[lamontcg]

> What pisses me off more, is when it's the other party that inserts some third parties into the process. When you have a kid attending a school, there's a degree of trust and responsibility shared between you and the school. But then the school outsources data management or remote learning to some random vendors, vendors who absolutely cannot be trusted. And as a parent, you can't do much about it.

I don't understand why the parents are letting the school into their kids heads while they're at home to begin with. School administrators shouldn't be parenting (and we should ask ourselves why this seems reasonable for them to explicitly assume parenting roles over all the kids), and they should probably be more concerned about what kinds of porn their teachers are watching. They should never, ever be concerned with the question of which kids are watching which porn unless it somehow literally cannot be avoided because the kid drags it explicitly into the classroom.

[TedDoesntTalk]

I’m guessing the article leaves out the part where this monitoring occurs on school-issued devices that children use at home.

If so, this is no different than your employer actively monitoring your activity on their devices.

[ClumsyPilot]

"If so, this is no different than your employer actively monitoring your activity on their devices"

When I was 12, I didn't sign an employment contract with my school and they didn't pay me. Have times changed so much? Why would you imply that two relationships are in any way comparable?

Owning a device does not grant you a right to violate people's privacy - if you lease a car, is it okay for the rental company to install cameras in it and record you having sex in it?

[ziddoap]

Surely you understand why a school-owned and school-provided device is monitored by the school, and why this scenario is not directly comparable to a car lease (with a lease being quite a different contract, with different goals and legal mechanisms)?

Whether or not you are being paid is irrelevant - the key part is that some other entity is providing hardware that they own and allowing you to use it under certain conditions. Those conditions are: use it for the purposes agreed upon, and the device will be monitored to ensure it is being used for only the purposes agreed upon.

I certainly don't think we're doing our kids any favors with the constant and forced surveillance 24/7. But I can understand why an organization wants to keep their hardware managed.

[ClumsyPilot]

Not at all, I do not see how a school's interest in monitoring a measly $300 chromebook outweighs a child's privacy. Meanwhile sportscars are used to break the actuall law, not T&C, daily, and occasionally kills people, yet company's interest in monitoring their $150,000 vehicle doesn't seem to matter.

The only difference here is that kids are powerless, unlike customers renting sportscars for $$.

[ziddoap]

I'm having a really hard time following the thought process here.

For one, I already said I agree that children's privacy shouldn't be invaded - that's not the point. The point is that Organization A is providing their owned device to Person A, and they have a right to monitor its use.

Secondly, you first talked about a lease and now you seem to be talking about cars in general? But also companies which issue $150,000 sports cars? (Which company provides $150,000 sports cars, by the way? So I can apply.)

For what it's worth, every corporate fleet vehicle I've had the pleasure of using has been strictly monitored by the company who owns it - just like they monitor the other hardware that they own and lend me.

And if you're not talking about corporate owned vehicles - we're back to square one. Leases are different contracts with different expectations than loaned devices.

[KatrKat]

> The point is that Organization A is providing their owned device to Person A, and they have a right to monitor its use.

Why should that right win out in this case over the user's right to fiduciary technology that puts their interests first?

A company car can be worn out by driving it around for frivolous reasons, so the company will impose a condition that you can't do that, and monitor you to make sure you obey the restriction you agreed to.

A school issued laptop is not going to wear out any faster or slower depending on what you type on it. And there's clearly no restriction here against personal use.

The school might have a legitimate interest in whether the students are leaving their laptops plugged in all night mining Bitcoins and wearing out the battery. They don't have any legitimate interest in the contents of the students' diaries, whether they're written using school-issued tools or not.

Teaching students to expect this sort of treatment from people with power over them is corrosive to society.

[lamontcg]

> The point is that Organization A is providing their owned device to Person A, and they have a right to monitor its use.

Or we should aggressively throw that idea out and take privacy rights to take precedence over corporate ownership of property. If the organization isn't willing to trust you with that device without constantly monitoring you, they shouldn't "lend" it to you (since "lending" in this context is always coercive and its mandated by your employer as well and you cannot effectively opt-out).

[ClumsyPilot]

"Organization A is providing their owned device to Person A, and they have a right to monitor its use."

That's the point I am trying to get across - there is no such right to violate privacy. You can demand compensation for damage, but you can't control their life.

If it did exist, it would lead to dystopia. A microcontroller with Wi-fi cost like $0.5, in the next 10 years they will be in library books, pens, shoes, do you want to live in a future where literally everyone can spy on you and fine you every time you let wind because it's against term 527 in T&C?

[jjav]

> Organization A is providing their owned device to Person A, and they have a right to monitor its use

Nonsense. If I rent an apartment, the landlord very clearly has no rights to fill it with cameras to monitor use.

Sure, there's a contract that if I damage the premises they can bill me after the fact. But that's it.

[jjav]

> Surely you understand why a school-owned and school-provided device is monitored by the school

Not at all, no. Ownership of the device (worth very little, maybe I'd feel different if it was a $100+K instrument on loan) should morally grant no spying rights whatsoever to the owner.

Privacy of the person, but particularly a child, far outweighs the importance of any cheap gadget.

[lamontcg]

The fact that we think that either of those are okay is wrong.

The fact that you're sitting there wondering how I could possibly object to something so normal and obviously correct is precisely the entire fucking problem.

None of these invasions of privacy should be allowed or considered normal.

[iainmerrick]

I don't understand why the parents are letting the school into their kids heads while they're at home to begin with.

Homework, no?

[lamontcg]

Deliberate misreading of what I meant. No.