AXEL.org

surveillance

Has School Surveillance Gone Too Far?

When it comes to education, pen and paper simply aren’t enough these days. Even just twenty years ago, the most technology students would see in a classroom was the occasional TV cart for educational films. However, in today’s schools, classroom technology is far more than the occasional classroom movie. These days, it’s a necessity. 

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic forced classes online, education technology was revolutionizing the way students learn. From software programs like Schoology to the prevalence of SMART Boards, education technology is used in a variety of ways with one overarching goal: To help students learn and retain information better. To help achieve this goal, many schools have begun to distribute laptops and tablets to students. After all, many projects must be completed and turned in online, and issuing school laptops can ensure all students have equal access to their assignments. While this free distribution of education technology is a noble act, particularly for students who can’t afford premium technology on their own, the technology comes with a massive caveat.

In nearly all cases, school-issued technology is installed with monitoring software. While monitoring software is necessary in some capacities, like ensuring students aren’t playing games on their laptops during class, many software programs are concerningly complex. As education becomes more and more digitized, it’s fair to ask: How much should schools know about their students?

The State of Surveillance

Monitoring students during school isn’t anything new. After all, schools act as students’ guardians during the school day, so it makes sense to observe, monitor, and occasionally report students for illicit or unsafe activities. However, with the rise of technology in schools, students began to spend much of their time online. Naturally, a school’s desire to observe, monitor, and report extends to the digital world as well. Today, a wealth of software programs including Bark, Gnosis IQ, Gaggle, and Lightspeed are installed on student devices to monitor their online interactions[1]. 

And this monitoring isn’t limited to school either. Even outside of the classroom, these software programs utilize artificial intelligence and human moderators to monitor students’ private chats, documents, and emails[1]. If a student searches for something related to, say, self-harm, the software can send an alert to the school district, allowing teachers to message students within minutes. While this strategy can help prevent self-harm, family abuse, and other dangerous situations, it’s clear that student privacy is sacrificed in exchange for this goal.

With the sheer amount of surveillance that students face, few would argue that student privacy isn’t violated. The question, however, is if this sacrifice of privacy is worth it. Proponents of school surveillance argue that it helps schools keep tabs on students, so if a particular child is in danger, the school can take action. In fact, one of Gaggle’s main selling points is its claim that the software saves hundreds of lives per year[2]. While this statement may be exaggerated, the software certainly helps identify students in need quickly.

On the other hand, those against tracking argue that surveillance invades privacy and deters free speech. After all, if you know a live human is watching every email or message you send, you may be more careful about what you type. Ultimately, this tracking software expands the classroom walls to home life, making children feel like they’re being watched all day, every day. Although school surveillance works in some cases, it also has several unintended consequences.

The Harms of School Monitoring

First, the psychological harm to students from endless surveillance can not be understated. In fact, a study found that 53% of students don’t share their true thoughts online because of surveillance, and 77% say they’re more careful about what they search online[3]. After all, students aren’t dumb; they know when they’re being tracked, and would rather censor their own behaviors than potentially deal with their messages or searches being flagged. The study states:

Systematic monitoring of online activity can reveal sensitive information about students’ personal lives, such as their sexual orientation, or cause a chilling effect on their free expression, political organizing, or discussion of sensitive issues such as mental health[3].

Because of the surveillance, students are scared to have conversations about tough topics. This causes students to avoid talking about them at all to avoid potential punishment from schools.

In addition to the psychological effects, surveillance software disproportionately harms minority students as well. Artificial intelligence programs are more likely to flag language spoken by Black students[4]. This is because of the lack of minority voices during the training of the AI, and the lack of diversity in the AI field in general[5]. This issue is exasperated by the fact that Black and Hispanic students use school devices at a higher rate than white students. Additionally, surveillance AI targets LGBTQ students as well, by flagging innocent words like “gay” and “lesbian[5].” Ultimately, it’s clear that student monitoring software does not judge every student equally.

Finally, vulnerabilities found in these software programs increase the risk of data breaches and other privacy incidents. In 2020, ProctorU, a software that monitors students during tests, was breached by cybercriminals, resulting in the leak of over 440,000 students’ emails, passwords, addresses, and phone numbers[6]. More concerningly, in 2021, researchers found vulnerabilities in Netop, another student monitoring software. In this case, they found a bug that could allow hackers to install malware, or even gain access to students’ webcams[7]. At the end of the day, software like this is just another way for cybercriminals to make a quick buck while wreaking digital havoc.

Can Safety and Privacy Coexist?

Here’s the thing: Keeping tabs on students isn’t a bad thing. In fact, that’s practically the entire purpose of a school. But as education becomes more digitized, there ought to be a balance between keeping students safe and respecting their privacy. Of course, some tracking is reasonable. Kids shouldn’t be playing games during instruction, and tracking software allows schools to see who isn’t paying attention. But monitoring students at home? At that point, students feel watched all day, thus less likely to type their true feelings. And making students feel like they have to constantly hide their true beliefs and feelings isn’t a recipe for success. Safety and privacy can coexist, but right now, there are too many severe consequences associated with student monitoring software to make the sacrifice of privacy worth it.

About AXEL

No matter if you work in education, law, or business, cybercrime poses a threat to your industry. Thankfully, AXEL makes it easy to protect yourself from the threat of ransomware and data breaches. At AXEL, we believe that privacy is a human right and that your information deserves the best protection. That’s why we created AXEL Go. AXEL Go uses military-grade encryption, blockchain technology, and decentralized servers to ensure it’s the most secure file transfer software on the market. Whether you need to transfer large files or send files online, AXEL Go is the best cloud storage solution. If you’re ready to try the most secure file-sharing app for PC and mobile devices, get two free weeks of AXEL Go here.

[1] Crispin, Jessa. “American Schools Gave Kids Laptops during the Pandemic. Then They Spied on Them | Jessa Crispin.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, October 11, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/11/us-students-digital-surveillance-schools

[2] Haskins, Caroline. “Revealed: How One Company Surveils Everything Kids Do and Say in School.” BuzzFeed News. BuzzFeed News, November 3, 2019. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/gaggle-school-surveillance-technology-education

[3] Hankerson, DeVan, Cody Venzke, Elizabeth Laird, Hugh Grant-Chapman, and Dhanaraj Thakur. “Online and Observed.” CDT.org. Center for Democracy and Technology, September 2021. https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Online-and-Observed-Student-Privacy-Implications-of-School-Issued-Devices-and-Student-Activity-Monitoring-Software.pdf

[4] Chung, Anna. “How Automated Tools Discriminate against Black Language.” MIT Center for Civic Media, January 24, 2019. https://civic.mit.edu/2019/01/24/how-automated-tools-discriminate-against-black-language/

[5] Kshetri, Nir. “School Surveillance of Students via Laptops May Do More Harm than Good.” The 74 Million, January 19, 2022. https://www.the74million.org/article/school-surveillance-of-students-via-laptops-may-do-more-harm-than-good/

[6] Abrams, Lawrence. “ProctorU Confirms Data Breach after Database Leaked Online.” BleepingComputer. BleepingComputer, August 9, 2020. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/proctoru-confirms-data-breach-after-database-leaked-online/

[7] McCracken, Harry. “Popular Student Monitoring Software Could Have Exposed Thousands to Hacks.” Fast Company. Fast Company, October 15, 2021. https://www.fastcompany.com/90686770/netop-student-monitoring-software-hack

The Fallout of Edward Snowden and his Leaked Documents, Eight Years Later

On June 21, 2021, Edward Snowden celebrated his 38th birthday in Russia. He’s been in the country for over eight years, having been granted permanent residence in the country in October 2020 [1]. Snowden, an American, has not returned to his native country since leaking millions of classified documents detailing the massive surveillance programs that the United States undertook.

While many have heard Edward Snowden’s name, the programs that he uncovered have seemingly faded in the public consciousness in recent years. Snowden’s reveal of massive global surveillance programs in 2013 was a wake-up call for many Americans, when modern technology and digital communication were truly becoming everyday tools at work and home. His leaked documents highlighted how so many Internet activities are never truly private.

Snowden’s Career Beginnings and Disillusionment

Snowden began his career by joining the Army in May 2004, but was discharged four months later due to broken legs he suffered in a training accident [2]. Following his short time in the Armed Forces, he gained a position as a “security specialist” at an NSA-contracted facility, beginning his time in the intelligence community. He then joined the CIA in 2006 until 2009, years that disillusioned his faith in America’s intelligence community [3]. He described an incident where the CIA purposefully intoxicated a Swiss banker and encouraged him to drive home. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the CIA offered him help in exchange for becoming an informant. 

Following his resignation from the CIA, Snowden worked as an NSA contractor in Japan with high-level security clearance for three years before moving to Hawaii to join Booz Allen Hamilton, another private contractor. He joined Booz Allen Hamilton with the sole intent of gaining clearance to new classified files. After just a few weeks on the job, Snowden gained access to the classified material, downloaded it on a flash drive, and fled the United States shortly afterward. Finally, he distributed the materials to media outlets he trusted, particularly The Guardian, with the first revelations posted publicly in June 2013.

What Programs Did Snowden Reveal?

The biggest revelation in Snowden’s leaked documents was the existence of a National Security Agency program called PRISM. Under the program, the NSA had direct access to the servers of the biggest tech companies, including Google, Apple and Facebook without their knowledge [4]. Using this direct access, the NSA could collect users’ emails, search history, and file transfers without a court order. Even if you were an American citizen, you could have been subject to this surveillance if your messages ever touched a non-American server.

Snowden explained the horrifying simplicity of the NSA’s programs, stating “I, sitting at my desk, [could] wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email [5].” This allegation was initially denied by government officials, yet leaked documents showed a program called XKeystore allowed analysts to search enormous databases with just one piece of identifying information [5].

In addition, Snowden revealed NSA phone-tapping of allied leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [6]. These revelations caused an uproar among American allies, particularly in Europe. The NSA also monitored various charity organizations and businesses including UNICEF, the United Nations’ agency dedicated to providing aid to children worldwide and Petrobras, Brazil’s largest oil company.

The Legal Justification

All of these programs were justified by Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, a bill signed in 2008 that amended the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The 2008 amendment rid FISA of its warrant requirement, allowing the NSA to spy on any foreign communications without a court order. In practice, this meant any communications that touched a foreign server were legally allowed to be collected.

Snowden explained “Even if you sent [a message] to someone within the United States, your wholly domestic communication between you and your wife can go to New York to London and back and get caught up in the database [7].” Because the data had reached a foreign server, no matter how short of a time, the NSA was able to collect, store and potentially analyze that data through Section 702’s legal framework. 

The Effects

A Washington Post investigation found that approximately 90% of account holders in a leaked data cache were ordinary Internet users, with just a tenth of the account holders being NSA targets [8]. These account holders were subject to daily tracking, with NSA analysts having access to intimate conversations unrelated to national security. Put simply, the NSA had access to millions of Americans’ personal data, able to be perused by low-level analysts with little more than an email address.

In addition, government officials’ responses to Snowden’s leaks were swift and severe. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry stated that Snowden’s leaks “told terrorists what they can now do to (avoid) detection [9].” Various other officials agreed with Kerry’s assessment, stating that suspected terrorists had begun changing their communication tactics following Snowden’s revelations [10]. While the NSA claimed that digital surveillance helped prevent over 50 “potential terrorist events,” then-President Obama stated that other methods could have prevented those attacks [11].

Data Privacy vs. Protection

Above all, the NSA has been criticized for conducting digital surveillance beyond the scope of national security. While government officials have stated that the surveillance saved countless lives by preventing terrorist attacks, claims that these programs solely stopped potential terror attacks are dubious. The inappropriate collection of everyday Americans’ data, however, is undeniable. Millions of Americans’ emails, video calls and search histories were readily available to low-level NSA analysts. While Edward Snowden remains a highly controversial figure today, his revelations of mass global surveillance undoubtedly increased Americans’ concern for data privacy. And while some still view Snowden as a criminal or traitor, some see him as a brave whistleblower who revealed just how exposed our data, and our lives, can be.

  1. Ilyushina, Mary. “Edward Snowden Gets Permanent Residency in Russia – Lawyer.” CNN. October 22, 2020. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/22/europe/edward-snowden-russia-residency-intl/index.html.
  1. Ackerman, Spencer. “Edward Snowden Did Enlist for Special Forces, US Army Confirms.” The Guardian. June 10, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-army-special-forces.
  1. Harding, Luke. “How Edward Snowden Went from Loyal NSA Contractor to Whistleblower.” The Guardian. February 01, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden-intelligence-leak-nsa-contractor-extract.
  1. Greenwald, Glenn, and Ewen MacAskill. “NSA Prism Program Taps in to User Data of Apple, Google and Others.” The Guardian. June 07, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data.
  1. Greenwald, Glenn. “XKeyscore: NSA Tool Collects ‘nearly Everything a User Does on the Internet’.” The Guardian. July 31, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data.
  1. Ball, James, and Nick Hopkins. “GCHQ and NSA Targeted Charities, Germans, Israeli PM and EU Chief.” The Guardian. December 20, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/gchq-targeted-aid-agencies-german-government-eu-commissioner.
  1. Sanders, Katie. “PolitiFact – Fact-checking John Oliver’s Interview with Edward Snowden about NSA Surveillance.” Politifact. April 9, 2015. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/apr/09/edward-snowden/fact-checking-john-olivers-interview-edward-snowde/.
  1. Gellman, Barton, Julie Tate, and Ashkan Soltani. “In NSA-intercepted Data, Those Not Targeted Far Outnumber the Foreigners Who Are.” The Washington Post. July 05, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html.
  1. “Kerry: Edward Snowden Should “man Up” and Come Home.” CBS News. May 28, 2014. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sec-kerry-edward-snowden-should-man-up-and-come-home/.
  1. Nakashima, Ellen, and Greg Miller. “U.S. Officials Worried about Security of Files Snowden Is Thought to Have.” The Washington Post. June 24, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-officials-worried-about-security-of-files-snowden-is-thought-to-have/2013/06/24/1e036964-dd09-11e2-85de-c03ca84cb4ef_story.html.
  2. Gerstein, Josh. “NSA: PRISM Stopped NYSE Attack.” POLITICO. June 19, 2013. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-leak-keith-alexander-092971.