![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/studentsurvalience.jpeg\")
\nEver since the start of the pandemic, more and more public school students are using laptops, tablets or similar devices issued by their schools.<\/p>\n
\nEver since the start of the pandemic, more and more public school students are using laptops, tablets or similar devices issued by their schools.<\/p>\n
The percentage of teachers who reported their schools had provided their students with such devices doubled from 43% before the pandemic to\u00a086% during the pandemic<\/a>, a September 2021 report shows.<\/p>\n In one sense, it might be tempting to celebrate how schools are doing more to keep their students digitally connected during the pandemic. The problem is, schools are not just providing kids with computers to keep up with their schoolwork. Instead \u2013 in a trend that could easily be described as Orwellian \u2013 the vast majority of schools are also using those devices to keep tabs on what students are doing in their personal lives.<\/p>\n Indeed,\u00a080% of teachers and 77% of high school students<\/a>\u00a0reported that their schools had installed artificial intelligence-based surveillance software on these devices to monitor students\u2019 online activities and what is stored in the computer.<\/p>\n This student surveillance is taking place \u2013 at taxpayer expense \u2013 in cities and school communities throughout the United States.<\/p>\n For instance, in the Minneapolis school district, school officials\u00a0paid over $355,000<\/a>\u00a0to use tools provided by\u00a0student surveillance company Gaggle<\/a>\u00a0until 2023. Three-quarters of incidents reported \u2013 that is, cases where the system flagged students\u2019 online activity \u2013 took place\u00a0outside school hours<\/a>.<\/p>\n In Baltimore, where the public school system uses the\u00a0GoGuardian<\/a>\u00a0surveillance app, police officers are\u00a0sent to children\u2019s homes<\/a>\u00a0when the system detects students typing keywords related to self-harm.<\/p>\n Vendors claim these tools\u00a0keep students safe<\/a>\u00a0from self-harm or online activities that could lead to trouble. However,\u00a0privacy groups<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0news outlets<\/a>\u00a0have raised questions about those claims.<\/p>\n Vendors often\u00a0refuse to reveal<\/a>\u00a0how their\u00a0artificial intelligence programs were trained<\/a>\u00a0and the type of data used to train them.<\/p>\n Privacy advocates fear these tools may\u00a0harm students<\/a>\u00a0by\u00a0criminalizing mental health problems<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0deterring free expression<\/a>.<\/p>\n As a researcher who\u00a0studies<\/a>\u00a0privacy<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0security<\/a>\u00a0issues in various\u00a0settings<\/a>, I know that intrusive surveillance techniques cause\u00a0emotional and psychological harm<\/a>\u00a0to students,\u00a0disproportionately penalize minority students<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0weaken online security<\/a>.<\/p>\n Even the\u00a0most advanced artificial intelligence<\/a>\u00a0lacks the ability<\/a>\u00a0to understand human language and\u00a0context<\/a>. This is why student surveillance systems pick up a lot of\u00a0false positives<\/a>\u00a0instead of real problems.<\/p>\n In some cases, these surveillance programs have flagged students discussing music deemed suspicious and even students\u00a0talking about the novel<\/a>\u00a0\u201cTo Kill a Mockingbird.\u201d<\/p>\n When students know they are being monitored, they are\u00a0less likely<\/a>\u00a0to share true thoughts online and are more careful about what they search. This can\u00a0discourage vulnerable groups<\/a>, such as students with mental health issues, from getting needed services.<\/p>\n When students know that their every move and everything read and written is watched, they are also\u00a0less likely to develop into adults with a high level of self-confidence<\/a>. In general, surveillance has a negative impact on students\u2019\u00a0ability to act and use analytical reasoning<\/a>. It also\u00a0hinders the development<\/a>\u00a0of the skills and mindset needed to exercise their rights.<\/p>\n U.S. schools\u00a0disproportionately discipline<\/a>\u00a0minority students. African American students\u2019 chances of being suspended are\u00a0more than three times higher<\/a>\u00a0than that of their white peers.<\/p>\n After evaluating flagged content,\u00a0vendors report any concerns to school officials<\/a>, who take disciplinary actions on a case-by-case basis. The\u00a0lack of oversight<\/a>\u00a0in schools\u2019 use of these tools could lead to further harm for minority students.<\/p>\n The situation is worsened by the fact that Black and Hispanic students rely\u00a0more on school devices than their white peers do<\/a>. This in turn makes minority students more likely to be monitored and exposes them to greater risk of some sort of intervention.<\/p>\n When both minority students and their white peers are monitored, the former group is more likely to be penalized because the training data used in developing artificial intelligence programs often\u00a0fails to include enough minorities<\/a>. Artificial intelligence programs\u00a0are more likely to flag<\/a>\u00a0languages\u00a0written and spoken by such groups<\/a>. This is due to the\u00a0underrepresentation of languages written and spoken by minorities<\/a>\u00a0in the datasets used to train such programs and\u00a0the lack of diversity of people working in this field<\/a>.<\/p>\n Leading AI models are\u00a050% more likely to flag tweets written by African Americans as \u201coffensive\u201d<\/a>\u00a0that those written by others. They are 2.2 times more likely to flag tweets written in African American slang.<\/p>\n These tools also affect sexual and gender minorities more adversely. Gaggle has reportedly flagged\u00a0\u201cgay,\u201d \u201clesbian\u201d and other LGBTQ-related terms<\/a>\u00a0because they are associated with pornography, even though the terms are often used to describe one\u2019s identity.<\/p>\n These surveillance systems also increase students\u2019 cybersecurity risks. First, to comprehensively monitor students\u2019 activities, surveillance vendors compel students to install a set of certificates known as root certificates. As the highest-level security certificate installed in a device, a root certificate\u00a0functions as a \u201cmaster certificate\u201d<\/a>\u00a0to determine the entire system\u2019s security. One drawback is that these certificates\u00a0compromise cybersecurity checks that are built into these devices<\/a>.<\/p>\n Gaggle, which scans digital files of more than\u00a05 million students<\/a>\u00a0each year, installs such certificates. This tactic of installing certificates is similar\u00a0to the approach that authoritarian<\/a>\u00a0regimes,\u00a0such as the Kazakhstani government<\/a>, use to\u00a0monitor and control their citizens<\/a>\u00a0and that cybercriminals use to\u00a0lure victims to infected websites<\/a>.<\/p>\n Second, surveillance system vendors use insecure systems that hackers can exploit. In March 2021, computer security software company McAfee found\u00a0several vulnerabilities<\/a>\u00a0in student monitoring system vendor Netop\u2019s Vision Pro Education software. For instance, Netop did not\u00a0encrypt communications between teachers and students to block unauthorized access<\/a>.<\/p>\n The software was used by over 9,000 schools worldwide to monitor millions of students. The vulnerability\u00a0allowed hackers to gain control over webcams and microphones in students\u2019 computers<\/a>.<\/p>\n Finally, personal information of students that is stored by the vendors is\u00a0susceptible to breaches<\/a>. In July 2020, criminals stole\u00a0444,000 students\u2019 personal data<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 including names, email addresses, home addresses, phone numbers and passwords \u2013 by hacking online proctoring service ProctorU. This data was then leaked online.<\/p>\n Schools would do well to look more closely at the harm being caused by their surveillance of students and to question whether they actually make students more safe \u2013 or less.<\/p>\nSafety versus privacy<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Artificial intelligence not intelligent enough<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Harm to students<\/strong><\/h4>\n
More adverse impact on minorities<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Increased security risk<\/strong><\/h4>\n