[cybernautique]

I disagree, emphatically. Privacy _is_ a human right; nobody has the right, privilege, or ability to intrude and exfiltrate data from my mind. Computers are nothing less and nothing more than an amplification system for the mind. It ought to share the same privileged status as our deepest, innermost thoughts.

Children have a right to privacy.

[jbpnoy6fifty]

My biggest concern regards the balance between privacy and monitoring is that children nowadays (and even adults) are highly enabled to commit social bullying. Nothing is really disciplining them properly, causing recurring “bowling for Columbine” events we see almost bi-monthly.

It doesn’t help that foreign states are probably working to purposely inhibit or even disable American society as a community function. (See news about Russian state companies and Facebook manipulation from more recent news)

Privacy is important, but public safety has a higher priority.

The biggest risk is abuse of the data, not the basic mission of these monitoring services

[JumpCrisscross]

> children nowadays (and even adults) are highly enabled to commit social bullying

Do we have any evidence that Gaggle-like services reduce bullying?

[cybernautique]

Yes, the biggest risk is abuse of the data- but the basic mission of monitoring is also an unacceptable risk. To me, this is similar to the notion: "Yeah, we're building a nitrous fertilizer bomb in the shed, but the _real risk_ is if our neighbor tosses a smoldering cigarette butt into the yard. The grass could catch fire!"

I also respectfully disagree. I'm a sincere egoist, so I say that: no, public safety is not a "higher priority" than _my_ rights, nor is it of a higher priority than any individuals' rights.

I think the solution to bullying, and generally the unwelcome encroachment of others into our spaces, is some ability to rebuke the interlocutors' access to our space entirely, permanently, and even prematurely. You'll notice that the goal of surveillance is antithetical to this, entirely; I take it to mean that the possibility of bullying is endemic to surveillance. You can not have surevillance without the opportunity for gross abuses.

Don't get me wrong, I do care for public safety and the collective well-being. But that is because I choose to care, because I choose to sacrifice of my means and materials in the times and places that I find necessary. The goal should not be, that we allow people their freedoms except where it is inconvenient to the collective purpose. The goal should be, to empower upright and moral citizens to understand their innate ability to make the world better.

Yes, this is an imperfect solution to the collective well-being. There will often be times where such individuals do not understand or accept their privilege to enrich the world of themselves; and, at the end of the cultural moment when the cards are dealt and the pot is dealt, we might find that such an approach is utterly immeritous toward the goal of preserving our common heritage. If this should happen, then that will be a great tragedy indeed; yet it won't be so great by half as the tragedy of even a single human being denied the full fruit and art of living with their full power.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to draw a line between privacy and anonymity. Privacy means I ought to have a space where nobody can exfiltrate resources from. This does not enable bullying, because bullying requires some degree of interconnection, whereas privacy must be specifically preserved where intercomnectivity is the state of business. Anonymity, I grant you, does allow bullying (to the degree that anonymity allows you to interconnect while refusing to allow other parties to identify you.) I will entertain conversations about the dangers of anonymity, because I think there is a happy middle between "don't track me" and "interact with me as a known quantity."

Surveillance is antithetical to both privacy and anonymity. To the degree it is antithetical to privacy, I will fight it tooth and nail, and forever condemn the sniveling ne'er-do-wells that think themselves privileged in _my_ spaces.

[onethought]

> I also respectfully disagree. I'm a sincere egoist, so I say that: no, public safety is not a "higher priority" than _my_ rights, nor is it of a higher priority than any individuals' rights.

Isn't the problem with this position that you cannot reach "universal rights" if you approach from individual self-interest. What if my particular circumstances mean that I don't want everyone to have Right X? I see egoism and universal rights as incompatible. Perhaps I look at it the wrong way.

> I think the solution to bullying, and generally the unwelcome encroachment of others into our spaces, is some ability to rebuke the interlocutors' access to our space entirely, permanently, and even prematurely.

This doesn't handle the very real threat of Grooming, or unrecognised bullying. Children will tolerate quite a lot before they even realise it's not healthy.

I am a strong proponent of privacy, but I don't see an easy solution to children online. It shouldn't be black box, as they can easily end up on the wrong side of the internet. But it equally should not be a white box.

[TedDoesntTalk]

I’m guessing you don’t have any kids age 5 or older.

[riversflow]

>Privacy _is_ a human right.

>Children have a right to privacy.

I can't agree with this. I'm a staunch privacy advocate by normal millennial standards(by HN standards I'm probably middle of the road for the privacy concerned group) But certainly privacy is a privilege, maybe one you get de facto at some point, somewhat akin to voting, but obviously in certain situations people lose their privacy rights. In an extreme situation you could look at a prisoner, but also consider that we allow people to be monitored at work - and we have legal methods of removing privacy as well - a search warrant for example, or sexual predator lists.

>Computers are nothing less and nothing more than an amplification system for the mind.

The same could be said about automobiles being an amplification system for the legs, but you have to get a license to drive one because of the destruction that they can cause.

It is likewise with a computer; people here, of all places, should understand how destructive a computer can be. Look at how people are polluting their minds with misinformation and divisiveness on social media, or in more extreme cases, doing things like using bot nets to DDoS websites. Children don't have enough understanding of the world to be given privacy. If a toddler locks themselves in the bathroom, you shouldn't have to respect their privacy if you think they have gotten into the medicine cabinet, you open the door.

I think the whole concept of remote administered tests is ludicrous, a physical presence with a proctor is the minimum standard for a trustworthy results that's not 1:1 video chatting for the entire duration(and even that can be gamed to some extent). To me it makes absolute sense in a competitive academic environment like a school to have keyloggers and network IP monitoring if you want any semblance of fairness. Make kids use a certain, monitored machine for schoolwork. Otherwise those who can afford to and/or have the propensity will cheat. Unless of course you're fine with academic achievement being an even stronger proxy for class.

I'm not saying kids can't have privacy mind you, and especially not that we should give up privacy entirely. But I don't think that kids should have a right to privacy with regards to their education.