From the article: "Google does not use student data for targeted advertising"
So... what's the problem?
The data is uploaded for a clear and legitimate need, the ability for school's to loan out chromebooks on demand. The data is not used for advertising.
Near as I can tell the complaint is this nebulous "it's being data mined" with no elaboration or evidence.
"EFF’s filing with the FTC also reveals that the administrative settings Google provides to schools allow student personal information to be shared with third-party websites in violation of the Student Privacy Pledge."
"Google told EFF that it will soon disable a setting on school Chromebooks that allows Chrome Sync data, such as browsing history, to be shared with other Google services."
The data still exists in aggregate form. Even if Google went against their business model of using as much data as possible for targeted advertising, as recent data breaches have demonstrat4ed, it is foolish to think the data will stay with Google forever.
Data that is sitting around unused is tempting to use the next time they hit a financial hardship, and it's a very tempting target for various types of thieves and governments with national security letters.
The proper way to handle this problem would be for Google (or whomever) to be liable for mishandling the data they hold. If google wants to have this data, they would then have a strong incentive for keeping it secret. Even better, it would encourage Google to only keep data for as long as it was needed ("leftover" data becomes a potential liability risk with no benefit).
Yes, because it has to, to serve the sync purpose. And the EFF is not challenging the sync purpose. The sync purpose is the entire reason schools are using chromebooks in the first place.
So no, the problem is not that the data exists on Google's servers.
> it's a very tempting target for various types of thieves and governments with national security letters.
OK now you must be trolling. Government NSL requests for 2nd graders chromebook data? Seriously?
> Yes, because it has to, to serve the sync purpose.
If you bothered to read my post, I never said that couldn't be done. They simply need to be liable (both civil and criminal) for any problems that arrive.
The idea that Google gets to collect all the data on people they want without any responsibility for how they handle that data is insane.
> OK now you must be trolling.
The fact that you think my post could be trolling suggests you aren't taking the risks from data aggregation anywhere near as seriously as you should be.
I'm not - those are examples, not an exhaustive list. That said, data stays around forever, while 2nd graders eventually grow up. If you want a more likely example, try insurance companies.
> They simply need to be liable (both civil and criminal) for any problems that arrive.
OK, but why bother saying that when they already are? Like, yes, Google is liable for data Google holds. Water is also wet.
> The idea that Google gets to collect all the data on people they want without any responsibility for how they handle that data is insane.
That idea appears to be something you made up, though?
> I'm not - those are examples, not an exhaustive list. That said, data stays around forever, while 2nd graders eventually grow up. If you want a more likely example, try insurance companies.
Since you're sticking by this please name a single thing a 2nd grader could do that literally anybody but their parents would give a shit about a week later, much less 10 years later?
> Since you're sticking by this please name a single thing a 2nd grader could do that literally anybody but their parents would give a shit about a week later, much less 10 years later?
Try government NSL requests for your high school data. Things you searched for, or wrote, or did otherwise. Don't think they wouldn't reach for it if they know its there and can be used against you in any kind of way. Maybe that data is gone when you grow up; or maybe data storage is cheap and they just collect everything.
> context here is primarily about under-13 year olds
My mistake, I didn't see that that. It's certainly more of a stretch that they would go after pre-high school data; but it might not matter, if in fullfillment of the NSL google has to provide said archived data anyway.
> And I'm still gonna go with nobody is issuing NSL requests for your high school drama.
That's not how counter intelligence works. You gather everything you can about a subject because it tells you more of who they are and what makes them tick, or break.
My problem is you're trying to exercise "reason" here. it's unreasonable to suspect that they would issue an NSL for school data. I agree. but that doesn't mean they can't, or won't. Or that such data wouldn't be exposed or used in another way. And that's the problem. It's not a non-issue because they're kids. It's less interesting because they're kids, but not easily ignored because of it.
Its rather obvious why people are worried. It would be like having a lion in a cage with a deer. Sure maybe the lion isn't interested in eating because its full, or maybe it never intends to eat the deer because it gotten used to other kind of meat. Or maybe it gave its word that it wont. All that is possible. But instead of having to spend every second of your life watching if the lion eats the deer, we should structure the system so that its impossible for the lion to ever be next to the deer.
Google is an advertising company, and slowly they have been adding spyware-like capabilities to their product (address bar - keystroke logging in chrome, injecting every single search result with javascript, "accidentally" listening to users microphones for hotwords without their express permission, etc)
It is perfectly natural to be very weary of such companies. I suspect people would be fine with Google providing the chromebooks as long as the contract legally binds them to never collect the data.
>Unsubstantiated claims are also called conspiracy theories.
No, they are not. Conspiracy theories have a connotation of being ridiculous and outlandish. That is how the general public understands the term. A company like Google whose bread and butter is datamining, being accused of mining additional data is not a conspiracy theory.
From the article: "Google does not use student data for targeted advertising"
So... what's the problem?
The data is uploaded for a clear and legitimate need, the ability for school's to loan out chromebooks on demand. The data is not used for advertising.
Near as I can tell the complaint is this nebulous "it's being data mined" with no elaboration or evidence.