3 ms·

> Everything uploaded is data-mined From the article: "Google does not use student data for targeted advertising" So... what's the problem? The data is uploa

> Everything uploaded is data-mined 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.

dangrossman 11y ago
Also from the article: "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."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
teaneedz 11y ago
It might not be for ad targeting, but it's for Google's monetization as stated in the article. It's mined. Google should not be allowed near an educational environment. It's business is built on data collection and monetization of it.
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  > Google's monetization as stated in the article. It's mined. Yes that's the claim but where is the evidence? Unsubstantiated claims are also called conspiracy theories.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    Where is the evidence for Google's claims of not using the data? Why would you take their word for it. People who following unsubstantiated claims are also called apparatchik.
    - kllrnohj 11y ago
      That argument doesn't work. It's like saying "well, prove the boogieman doesn't exist". If you're going to claim malice, it's your responsibility to provide evidence.
  - ksk 11y ago
    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.
  - msk456 11y ago
    the same can be said about google's claims that this data is not being used for targeted ads. so much for conspiracy theories.
pdkl95 11y ago
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).
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  > The data still exists in aggregate form. 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?
  - meesterdude 11y ago
    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.
    - kllrnohj 11y ago
      The context here is primarily about under-13 year olds, which is what COPPA is concerned with (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). And I'm still gonna go with nobody is issuing NSL requests for your high school drama.

dangrossman 11y ago

Also from the article: "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."

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

teaneedz 11y ago

It might not be for ad targeting, but it's for Google's monetization as stated in the article. It's mined. Google should not be allowed near an educational environment. It's business is built on data collection and monetization of it.

kllrnohj 11y ago
> Google's monetization as stated in the article. It's mined. Yes that's the claim but where is the evidence? Unsubstantiated claims are also called conspiracy theories.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Where is the evidence for Google's claims of not using the data? Why would you take their word for it. People who following unsubstantiated claims are also called apparatchik.
  - kllrnohj 11y ago
    That argument doesn't work. It's like saying "well, prove the boogieman doesn't exist". If you're going to claim malice, it's your responsibility to provide evidence.
- ksk 11y ago
  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.
- msk456 11y ago
  the same can be said about google's claims that this data is not being used for targeted ads. so much for conspiracy theories.

pdkl95 11y ago

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).

kllrnohj 11y ago
> The data still exists in aggregate form. 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?
- meesterdude 11y ago
  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.
  - kllrnohj 11y ago
    The context here is primarily about under-13 year olds, which is what COPPA is concerned with (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). And I'm still gonna go with nobody is issuing NSL requests for your high school drama.