5 ms·

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

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      > 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."
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - KatrKat 5y ago
        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.
jjav 5y ago
> 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.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    > 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."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - KatrKat 5y ago
      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.

jjav 5y ago

> 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.