some names were more distinctive than others.
i still think vision should remove this screenshot from the website and remove any copies of the paper still being handed out around campus, and apologise to those people featured in the screenshot.
First of all, congrats Vision on a very good front page. I have no idea what everyone else is jabbering on about, archeology made a damaging mistake – and vision reported this. There is nothing wrong with this. Additionally if you say you can identify names from that chart your a wally, even if you say its because you knew the people – surley that means that you were on the bloody mailing list in the first place…
Ralph, are you saying that Archaeology 3rd years are a leper colony that don’t interact with the rest of the university? Because it was only our year that were on that mailing list. I’d also like to add that getting the email doesn’t mean we opened it, in most cases.
Ralph re read my comment, my housemate who is not an archaeologist managed to distinquish one name becuase he worked with someone in my year. 2nd and 1st year archaeologists can recognise names also. we are a tight knit group, we have small year groups of about 70, within out department we all know each other, staff and students, so names can be distinquished. Also not all third years actually ever saw the list, many didnt even open the email as they were very quickly informed not to.
sure print the story…freedom of speech and all that, but printing the screenshot was unecessary…surely a screenshot of the apology email would have sufficed…
@ Natasha: Actually I know a hell of a lot of people who opened it, and quite a few who’ve still got it!
@ Ralph
A damaging mistake? To whom? As is evident from the comments the MAJORITY of people affected dont really seem to concerned. I think the majority of third year archaeologists take more offense at vision’s artical than the original mistake. Vision gives no reassurance, they have no real power or the wherewith all to make any changes. So really to those that sent it out to the media as they were “unhappy” bravo, you have actually achieved nothing! Perhaps going to your departmental head and having a one to one about what can be put in place to stop this happening again would of been far more logical but no evidently the journalistic hacks will be able to sort this one out far better! while the majority of the year remained annoyed that their details have been passed on to a third source!
I totally agree with Charlotte here, the issue is not just the article itself, but the fact that the screen shot was included is a beach of priviacy for those involved. It should be removed immediately to avoid further embarassment.
@ Ralph
I don’t consider myself to be a wally (others may argue the point) and as a first year archaeology student I wasn’t on the mailing list. However, archaeology is a pretty close department, as anybody who has read previous comments on this list will quickly realise, and even I can have a pretty good stab at working out a couple of names on that list. For that reason alone, the screenshot should be taken down.
To this end I have contacted Vision staff directly via the website making my view plain and if it is not removed by the end of today I shall be contacting the Press Complaints Commission directly about it.
Ralph I agree,
The only people who could ever possibly work out anyones full names on the list would be those who were originally sent the e-mail. There is only one persons name I can half work out, and in my opinion he is the only person who has any right to complain, and even then I still think it was in the interest of students to know.
I imagine Vision wish they had blurred the names a little bit more, as the blurring on the image on the web article is definitely sufficient.
I feel this was a very good story, the leaking of students private data is definitely in the public interest to wider students.
@ Will
Curious. You start off by saying you would need to have seen the e-mail to work out any names, then defeat your own argument by saying you can half work one of them out for yourself!
Read my previous comment, and that of Charlotte. We are a close department and everybody knows somebody in each year.
Freedom to print the story is not the issue here any longer, even if the ‘story’ itself is months old. The issue is that screenshot, which however blurred and pixelated, still shows personal candidate information, and is hence a violation of privacy. A photo of King’s Manor, if any image were needed, would have sufficed.
Sorry first year mature student, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, what I meant was ‘can half work out’ was that if you try very hard and use some guesswork then maybe 2 letters are visible.
2 letters is often enough in such a small department, Will!
those of you who are arguing that the names cannot be worked out are arguing to a pointless end, clearly some of can make them out and no matter how much you tell us we cant…cleary we can…i wont ever write on here those names but i can personally distinquish about 4 or 5 names from the first version ( the one that is in the actual paper version, before vision blurred it further ) so it can be done.
A serious error in judgement has been made by vision here, and it is also one that can be easily rectified.
I agree that Vision could have done a better job of blurring the names, but I would say this is a mistake, rather than a ‘serious error in judgement’, I think that it is a very newsworthy story.
Also as far as I can see, their mistake, not blurring sufficiently, is hardly easily rectified, the damage has been done, in the print copy and nothing can be done about that now.
They have made sure on the web versions that no names are discernible. I defy anyone to work out any names from the images on this website without looking at the print copy.
I do think its a shame that people have got so upset about this, as it detracts from what is otherwise a very worthwhile story.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, archaeology is a small-ish department and the third year a smaller section thereof. As a first year, not having got the e-mail or seen the printed copy, I can take a fair guess at a couple of names on that document merely by applying knowledge and logic. And if I can do it, don’t you think the third years will be able to work it out?
As for the ‘story’ being newsworthy, that might have been so, had the story been new. Which is the basic point of NEWs. This happened months ago, was dealt with in house and the majority concerned happy with how it was resolved. Anybody outside the archaeology department who has worries about data protection should contact their specific departments for reassurance that it can’t happen to them, and that their data won’t be spread across some uni-paper and website for all to see.
Given the volume of complaints this has drawn to Vision, plus the fact the Press Complaints Commission have been informed, it is about time the screenshot was now removed…
“Minutes after the data was sent, the department wrote another message asking students to “delete it straight away”.”
That’s almost as clever as the time that the university counselling service sent an email about the footpath outside being closed… with every single student on their books in the CC field… and then an email followed to ask everyone to delete it… also CCd to everyone. Some people shouldn’t be allowed near data of any sort because clearly they’re not intelligent enough to understand data protection!
@ anon
So in your perfect world there is no accounting for human error? This was a one-off, genuine mistake by a very competent and valued member of the admin team of the archaeology department! It is just a shame that one student decided not only to keep the e-mail, but send it to the press, long after the matter was dealt with in-house.
‘mistakes happen’…thats not consolation enough. It doesnt affect you so get back into your boxes and stop trying to defend a stupid, unecessary and damaging mistake. I’m dyslexic. I told the University in confidence about my disability. It’s clear now that this could easily be abused- and where was this meant to go when she sent it? Why arent other forms of disability recorded? Don’t reprimand those who are saying ‘this isnt good enough’ because they’re absolutely right. Lets sing from the same hymn sheet and protect those who are the most vulnerable and who are still discriminated against in the job market and through lack of anonymous marking procedures.
I’m not an archaeology student and I have so far only read up to about comment 60. but here goes.
The idea that this article only affects archaeology students is untrue. The University is supposed to maintain a strict control on the identification of marks, exam papers, essays and the like by nothing other than Exam Candidate number. This ensures there is no discrimination or favouritism. I’m not sure whether names should be found next to results before external marking has been finalized. If this is a breach of the blind marking system that has ramifications for all students and all departments.
Also, the critical mistake here is not the emailing of the results to the archaeology 3rd years and as such I would associate no blame with the administrator in question. The mistake here is the simple fact that this was possible and waiting to happen. the university holds a huge amount of information about us. Is all that protects us from privacy infringement the judgement of the many technicians, administrators and secretary’s the university employs?
Within my department the staff have always been very helpful and supportive. However, we pay good money for our education. Professionalism and competency from the University as a whole are also demanded.
@ not the point, going with your ill thought out theme of “it doesnt affect you so get back into your boxes” Well then evidently it shouldnt even be a vision story as it certianly doesnt affect the majority of the student body. If people had concerns they should raise it with their depart heads/disability services head. How do you think the person feels about having a poorly blured out name (in the newspaper) their candidate number and a big Y in the dyslexic colum for all to see? The head of the dept emailed all those with dylexia apologising and asking, if they had any concerns please raise them. That would of been a far more usefull thing to do rather than trying to sensationalised the issue, as accourding the artical writer the people also approaced national and local news, which really does sweet F.A to help ensure safe guards
Well lots have been said on the matter now, an honest mistake by the department, and a mistake by the newspaper for publishing the picture with the results on.
These are both true, and for the sake of the people involved (thats all the people published in the email, the admin staff and the person who sent the email in the first place) the embarassment should be over and done with now surely.
In relation to what protocols have been put in place to stop this from happening again, this will be discussed not just in the end of term BoS archaeology meetings but in most departments also.
I can honestly say that i actually feel sorry for the person who sent this email into Vision, as they must feel so isolated and disgraced by the department (despite any probable help they have given this person in the past), and they feel the need to make this a university wide issue, when it was done and dusted weeks ago, and maybe should have been a little more diplomatic and spoke to their year reps, who could have then brought this up within departmental meetings.
Just to point out that comment 38 wasn’t me! I made comment 21. This has become a witch hunt against perhaps the most competent member of staff in our department. They deserve our full support and understanding given the pressure they’re under and the amazing job they do for us. Anyone from archaeology slagging them off should be ashamed of themselves.
Moderator: Comment 21 changed to include your surname.
‘This has become a witch hunt against perhaps the most competent member of staff in our department. ‘
The actions don’t seem to be those of a competent member of staff.
Comment edited by a moderator
@Anon
Harsh and very untrue. It was one minor mistake. Unless you know what you’re talking about, try not to make sweeping generalisations!
1st year,
it was a joke at mr roberts being a little bit hysterical. i think the term ‘witch hunt’ is slightly more ridiculous when all the paper has done is report on a story of someone’s (perhaps one and only) moment of incompetence. At the end of the day a mistake was made; someone has to be at fault despite however popular they may be.
Comment edited by a moderator
@ Anon
“1st year old gas bag”
So, sweeping generalisations AND personal insults. Makes you sound like a very ‘immature’ student…
better that than the sycophancy seen amongst the comments.
Comment edited by a moderator
Oh how witty, Did you think of that comment all by yourself? You must be a absolute credit to the University
Hmmmmm I like Anon.’s witty repartee, but I also like Anon’s use of sarcasm…but which is better?! There’s only one way to find out….FIIIIGHT!!
The tone of the article wasn’t in the style of a witch hunt, the headline (an an unfortunate pun on page 2) sensationalized the issue.
And, as has been repeated ad nauseum, full credit to Vision for messing up the blur in the paper.
“1st year old gas bag”
“brown noser”
And witty banter aside, what fantastic moderation there is here, allowing personal insults to stand for almost 24 hours. Congrats on that, Vision, another ‘triumph’ for freedom of the press!
For god sake. Why are people so bothered about this? It’s a good story, the fact it’s got you all so wound up proves it.
I think it can be said that this was a story that needed to be published as it has raised a serious issue about personal data.
I also think it has raised a serious issue with however decides on what pctures are acceptable to be published with an article. Knowing the sensistivity of the matter of private data they still printed the exact data that has caused so much upset And although vision have further blurred the names so it is now unreadable they should still take it down, as has been requested by the people involved. Their names may no longer be visible but the rest of their information is still there. Although candidate numbers should be private the fact is they are not as secure as they should be.
I would like to ask the people who approved the printing of the picture how they would feel if their department, year, modules, candidate number, disabilites and recent results were printed on the front page. Names or not it is still upsetting, especially when it is matter that was long ago put to rest.
Previous comment should read –
with whoever decides on what pictures