A decision by Toulon that opens the debate
The facts are simple: the Fayence establishment had confiscated a small beacon placed by the father in his son’s bag, then changed its regulations to ban “connected objects and geolocation devices”.
Seized urgently, the summary judge suspended this banawaiting the decision on the merits, i.e. the final decision that the court will make after having studied the file in depth.
The ban was found to seriously and unlawfully prejudice the best interests of the child. In other words: a “blanket” ban is not permissible if this prevents parents from using, in a proportionate manner, a means they deem necessary to protect their child.
The school cannot ban everything, but it can regulate
The decision does not legalize “anywhere, anytime geolocation.” Above all, he remembers it the school must proportion its rules and respect fundamental rights.
Furthermore, despite the suspension of the regulation, the Nice academy has made it known that it “takes note” of the ordinance in the meantime discouraging the use of trackers during school hours : These devices can, in fact, track the movements of an entire classroom and raise questions about security and data protection.
The father announced that he will continue the proceedings to obtain a ruling on the merits.
The CNIL recalls essential guarantees
In the area of private life, the CNIL invites exceptional use, justified and limited in time of these tools. Also remember that the 2018 law bans the use of phones at school and could target some watches that are “communicative like a smartphone”.
Even though a passive beacon is not a phone, facilities can try to prevent intrusive use; It remains that supervision must respect the law and the best interests of the minor.
Concretely, what should parents remember?
First of all, it’s a first round : the July 2025 ordinance opens a path, but the decision on the merits has not yet been pronounced. So, everything takes place in the proportionality : a tracker used for risky travel (school bus, open class) does not have the same meaning as permanent monitoring.
The specialized media that followed the case reiterate the core of the judges’ message: the school cannot impose a general ban if this undermines the protection of the child as his parents deem appropriate – within the framework of the law.
Finally there is the ethics of everyday life. Lawyers specializing in privacy warn drifts Ppossible: trivialize tracking, expose sensitive data, transform a security tool into generalized surveillance. The tool can be useful, but it does not replace either dialogue with the child or coordination with the school.
Do you like our articles? You’ll love our podcasts. All our series, urgently listen to here.
Source: Madmoizelle
Mary Crossley is an author at “The Fashion Vibes”. She is a seasoned journalist who is dedicated to delivering the latest news to her readers. With a keen sense of what’s important, Mary covers a wide range of topics, from politics to lifestyle and everything in between.
