[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.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> And there's clearly no restriction here against personal use.

Are you sure about that? I'm not allowed to use my employer's laptop for personal use. Why am I allowed to use the school's laptop for personal use?

> That's the point I am trying to get across - there is no such right to violate privacy

You like to talk about rights. Doesn't the school have the right to say, "You can't use this device unless you comply with the (arbitrary) rules that I make. One of those rules is that I'm going to spy on your use of this device. If you do not like it, you are free to use your own device instead."

[KatrKat]

Sorry, there may be a restriction against personal use; this system is not being used to enforce a restriction against personal use, as described in the article. It's being used to monitor all use, personal or otherwise, for content the school is interested in, no matter in what context it is written. It's not scanning for non-school documents in general, or video games.

The school has a right to impose conditions or monitor, to the same extent that anyone lending someone something has that right. But in this case it is in conflict with the child's rights, in a few ways:

1. The child may not know about the monitoring. 2. The child, being a child, may not actually have a feasible way to use their "own" device. The school-issued device may be the only device they have access to or that they or their family can afford. 3. The school may expect or require them to use the school-issued device in certain situations, and may not appreciate it when the child troops into class with their own personal machine, or tries to take a test from home on an ordinary PC. 4. The child has a right to a good education from the school, to make them into an adult that one is happy to share a society with. A good education should teach a person not to tolerate arbitrary restrictions, conditions, or monitoring without good cause, especially from a governmental agency.

Finally, I believe users of computing devices have the right to be able to rely on those devices as extensions of themselves. Having somebody else all up in your computing experience is a lot like having somebody else inside your head, and in general it shouldn't be allowed.

[ziddoap]

>A school issued laptop is not going to wear out any faster or slower depending on what you type on it.

Except you know, all the non-hardware related issues computers can face such as viruses, ransomware, etc.

>And there's clearly no restriction here against personal use.

I'll need a source on that. My kids school laptop comes with strict "no personal use" instructions.

[KatrKat]

Sorry, what I meant to say here I think is that Gaggle isn't being used to enforce a restriction against personal use. It seems like the school district in the article doesn't particularly care whether students are using their laptops or school accounts for personal use or not. They're not surveilling Google chat and e-mail looking for just any personal communications, or excluding academic communications form surveillance.

Look at the "what Gaggle flagged on kids' computers" chart: none of this is "video games" or "wasting time on YouTube" or "visiting sketchy domains that might host ransomware". If that sort of stuff was in "Other", "Other" would be the biggest category. If personal use of the devices or accounts outside the particular areas Gaggle scans for is against policy, the school doesn't seem to be using this tool to try and enforce that policy.

They are instead using the tool to examine everything the students do or store that might be related to these topics, whether it happens during personal or academic use.

[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).

[ziddoap]

I believe I already agreed that surveillance culture isn't doing our kids any favors. Not sure why you are trying to convince me on that, despite me saying it in my first post.

[lamontcg]

You keep arguing from the perspective that the school/company necessarily has the "right" to spy on anyone using its loaned equipment.

I thoroughly reject that right as being valid. It should never have been invented as a concept, and you should not be defending that supposed "right".

If I loan a friend something I don't have the right to spy on them, I trust them, and I expect the article to be returned to me in good condition.

And you keep arguing that "surely you understand that they must have right" which is exactly what I'm rejecting, and its very frustrating that you can't even seem to comprehend that someone would strenuously object to your premise to begin with. You just keep on restating that I MUST agree with you that they have that right as a premise to the argument. I reject the premise. If we can't get past that there's no point to this any more, we can't even have an argument about the beneficial effects of rejecting that premise and the horrible effects that keep getting worse and worse of being brainwashed into accepting those "rights" like they're physical laws and not something that we can choose to change.

And if you get pissed off at some point in the future about our surveillance state, take a good look in the mirror and figure out if you're part of the problem or not and if you might have been flat out brainwashed to accept things that never should have been accepted.

[ziddoap]

>You keep arguing from the perspective that the school/company necessarily has [...]

Because I am able to separate what is reality and what my ideal is. My ideal aligns closely with yours. But I try not to let it cloud what the reality is; mainly that organizations which provide assets for free to employees/students are allowed to stipulate conditions of use, one of which may be monitoring.

>If I loan a friend something I don't have the right to spy on them, I trust them

You are absolutely allowed to give a laptop to a friend and say "By the way, this has a keylogger on it. If you want to use it, just know that keystrokes are being recorded". You, as the owner of that device, have every right to do that. The key being that you notified the other party (like, for example, terms and conditions of use). Trust doesn't even come into the equation. Would that make you a shitty friend? Yes. Can you still do it? Yes.

>And if you get pissed off at some point in the future about our surveillance state, take a good look in the mirror and figure out if you're part of the problem or not and if you might have been flat out brainwashed

Jesus that escalated quickly. I am saying that organizations are allowed to have terms of use on their equipment, one of those terms being that the device is monitored, and suddenly I'm the cause of the surveillance state.

[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?

[ziddoap]

>That's the point I am trying to get across - there is no such right to violate privacy.

Who says you have a right to privacy on a device you do not own, provided to you by another organization for a specific use case (school-related learning) and which comes with terms and conditions of use (which, more than likely, includes a monitoring clause)?

Hate to break it to you, but schools and organizations have rights too. One of those being "if you are using our property, we have the right to monitor it. Because it's our property.".

[ClumsyPilot]

"Who says you have a right to privacy on a device you do not own"

The law does. You paid for the device, or a car or a house you are renting. For the duration on your possesion the owner does not get to randomly violate your rights. If they are not happy with it, they should not have given you the device.

"if you are using our property, we have the right to monitor it. Because it's our property."

While you are at it, give them the copyright to any sextapes they record in your house, and a waiver in case it ends up being child porn .

Also give them a waiver in case they record a conversation with your lawyer, doctor or employer, breaking attorney-client privilidge, medical privilidge or sensitive conversation with your employer.

[ziddoap]

>The law does. You paid for the device, or a car or a house you are renting.

You aren't renting a car. You are being provided a laptop, owned by someone else, and allowed to use it subject to the fact that you follow their terms and conditions, which happens to include monitoring. Please tell me specifically what law this violates, rather than hand-waving.

>While you are at it, give them the copyright to any sextapes they record in your house,

If you wanna make sex tapes on company or school provided laptops... By all means, go for it. But I have no idea what it has to do with this conversation

[TedDoesntTalk]

You’re living in some kind of world very different than mine. See “Acceptable Use Policies”, which are standard practice for equipment owned by large organizations lent to their employees, staff, and students. Even universities have these policies for loaned equipment.

[TedDoesntTalk]

See “Acceptable Use Policy”

[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.