3 ms·

Where is that worldview evidenced in the post you were responding to? The poster seemed extremely cognizant of privacy concerns, and was defending a limited co

Where is that worldview evidenced in the post you were responding to? The poster seemed extremely cognizant of privacy concerns, and was defending a limited collection of specific data under very narrow circumstances for similarly delimited purposes. Put another way, saying "I think some specific data collection is ethical" is not the same as saying "all data collection I do is ethical, others may not be ethical". They also seemed to implicitly reject the students-are-interchangeable idea: the whole point of gathering this data is to determine if students (as individuals, classes, or entire schools) are struggling or in need of help. That's the opposite of interchangeable; that's finding suffering outliers. I'm harping on it 'cause I think I may be closer to your position on this issue than I am to the original poster's, but ... you're making extremist straw men, talking about feeding trays, and all but reciting the lyrics from the Pink Floyd song. I think that's making pro-privacy positions look bad. EDIT also what about my first point: is any data collection on students ethical? Names? Addresses? Test results? Or should teachers only operate behind double-blind, voice-and-handwriting-obfuscated screens from their students? See? I can make straw men, too.

edflsafoiewq 7y ago
The OP's main concern about privacy was that "third parties" might get the data. There is no recognition of the fact that a student might deserve or expect privacy from the school, only from some nebulous Other who is certain not to treat it with the great respect sure to be afforded it by the Benevolent and Definitely Not-For-Profit university. There is no question of whether this totalizing monitoring of a life is an affront to dignity or whether it normalizes authoritarian power structures, only that it is "extremely useful", that is, it subjects pure quantities to optimization. There is already a lower bound on the level of acceptable data collection set by normal human interaction. There does not however appear to be any upper bound whatsoever suggested by the argument in the OP. As long as the data is not sold and it continues to be useful (ie. the Mathusian race has not yet reached the bottom), no aspect of human life appears to be too sacred to be put into into the optimizer. (I am not wott, in case you did not notice.)
- ineedasername 7y ago
  That fact that it's useful doesn't mean there isn't a human face to it. Look at the words I use. I don't say "optimizing outcomes" or some other dehumanizing turn of phrase. When I said it was "extremely useful", I said that in the context of "helping students be more successful" To interpret my words here as "quantities to optimization" is to impose your own views on these practices as a whole instead of to the specific example I spoke of, which does not do so. If you look at one of my other comments, we spent years engaging with students, administrators, and faculty before we put into place initiatives that utilize this sort of data. As for recognizing the fact that students might expect or deserve privacy, and the affront to dignity, etc., I was quite clear that we are as transparent an upfront as we can be about this, and students have the ability to tell us "no". Beyond that, the concept of "affront to dignity" on the matter is a personal opinion on the topic, not an axiomatic ethical marker. Similarly "expectation of privacy" is not an unmovable value. My school, in part because of a years-long careful deliberation on the topic, was behind the times in this area. As a result, I cannot tell you how many times students speak to advisors and are actually frustrated that the advisor does not know some of these things about the student, that the advisor has to ask if the student has been attending classes, what their midterm grade is, etc. The students expect us to have all of this data at our fingertips because they expect a seamless, friction-less level of service. Maybe you'd say "that's just because they're used to so many organizations collecting data," and sure, you'd be right (my apologies if the the words I put in your mouth aren't one's you'd say or agree with) But here's the thing: If it's what they expect, what they want, and done responsibly, what is the problem? To contradict the students' attitudes puts you in a position of telling other people that what they want is wrong, and that they should want other things that you think are best for them. Again, my apologies if that doesn't correspond with your own ideas. It is, however, not an uncommon stance, so I think the point still stands.
  - DreamScatter 7y ago
    I don't expect a university advisor to have surveillance data on me, I expect them to be busy with their own work, and that I can come to them for assistance when I need. It's up to the student to communicate the situation.. this should be a human interaction and not automated.

edflsafoiewq 7y ago

The OP's main concern about privacy was that "third parties" might get the data. There is no recognition of the fact that a student might deserve or expect privacy from the school, only from some nebulous Other who is certain not to treat it with the great respect sure to be afforded it by the Benevolent and Definitely Not-For-Profit university. There is no question of whether this totalizing monitoring of a life is an affront to dignity or whether it normalizes authoritarian power structures, only that it is "extremely useful", that is, it subjects pure quantities to optimization. There is already a lower bound on the level of acceptable data collection set by normal human interaction. There does not however appear to be any upper bound whatsoever suggested by the argument in the OP. As long as the data is not sold and it continues to be useful (ie. the Mathusian race has not yet reached the bottom), no aspect of human life appears to be too sacred to be put into into the optimizer. (I am not wott, in case you did not notice.)

ineedasername 7y ago
That fact that it's useful doesn't mean there isn't a human face to it. Look at the words I use. I don't say "optimizing outcomes" or some other dehumanizing turn of phrase. When I said it was "extremely useful", I said that in the context of "helping students be more successful" To interpret my words here as "quantities to optimization" is to impose your own views on these practices as a whole instead of to the specific example I spoke of, which does not do so. If you look at one of my other comments, we spent years engaging with students, administrators, and faculty before we put into place initiatives that utilize this sort of data. As for recognizing the fact that students might expect or deserve privacy, and the affront to dignity, etc., I was quite clear that we are as transparent an upfront as we can be about this, and students have the ability to tell us "no". Beyond that, the concept of "affront to dignity" on the matter is a personal opinion on the topic, not an axiomatic ethical marker. Similarly "expectation of privacy" is not an unmovable value. My school, in part because of a years-long careful deliberation on the topic, was behind the times in this area. As a result, I cannot tell you how many times students speak to advisors and are actually frustrated that the advisor does not know some of these things about the student, that the advisor has to ask if the student has been attending classes, what their midterm grade is, etc. The students expect us to have all of this data at our fingertips because they expect a seamless, friction-less level of service. Maybe you'd say "that's just because they're used to so many organizations collecting data," and sure, you'd be right (my apologies if the the words I put in your mouth aren't one's you'd say or agree with) But here's the thing: If it's what they expect, what they want, and done responsibly, what is the problem? To contradict the students' attitudes puts you in a position of telling other people that what they want is wrong, and that they should want other things that you think are best for them. Again, my apologies if that doesn't correspond with your own ideas. It is, however, not an uncommon stance, so I think the point still stands.
- DreamScatter 7y ago
  I don't expect a university advisor to have surveillance data on me, I expect them to be busy with their own work, and that I can come to them for assistance when I need. It's up to the student to communicate the situation.. this should be a human interaction and not automated.