Internet Privacy is an Oxymoron

In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, many are bemoaning and debating the realities of our individual privacy. One internet privacy advocate Maciej Cegłowski proposed that the U.S. should embrace a surveillance state that can track any one of its citizens in real time to identify outbreaks of the virus and put the brakes on it with more targeted accuracy. This is something that is already being deployed in other countries. He does illustrate that the Israeli government has done this by sending unsolicited text messages to potential carriers of the virus to self-isolate. It must be acknowledged that the blog was posted March 23rd. Before that time, we were made aware of a simple app that Chinese citizens had to download onto their phones if they wanted to travel anywhere in the country to show officials upon request that they were “green” to go about their business. “Yellow” indicated restrictions and “red” meant their were to self isolate. Reports also pointed out the state police had access to citizen data. Since the 23rd, news reports have been circulating with similar stories. Even Germany has turned its back on privacy to deal with the pandemic using cellular location tracking technology.

But what has this sudden rushed reliance on internet technology revealed to the education systems of the world? Has capitalism already won the day in the field of formal online education? Let’s be realistic and admit that the reciprocal back-scratching between the gatekeepers of traditional classroom education and the online educational companies eager to tap into the ever-renewing market of students seeking to become educated, accredited, and qualified for a raise has virtually morphed into a confusing messed up relationship where even governments cannot be sure that their tax dollars are being spent appropriately. Take, for example, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). This is purportedly a consortium of experts across the entire field of education (online and offline) that in its wisdom, if you have clicked through enough pages of their ISTE Seal of Alignment offer and filled in the application to bestow upon you or your institution their credential, you will gain access to their somewhat exclusive collection of online educational  resources. Many institutions have already signed on and some education faculties even direct their teachers-in-training to at least look at and consider adopting their Standards for Educators. Teachers already swear to abide by a Code of Ethics. But what does paying for a “Seal of Alignment” actually do for an institution other than potentially narrow their vision of what online education resources they will choose to offer their students? To what end are education stakeholders prepared to go to win over their clientele? Have they fallen into a capitalist mindset to risk losing the deeper and wider benefits of an educated society?

Regan & Jesse (2019), in their paper on the ethical challenges of edtech, big data, and personalized learning, reveal the nature of this material corruption of education, “edtech companies recognize the huge market offered by K-12 education—an arena that has a vast and renewable population base” (p.168).  This kind of slipping into a materialistic vortex is also evidenced in the increasing subsidization of private schools that “sell” governments their schools as a cheaper way to educate. Profiteers maintain the economic benefits of charter schools with the majority of them showing detrimental education effects on their student populations. Britain has long become a country mired in an education system that has a few “good” schools and a great many “slum” schools because of the way private interests (and principals who actively head hunt good teachers) have taken control of government purse strings to inflict a very inequitable system on the country. Such is the evidence for the authors’ contention that, ” The increase in the federal, state and local costs of providing K-12 education and government and voter concerns about financial responsibility generate interest in new techniques that promise to improve efficiency of educational operations.” (p. 168). Educational technology has a existential imperative to question the role that education plays in modern society. This can be good or bad, depending upon the ultimate intention behind its creation and development. So, what does all of this have to do with internet privacy?

It is the nature of the internet to reveal, to make open and accessible all experience and learning. What can possibly be considered private about such a nature? If education, like so many other aspects of society, is to exist online, then it must come to terms with the open nature of the internet. Ownership can easily be respected online and should never be confused with privacy. The EU has introduced legislation to protect the ownership of data that is uploaded by users. Content providers must allow users full access and rights to delete the data they upload. This is a step forward in protecting internet users’ rights, but does little to protect privacy. That ship has sailed. Internet privacy in the realm of sharing knowledge creates an inherent conflict that is not easy to resolve. Encryption for financial transactions is necessary and acceptable. Encrypting direct messages between users is also an expectation of which most will agree is a standard practice. But how is it that edtech suffers such ethical dilemmas? Perhaps it is the fear that a capitalist mindset will take the reigns completely away from educators in an attempt to provide “personalized learning”.

Regan & Jesse dig into this by examining six ethical concerns in relation to personalized learning, “information privacy; anonymity; surveillance; autonomy; non-discrimination; and ownership of information.” (p.167). These ethical concerns have been for the most part driven underground by the driving forces of advertisers in their commodification of user information. The End User License Agreement (EULA) of most content providers outline their right to sell a limited amount of personal data to third parties. This is the underpinning of internet-based business and few internet start-ups and even larger entities would be able to survive without it. It is akin to how television has survived by moving to a subscriber model.

What is wrong with personalized learning anyway? Is not a good thing? Is it not what teachers with classrooms in buildings are being asked do, to individuate learning opportunities? Personalized learning is an exciting field in relation to Artificial Intelligence where click habits and aggregation of data pushes what I would call “synthetic teaching” in the direction of the learner’s interests and the learner’s analysed patterns of mastery rather than the subjective teacher’s interpretation and assessment of student success. This should not herald the demise of the corporal teacher in any sense. Human interaction is a life-long learning process and has no replacement. The fear of privacy as a ethical issue in online education is misdirection of what truly matters to students. Regan & Jesse rightly conclude that “it is important not to oversimplify the discussions by grouping all concerns under the broad category of privacy” (p. 170). Privacy is a side-issue. Edtech providers may need some oversight, but the experts needed for such oversight to be effective will require another level of bureaucracy that a free-thinking, open capitalist society simply cannot afford economically and morally. When anyone adds content to the internet, they are, by the very nature of the act, intending to be public. Adding content to the internet cannot be interpreted as a private act.  Online education and education technology affords one a modicum in the protection of the ownership of their data, but in no way can it allow someone to reveal their learning or teaching privately. In truth, private revelation is as much an oxymoron as internet privacy.

Reference

Regan, P.M., Jesse, J. Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics Inf Technol 21, 167–179 (2019). https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2