Student Privacy Pledge – a voluntary promise to protect student data – has now stopped.
The pledge began to persuade Edtech companies to adopt transparency standards to work with K-12 schools. This is an early artifact in the Edtech industry, when many states hadn’t yet written laws on how these companies process their data.
The nonprofit behind the pledge has recently “retired” as the state governs the area more thoroughly. Notes on the websitenodded towards “changes in the technology and policy environment.” The archives of companies that have signed the pledge will continue until July 31st of this year.
However, this development may not be a victory for student privacy, and there may be greater challenges, particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence. Some experts warn that students’ privacy rights are at risk as law enforcement uses AI-enhanced surveillance to track students, and that “digital authoritarianism” is on the rise.
A new era of privacy?
The pledge was an example of self-regulation that occurred when the EDTECH industry pressured students to protect their data, but before AI took up so much bandwidth.
When it was created, many states had no laws specifically detailing how businesses handle student data, but federal government rules regarding privacy, such as the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act and the Online Privacy Protection Act for Children, were already listed in the book.
The pledge to protect student data was relatively popular in the industry. Beginning in 2014, it is an initiative from the future of the Privacy Forum and the Software and Information Industry Association. Overall, over 400 companies have signed on.
In 2020, the pledge was renewed to include the requirement that signing companies must build privacy and security in their product designs. They also had guidelines on how to expand the types of data businesses are pledging to protect and respond to their commitment.
However, the pledge has served that purpose recently, says John Verdy, Senior Vice President of Future Policy at the Privacy Forum.
School districts navigate data privacy in student rules and vendor contracts, but also state and federal laws also establish guardrails on which rules must be followed, providing a pathway for civil rights investigations.
In the ten years since the pledge was born, the site argued that state law exceeded the principles set out by asking businesses. At least 40 states These laws have been passed so far, encouraging businesses to protect student data by law.
The EDTECH industry’s privacy conversation has shifted from understanding how businesses need to protect, to how to comply with the law and privacy concerns coming out of AI, Verdi says.
He explains that the pledge is not made to deal with the rapid movement issues presented by AI, but rather argues that building an AI approach from scratch makes more sense.
The signatories of the pledge claim that the end will not affect the privacy of students.
Goguardian, a student monitoring services company, told Edsurge in an email interview that his retirement “will never affect Goguardian’s approach to student data privacy towards a proactive and transparent approach.” The company representative added that “continue to maintain all requirements that are widely considered standard practices in the industry.”
Choppy
Nevertheless, some observers consider student rights particularly vulnerable at this time, expressing concern that the new legal framework for AI technology is ignoring students’ civil rights in a hollow manner.
None of the state’s recent frameworks on AI have mentioned the use of technology to monitor and discipline students, Clarence O’Cau, senior lawyer at the Center for Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University Law Center, argued. And under the current administration, there could be fewer police forces with intense civil rights.
“Unfortunately, the state’s AI guidance has largely ignored this crisis. [states] It’s been done [too] Distracted by the glossy and boring things like AI chatbots, we notice the massive surveillance in their schools and the rise of digital authoritarianism,” Okoh told Edsurge.
And at the federal level, there is less urgency to chase companies that could penetrate student privacy under the previous Trump administration.
In contrast, during the last presidential administration, Democrat senators began an investigation into whether there were many student monitoring companies. Includes GoGuardiandisrupts student privacy.
there was settlement The Pasco County School District in Florida is said to have discriminated against students with disabilities using a predictive policing program that accesses student records.
But now, with emphasis on the federal level changing, it is difficult to counter troublesome practices in states where civil liberties are being contested, Okoh added.
