An issue here for me is that the kids can’t op out. Their guardians aren’t the ones checking up on their digital behavior, it’s an ai system owned by a company on a device they are forced or heavily pressured to use by a school district. That’s just too much of a power imbalance for an informed decision to my mind, even if the user in question were an adult. Kids are even more vulnerable. I do not think it is a binary option between no supervision and complete surveillance. We have to find ways to address potential issues that uphold the humanity of all the humans involved. This seems to me like a bad but also very ineffective way to meet either goal.
Sooo schools should just provide devices to kids with no monitoring at all?
There shouldn’t be an expectation of privacy on school/company provided devices, that isn’t how it works literally anywhere. It’s on the parents to teach their children not to use the device for personal reasons.
Ideally the school machines should be limited to only allowing coursework and limited messaging between classmates and teachers, it’s a tool not a toy.
Idk I just can’t get upset about this. Kids and privacy is kind of a tough one to begin with, I personally think kids shouldn’t have unregulated access to communication devices at all until like 14-15, maybe.
PotentiallyApricots@beehaw.org 1 week ago
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 1 week ago
We just fundamentally disagree on what rights someone is afforded on a company provided devices. They can’t opt out because obviously not, you don’t get to just opt out of information security policies.
it would be a different beast if the school didn’t allow you access coursework on a personal machine without installing their bullshit, thats a huge issue.
PotentiallyApricots@beehaw.org 1 week ago
Yeah, I just fundamentally don’t think companies or workplaces or schools have the right to so much information about someone. But I can understand that we just see it differently.
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 1 week ago
I agree on that point, nobody has the right to any information about me except for exactly what I choose for them to know. Speaking from an IT professional standpoint, if I deploy a device, I absolutely have the right to know anything that happens on that device. You have to from a security perspective.
That’s why I don’t use any social media on my work laptop. Ideally that’s why social media is blocked on work machines so it’s a non-issue. Kids should understand that concept early, you do have a right to privacy but you also don’t control that device.
hazelnoot@beehaw.org 1 week ago
It would be a different beast if the school didn’t allow you access coursework on a personal machine without installing their bullshit, thats a huge issue.
That’s exactly how it works at many places. Students can only use a personal device if it’s enrolled in the school’s MDM, which grants them just as much control.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 week ago
Schools literally, legally, are not companies.
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 1 week ago
The “provided devices” is the important part of that sentence
Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 week ago
Yes. There are tons of enterprise tools to lock devices to certain activities. Surveillance is not necessary and will be used to violate privacy, and I am not talking about just on device communication. Remember when companies were caught using their employees cameras without any indication on the device? The suspected benefits of surveillance is not worth the potential harm.
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 1 week ago
My company exclusively deploys machines with physical coverings for the camera and hardware disconnects for the mics.
Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 week ago
Good! Not all companies do that and I highly doubt school districts in most places will. They tend to be underfunded and understaffed