What the FBI Is Not Telling Parents about Student Data Security

by Alison McDowell (First published at Wrench in the Gears)

On September 13, 2018, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation released a public service announcement outlining risks associated with the collection of sensitive student data through educational technologies. Many applaud the FBI’s actions. I do not. I believe it to be yet another calculated move in a long range campaign to misdirect the public and goad us into accepting the inevitability of cloud-based computing as the primary method of delivering educational content in our nation’s public schools.

It is a diffuse campaign carried out across many platforms by a range of interest groups, each gently but insistently nudging us towards a box canyon where the fin-tech elite anticipate we’ll eventually give in and accept the constraints of algorithmic data-driven learning. There will be, of course, a tacit, mutual agreement that data will be “secured” (though I suspect that won’t preclude it from being searchable with a FISA court order).

This “security” will exact a terribly high price. Submitting to the bullying behavior of Silicon Valley will erode children’s rights to humane, face-to-face instruction and siphon critical funds away from offline-activities like art, recess, music, libraries, and sports. The precious, small pots of education funding we have left will be directed into vast, impenetrable sinkholes of cyber-security.

The FBI’s alert discusses examples of data stored online, the ways data breaches and hacking have harmed students, and recommendations to parents about what they should be doing. One suggestion was to purchase identity theft monitoring services for children. How did this become the new normal?

While the FBI wants to foster the appearance they’re concerned about student wellbeing, the Bureau is not about to go out on a limb and state the obvious. The most effective way to protect children’s personal data is to not collect it or store it in the cloud in the first place. Rather than signing up for a Life Lock subscription, families would be better served by demanding schools stop using digital devices as a primary mode of education delivery.

The third sentence of the FBI’s PSA offers a not-so-subtle pitch touting the benefits of online education: “EdTech can provide services for adaptive, personalized learning experiences, and unique opportunities for student collaboration.” What is the business of the FBI? Surveillance. Do we think the Bureau would be inclined to recommend dialing back one of the most expansive flows of information ever? No. Consider the data lakes of personally identifiable information pouring out of our nation’s schools. The FBI doesn’t want to turn off that tap. They want us to ask them to protect us, to make the collection “safe” and “secure” from child predators and the Dark Web. It is an approach that will conveniently permit a steady stream of information to be channeled into Bluffdale’s server farms waiting out there in the Utah foothills. It’s a facility that has the capacity to hold a century’s worth of digital data on every citizen.

More on the NSA Data Center here.

Many in the education activist community felt validated by the fact that the FBI officially recognized the severity of this threat. But pause for a moment and look at what just happened. The education reform community keeps winning because they are strategic and disciplined and get out and frame the discussion to their advantage.

What the widespread sharing and support of the FBI’s PSA did, in my opinion, was further entrench the perceived inevitability of data-driven online education, even if it is horrible for children, for teachers, and for the future of our economic system. It also painted the FBI as the good guy, while glossing over the Bureau’s abhorrent history of infiltrating, threatening and even murdering political dissidents. We must view this “alert” within the context of state surveillance, Cointelpro, threats to Dr. King, and the murder of Chicago Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton. It is a pattern of behavior not limited to some distant past, but one that continues in the present as demonstrated by the set up of activists like Red Fawn Fallis, a water protector at Standing Rock. The FBI wants to keep this educational data “safe” for themselves. They are looking out for their own interests, not those of our children. . . . .

Read the rest here.

Charter Industry Demands Access to TN Student Data: Parents Say No

Under the misdirection of Commissioner Candice McQueen, the TN state legislature recently passed a sweeping new charter law that is aimed to expand the footprint and to give more public money to the charter industry's corporate welfare reform schools. And money is not the only thing that Dr. McQueen is offering charter corporations like Green Dot and KIPP.

With the passage of the new state law this summer, predatory charter chains may now demand student directory information on each public school child. This information may then be used to decide which children's homes that charter operators  will flood with slick school marketing brochures that conceal the dehumanizing environments of these "no excuses" institutions for cultural sterilization.

Parents, however, can say no to such requests by contacting their public schools and requesting that their children be excluded from these data sweeps by the charter industry:

Shelby County Schools is required to send a notice to parents at the beginning of each school year about how student information is used. Parents have the option to leave their contact information out of the student directory, or other such lists.

Or, you can write a letter requesting that your student’s directory information remain private. Write to either of the addresses below:

Shelby County Schools
Student Records Department
160 S. Hollywood St.
Memphis, TN 38112

Shelby County Schools
Department of Attendance and Discipline
Shelby County Schools
2800 Grays Creek, Arlington, TN 38002

Meanwhile, the leaders of these dehumanizing and exploitative hell schools pay themselves very well, even though these child centers for paternalistic brainwashing are advertised as "non-profit." Oligarchs like Eli Broad amass huge tax savings for donations to these racist outfits, while leaders amass personal fortunes for exploiting the poor:

Perhaps Bill and Melinda Gates need their folly expressed in a more familiar format to understand it?

“Philanthropy is not progressive and never has been.” — Tiffany Lethabo King and Ewuare Osayande

Seems Bill and Melinda Gates have great difficulty learning from their myriad mistakes. Our Professor Stephen Krashen is frequently reminding them and their fellow neoliberal corporate education reformers of what the real problem is. While the convicted predatory monopolist has no degree, Melinda Gates actually attended and graduated college, so one would think the two of them could sort these issues out. Despite this, the Gates Foundation duo are demanding yet more data, as if that doubling down on their poorly-thought-out ideas will work.

Since they're both computer science types, the problem may just be that they need to see their folly expressed in code. To that end, I've written a short program illustrating what the two Gates Foundation plutocrats do.

If I were more cynical, given their behavior in the face of overwhelming evidence discrediting their ideas and ideology, I think that their constant calls for more data are an attempt to rationalize their conduct, rather than actually trying to help anyone.

Nevada Dad Asked to Pay $10,194 to See Common Core Data on His Children

Bill Gates is a master at using his calculated generosity to make the world dependent upon the technologies that his drones are engineering and his worker bees are mass producing.  Common Core’s move to online testing and the federal extortion efforts to require massive data collection systems on students and teachers are but two small examples.  

If the oligarchs get their way, by the time your kindergartner gets ready for a career, he will not need a resume—our corporate government will have a full dossier on every child in America that ever went to school, with full profiles on personality, academics, "character," behavior, learning patterns, strengths, and weaknesses.

If Bill Gates decided to give all his money away today, he would have to dish $10 million a day for the next 33 years to accomplish the feat.  Or if he was asked to pay the $10,194 that John Eppolito was asked to pay to see what data is being kept on his children in some corporate cloud in Utah, Gates could earn that pittance in less than 10 minutes, based on nothing but interest that is accumulating on his billions. 

By the way, Bill Gates ranks 37^th among nations of the world in total wealth.

Story below the video:

. . . . John Eppolito has four children in the Washoe County School District where a pilot program for Common Core is being tested this school year. "I just want to see any information that the state of Nevada is tracking on my children and any information that could be shared with others," said Eppolito.

The father contacted the Washoe County School District to see this information. The district directed him to the Nevada Department of Education, where he was given a price tag of $10,194.

Public Information Officer Judy Osgood responded to Eppolito’s request via email:

"The Department’s Director of Information Technology, Glenn Myer, has reviewed your request to receive reports of data for each of your four children that is contained in the SLDS. He has estimated that the cost will be approximately $10,194, which represents at least three solid weeks (120 hours) of dedicated staff time (billed at $84.95/hour) to build, test and validate a new application that will be able to display individual student data in a readable format. Payment of this fee must be made in full before work can begin."

Eppolito said he was shocked when he found out how much he needed to pay.

In a statement released to News 4, Osgood says the Department of Education needs a special computer system to accommodate Eppolito’s request:

"The data system is secure and private, but has not been built with an application to create confidential education records for individual students. The system is a warehouse of literally millions of pieces of data, but not the education records of students as that term is defined by law. Mr. Eppolito demanded to know how much it would cost for the Department to build a brand-new search engine to compile individual student records for his children, and that estimate was provided as a courtesy."

Eppolito has not paid the $10,000 bill, and is instead forming the group "Stop Common Core Nevada."

"This data will follow these kids the rest of their lives, so what if the data is not correct," asked Eppolito. "What if it is wrong information?"

Protecting Student Privacy Rights and Data

This story isn't new, it was reported in the Huffington Post last December. HT to Ken Derstine of PA and Rosalie Friend of Save Our Schools NY. What's new is parents are taking legal action to protect the rights of their children.

Confidential Student And Teacher Data To Be Provided To LLC Run By Gates and Murdoch 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonie-haimson/confidential-student-and-_b_1156701.html?mid=55

For more information contact:

Norman Siegel: (347) 907-0867; NSiegel@stellp.com

Leonie Haimson: (917) 435-9329; leonie@classsizematters.org

Attorney and Parents Send Letter to NYS Attorney General & Education Officials Questioning Legality of Providing Confidential Student Data to Limited Corporation and Demanding Parental Right to Consent

On Sunday, October 14, at a press conference held at the midtown law offices of Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans LLP, attorney Norman Siegel and New York parents released a letter sent Friday to Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the New York State Board of Regents, demanding that the agreement between the NY State Education Department and the “Shared Learning Collaborative” be released, setting out the conditions and restrictions on the use of confidential student and teacher data to be provided to this limited corporation.  The letter asked that parents be informed exactly what information concerning their children will be shared with this corporation, why the transfer of this data does not violate federal privacy protections, and demanding that the parents have the right to withhold their children’s information from being shared.   The letter is posted at http://bit.ly/W6H2qV

Background: In Aug. 25, 2011, NY State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli informed the NY State Education Department that he was rejecting its proposed no-bid contract with Wireless Generation to build a state data system, composed of confidential student and teacher information because of privacy concerns. Wireless Generation is a subsidiary of News Corporation.  Several high-ranking former executives and employees of the News Corporation in the UK were being investigated for violations of privacy and bribing public officials.  As the State Comptroller wrote, "in light of the significant ongoing investigations and continuing revelations with respect to News Corporation, we are returning the contract with Wireless Generation unapproved."  Since then, the scandal has continued to grow, with the number of indicted News Corporation officials expanding in number.

Yet four months later, in December, the NY Board of Regents approved NYSED’s plan to provide this confidential student and teacher data to a limited corporation, called the Shared Learning Collaborative LLC (SLC). The Gates Foundation awarded $76.5 million to form this LLC, with $44 million going to Wireless Generation, to design and operate the system.  According to the SLC’s website, New York is one of five states – along with Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, and North Carolina – participating in Phase I of this project, starting in late 2012. The pilot districts are Jefferson County School District (CO); Unit 5 (Normal, IL); District 87 (Bloomington, IL); Everett (MA);  Guilford County Schools (NC), and NYC. Four more states – Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana – have committed to join Phase II in 2013.  Though New York City is one of the pilot districts, the city’s parents have been told nothing about this project, and the state has not shared its agreement with the SLC about the use and protection of this data, despite several requests to do so.

Apart from the lack of parental disclosure and privacy concerns, the SLC website makes it clear that this student data will be used to help companies develop and market educational products.  However FERPA, or the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, appears not to allow the sharing of confidential student information for commercial purposes.

Leonie Haimson, the Executive Director of Class Size Matters, said: “Just this week in Washington the Federal Trade Commission announced sweeping new protections for children’s privacy data. The reason is simple: abuses are rampant, and once a child’s identity is in the marketplace it cannot be called back or protected. We stand with the FTC, every major privacy advocacy group, and all concerned parents in opposing any action to relax child privacy protections, including this plan by the NY State Education Department and the NYC Department of Education, to share confidential information about our public school students without their parents’ knowledge or consent.”

Janice Bloom, a member of ParentVoicesNY and a parent of a kindergarten student and a 3^rd grader in a Brooklyn public school, said, “I am outraged that the state and the city would have agreed to share our children’s confidential data with a private corporation, without telling us anything about it. I am even more upset that this data is apparently being made available to companies for the purpose of marketing commercial products to the public school system. Parents need to be fully informed of the purpose and ramifications of this project, and provided with the right to opt out.  I do not believe that public schools should be in the business of exploiting children for profit.”

Karen Sprowal, the mother of a 4^th grader, added: “As a parent of a special needs child, I need to be especially vigilant as to where my child’s information ends up, who gains access to it and for what reason.  I think that the State and the City owe a detailed explanation to me and other NYC parents what the purpose of this project is, as well as an apology for having decided to go forward without telling us a word about it in advance.” 

As Nancy Cauthen, a member of the organization Change the Stakes and the mother of a 6th and a 10^th grader in NYC public schools said: “The erosion of privacy that this project represents is part and parcel of the pillaging of public education for private gain.  The fact that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation is involved makes me even more fearful that my child’s privacy will be violated and abused.”

Julie Cavanagh, a special education teacher in Brooklyn, explained: “As a public school teacher I am concerned not only for the privacy of my students, and the way this data will be provided to for-profit enterprises, but I am also worried that this national database may be used to blacklist members of the teaching profession.  Though the National Academy of Sciences and other expert groups have concluded that teacher evaluation systems based on student test scores are not to be trusted, the Gates Foundation seems intent on foisting these systems on the nation.  When the DOE’s unreliable teacher data reports were released, Murdoch’s NY Post not only published them in the paper, but tracked down and harassed teachers who had received low ratings. ”

Tracy Pyper, the Advocacy Chair of the Westchester/East Putnam Region PTA, said:   "I was extremely troubled to learn that NY State has decided to hand over student personal information to Rupert Murdoch's Wireless Generation, without asking or even telling their parents about this.  And while I realize that at this point, only NYC data is being provided, it is just a matter of time before all of our children in NY State may have their confidential information shared.  Once parents are made aware of how the state is making critical decisions about our children’s private information, without parental consent, they will be very concerned.  I strongly urge the State Education Department to halt all further action until they can explain exactly what personal information will be provided to Wireless Generation, what safeguards they are taking to protect the information, and most importantly, give parents the right to opt out.”

Norman Siegel, attorney, concluded:  “The risks are real and immediate. The State Education Department has a fundamental responsibility to protect the privacy rights of public school children and their families. Before a single child's information is turned over to the Shared Learning Collaborative (a joint venture of the Gates Foundation and Wireless Generation LLC), our education officials must guarantee that no harm will come to New York school children by meeting the following requirements:

·         Publish the agreement with SLC in printed and electronic form, include a thorough  explanation of its purpose and provisions, and make it available to parents and local school authorities statewide;

·         Hold hearings throughout the state to explain the agreement, answer questions from the public, obtain informed comment, and gauge public reaction;

·         Notify all parents of the impending disclosure, and provide them with a right to consent;

·         Define what rights families or individuals will have to obtain relief if harmed by improper use or release of their private information, including how claims can be made;

·         Agree to allow no disclosure of public school records until the State Education Department and the NYC Department of Education meets all of its ethical, security, and statutory obligations to the parents and public school children of the city and state;

·         Ensure that the privacy interest of public school children and their families are put above the interests of the Shared Learning Collaborative, News Corporation and its agents and subsidiaries.