US schools gave kids laptops during the pandemic. Then they spied on them
According to one survey, 81% of teachers in America said their schools monitor devices. Students are not always aware
The catch? They ended up spying on students. The problem is, a lot of those electronics were being used to monitor students, even combing through private chats, emails and documents all in the name of protecting them. More than 80% of surveyed teachers and 77% of surveyed high school students told the CDT that their schools use surveillance software on those devices, and the more reliant students are on those electronics, unable to afford supplementary phones or tablets, the more they are subjected to scrutiny.
> I can certainly understand why schools would jump on technology they think might prevent teen suicide, bullying, and the like. The pandemic has been hard on everyone, and increased isolation and uncertainty is particularly hard on kids and teenagers. Students are reporting an increase in self-harm incidents and aggressive impulses since the beginning of lockdowns, and shoving everyone back together for a new school year is going to require adjustments.
> The only problem is that we’ve tried this before, in a different form. Everyone’s proposed solution to the advent of school shootings was, “Well, let’s just watch these little deviants much more closely.” Metal detectors at the entrance to schools became the norm, police had a more visible presence, and security cameras went up in classrooms and hallways.
That was a big business; schools spent billions of dollars on security infrastructure that mostly proved to be ineffective. And the results were, well, you’ll never guess! Kids felt unsafe, Black students were followed and harassed most frequently, and punishments increased as educational outcomes worsened. And, while some schools have started questioning whether their contracts with the police create more harm than good, others are simply adding digital surveillance to their physical systems.
Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to have private electronics not subject to surveillance, and will have less privacy when it comes to doing the perverted embarrassing things all teenagers do. And if students’ references to drug use or pornography or violent thoughts might be forwarded to law enforcement, it will be, as usual, the kids already subjected to a greater number of interactions with police and social workers and other forms of monitoring and punishment who will suffer the increased attention.
Although schools and parents are quick to voice concerns over privacy, it remains unclear whether the result of all of this monitoring is safety – and if so, safety for whom? Safer for students? Surveys suggest students are mostly aware they are being monitored but are not fully cognizant of the extent. Many of these programs boast that teachers have direct access to the screens of their students, even after school hours are over. Teachers and administrators can hijack control of the computers remotely, closing problematic tabs and overriding their keyboards. Does that make kids feel safe?
Then there is the tricky question of the promise of “intervention”. The goal of the surveillance, according to the software companies, is to allow for a problem to be spotted and intervened with early on. . ."
US schools gave kids laptops during the pandemic. Then they spied on them
A POST FROM NOV 24, 2020
4 years ago a post on this blog featured this topic and highlighted a contract award as well as cautions. Nevertheless that are pervasive lingering issues that continue to this day and are updated when abuses of the system - now applied to public education in schools - are investigatedFlorida Sheriff's Pre-Crime Software Says D-Students And Victims Of Domestic Violence Are Potential Criminals
from the nothing-a-good-handcuffing-can't-fix dept
Predictive policing is coming for your children. That's what's happening in Florida, where the Pasco County Sheriff's Office has taken an inappropriate interest in minors. It all begins with some questionable access to sensitive records and ends with the Sheriff deciding some students are destined for a life of crime. (h/t WarOnPrivacy)
This seems like the sort of thing better handled by school counselors, social workers, and others not inclined to view students as criminals. But it's in the hands of the Sheriff's office, along with sensitive information about students not normally considered to be under law enforcement's purview.
The Pasco County Sheriff claims this is all about helping kids -- not predetermining their destiny.
In a series of written statements, the Sheriff’s Office said the list is used only to help the deputies assigned to middle and high schools offer “mentorship” and “resources” to students.
Asked for specifics, it pointed to one program where school resource officers take children fishing and another where they give clothes to kids in need.
The documents obtained by TampaBay.com say something else.
The Office's manual [PDF], which provides guidance for the Sheriff's [what fresh dystopian hell is] "juvenile intelligence analysts," places far more emphasis on determining who should be placed on lifelong surveillance due to their alleged criminal tendencies than finding help for at-risk students. . .
Some school administrators seem largely unaware their schools' data is being used to profile minors. The Sheriff's Office, however, claims it has been the recipient of student info/data for two decades. Its move to put minors on the same level as adults is perhaps to be expected, given the lack of oversight or awareness by anyone else involved. . .
And so it goes. The data schools are sharing with law enforcement is fed into a spreadsheet that prejudges kids, setting them up for more interactions with law enforcement… which sets them up for even more marks in the at risk column . . .
It would be nice to believe this garbage in/garbage out pre-criming ends when a student graduates high school. But there's no reason to believe the Sheriff's Office doesn't feed info on graduates into its other pre-crime system, ensuring deputies spend a considerable amount of time hassling people they suspect might commit a crime at some undetermined point in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa City Council Meeting Tomorrow: Contract Authorizations for over $8 Million Dollars
Monday, August 22, 2016
10 November 2016
PredPol: Predictive Policing Software Purchased by City of Mesa
*5-h
3-Year Contract = $170,200
16-0861 Three-Year Term Contract for Predictive Policing Subscription for the Police Department (Sole Source) (Citywide)
This contract will provide services, resources and tools to support a successful implementation of Predictive Policing (PredPol) services to support the City’s efforts to suppress, deter and reduce crime.
PredPol software will provide easy to use predictions for where and when property crime, drug crime, gun violence, gang activity and traffic incidents are most likely to occur based on historical data, current crimes and mathematical modeling.
The Police Department and Purchasing recommend awarding the contract to the sole source vendor, PredPol; year 1 at $60,400; and years 2 and 3 at $54,900 annually, based on estimated requirements.
The one-time setup fee of $5,500 and an annual subscription fee of $54,900 (for the first three years) are funded by the Asset Forfeiture (RICO) Funds.
____________________________________________________________________________
Now Being Used By Government Agencies For Revenue Generation
Source >> TechDirt
Data, even lots of it, can be useful. But it also leads to erroneous conclusions and questionable correlations.
Ever been baffled by the content of a "targeted" ad? Just imagine the fun you'll have when "lol 'targeted' ad" is replaced with nearly-incessant "interactions" with law enforcement
It's not all bad, though. There are uses for aggregate data that don't create privacy concerns or fears of ever more biased policing . . .
On the other hand, the desire to obtain any data available without a warrant is resulting in some very twisted uses of third-party records. . .
Maria Polletta posted this article in the Arizona Republic on October 21, 2016 - two months after the Mesa City Council approved contracts, addressing lingering issues that few people are aware of . . . Over the next three years, Mesa will spend nearly $200,000 to implement PredPol crime-predicting software with councilmembers little informed about it.
In August, a Mesa staff report asserted PredPol's hot-spot-generation tool would "support the city’s efforts to suppress, deter and reduce crime."
The department still is working to determine when it will begin using the software; how many officers it will train to use it; and what, if any, any tools or strategies it will use to measure PredPol's effectiveness, police spokesman Nik Rasheta said.
...Mesa Vice Mayor Dennis Kavanaugh, a longtime advocate of innovation and experimentation in public safety, called predictive policing "one of the best practices recommended for departments to consider," despite its potential limitations. . .
The city council also approved in later meetings license plate reader software, cautions that were expressed not here in Mesa
Official Police Business: Official Police Business is a weekly column and newsletter by reporter Matt Stroud about new developments in police technology, and the ways technology is changing law enforcement — think body cameras, cell-site simulators, surveillance systems, and electroshock weapons. Sign up to receive OPB in your email every Wednesday at officialpolicebusiness.com,
Video >> https://volume.vox-cdn.com/embed/ae6a05d46?placement=article&tracking=article%3Amiddle&player_type=null&start_time=null#ooid=VsM3FtMDE6nBxlgrY9L3T-H8BJkYGv4m
Predictive policing is everywhere . . . private company PredPol is supposedly helping police to identify where property crimes and robberies might occur. As those cities’ predictive programs have gotten more and more attention, police chiefs have done their best to get in on the action. . .
But does predictive policing actually work?
PRE-CRIMING SCHOOLKIDS
Schools Are Using Phone-Cracking Tech To Access The Contents Of Students' Devices
from the brave-new-hellscape dept
To the detriment of our nation's future, the future of our nation is increasingly being subjected to law enforcement's presents (and presence).
> On the plus side, it will help students grow up with a healthy distrust of their government.
PRE-CRIMING SCHOOLKIDS
Schools Are Using Phone-Cracking Tech To Access The Contents Of Students' Devices
from the brave-new-hellscape dept
To the detriment of our nation's future, the future of our nation is increasingly being subjected to law enforcement's presents (and presence). On the plus side, it will help students grow up with a healthy distrust of their government.
We've put cops in schools so kids can be subjected to the same brutality adults receive. Disciplinary problems long-handled by schools and parents are now handled with handcuffs and criminal charges. The same questionable science that leads cops to believe future criminal acts can be predicted by algorithms and checklists is being wielded against children, turning their bad grades and We're talking about minors here, not dangerous criminals. This case is not a great argument for the acquisition and use of phone-cracking tools by educators. There were many ways to approach this problem, but this one was the easiest. And it shows those selling phone-cracking tech don't really care who buys it or what they use it for.
Cracking a phone to scrape it for evidence gives investigators easy access to communications and other private info even a consenting minor wouldn't agree to share with others. But the tools can't make that distinction. And investigators assume consent for a search means looking at everything the tools give them access to spotty attendance records into criminal predicates. . .
This isn't some sort of anomaly. As Gizmodo reports, multiple school districts are buying phone-cracking tech to access the content of students' devices.
In March 2020, the North East Independent School District, a largely Hispanic district north of San Antonio, wrote a check to Cellebrite for $6,695 for “General Supplies.”
Now, there's this: the use of high-tech hacking tools to forensically scrape kids' phones for evidence of alleged criminal acts. . .
Deploying this tech to search students' phones isn't just irresponsible, it's dangerous
. . .Dig deep enough into someone's phone and you'll find something incriminating. And that's if the cops are simply looking for evidence. Some cops like to look at stuff just because they have the access and the power to demand compliance. Access to this tech guarantees abuse. But in these cases, the victim will be a minor -- people who are assumed to be more vulnerable and whose lives can be ruined before they can even be started.
Filed Under: education, encryption, law enforcement, phone cracking, schools, surveillance
Companies: cellebrite, susteen We've put cops in schools so kids can be subjected to the same brutality adults receive. Disciplinary problems long-handled by schools and parents are now handled with handcuffs and criminal charges. The same questionable science that leads cops to believe future criminal acts can be predicted by algorithms and checklists is being wielded against children, turning their bad grades and We're talking about minors here, not dangerous criminals. This case is not a great argument for the acquisition and use of phone-cracking tools by educators. There were many ways to approach this problem, but this one was the easiest. And it shows those selling phone-cracking tech don't really care who buys it or what they use it for.
Cracking a phone to scrape it for evidence gives investigators easy access to communications and other private info even a consenting minor wouldn't agree to share with others. But the tools can't make that distinction. And investigators assume consent for a search means looking at everything the tools give them access to spotty attendance records into criminal predicates. . .
This isn't some sort of anomaly. As Gizmodo reports, multiple school districts are buying phone-cracking tech to access the content of students' devices.
In March 2020, the North East Independent School District, a largely Hispanic district north of San Antonio, wrote a check to Cellebrite for $6,695 for “General Supplies.”
Now, there's this: the use of high-tech hacking tools to forensically scrape kids' phones for evidence of alleged criminal acts. . .
Deploying this tech to search students' phones isn't just irresponsible, it's dangerous
. . .Dig deep enough into someone's phone and you'll find something incriminating. And that's if the cops are simply looking for evidence. Some cops like to look at stuff just because they have the access and the power to demand compliance. Access to this tech guarantees abuse. But in these cases, the victim will be a minor -- people who are assumed to be more vulnerable and whose lives can be ruined before they can even be started.
Filed Under: education, encryption, law enforcement, phone cracking, schools, surveillance
Companies: cellebrite, susteen
