Mass. Bill Would Put Privacy Squeeze on Cloud Apps For Schools 95
An anonymous reader points out a story at The Register about a Microsoft-backed bill proposed by Massachusetts state representative Carlo Basil which seems aimed directly at Google's cloud apps. The bill, if it should be enacted, would require that "[a]ny person who provides a cloud computing service to an educational institution operating within the State shall process data of a student enrolled in kindergarten through twelfth grade for the sole purpose of providing the cloud computing service to the educational institution and shall not process such data for any commercial purpose, including but not limited to advertising purposes that benefit the cloud computing service provider."
Corporations buy laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft used to not spend any money on political campaigns. Then, after a while, they figured out enough to post political contributions on both sides and then to hire a lobbyist to advocate for them.
Another older example
Jun 30, 2003 Â CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh explains why the software maker has quietly given marching orders to its phalanx of lobbyists to get the government to ...
Of course, Google couldn't be left behind [slashdot.org]
It's not as if this is anything new. Industry boards have long written laws: not just outlines, not just drafts, but the entire full set and exact wording just as they want it to be. That you can search for yourself. There are thousands of examples of that.
Re: (Score:2)
.
I don't know how that "politics.slashdot.org/" snuck in front of that URL.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is corporate lobbying legal anyway?
re: Why is corporate lobbying legal anyway? (Score:2)
Someone lobbied to pass a law to make lobbying legal? ;>)
.
Srsly, if you look up the laws limiting when former legislators are forbidden to work for private entities immediately after leaving office, you'll see a surge of these laws occurring right after some big ethics scandal when someone gets caught doing corporate bidding and then immediately bailing out of their legislative job into a high paying corporate job in an industry they recently regulated.
re: Why is corporate lobbying legal anyway? (Score:1)
Because there's a law passed that made it legal, because someone lobbied to pass a law to make lobbying legal? ;>)
.
Srsly, if you look up the laws limiting when former legislators are forbidden to work for private entities immediately after leaving office, you'll see a surge of these laws occurring right after some big ethics scandal when someone gets caught doing corporate bidding and then immediately bailing out of their legislative job into a high payi
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
corporations are NOT "just a group of people", any more than people are "just a group of cells".
corporations are an artificial life form (that exist within the eco-system of laws) that happen to use people as components in a similar manner to the way people have cells as components- their needs and their objectives are as removed from the needs of their human components as our needs and objectives are as removed from those of our individual cells.
and, just as us humans adapt our ecosystem to suit ourselves,
Re: (Score:2)
True that, but in the case of corporations it rather is a few (board of directors) or one (CEO/President) that do the thinking and many many do the executing. Few people have disproportional power.
Re: (Score:2)
yes. the emergent behaviour of complex systems can indeed seem like intelligent life with a mind of it's own. and it really doesn't matter if it really is intelligent life or if it just simulates it - the results are the same.
"professionalism" requires people to suppress their humanity (with specific individuals doing so to a greater or lesser degree) and act in the interests of their employing corporation. the peons keep their heads down and do what they're told...or else they quit or get sacked or get s
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem comes in when less honest entities confuse "lobbying" and "bribing", and when (on purpose or by design) they confuse the lobbyist's interest with the public interest.
I disagree - the real problem is about separation of powers. Just like the Police should not be aloowed to write the laws they enforce, the people who exert power in the market should not be allowed to write the laws that regulate their acitivities, and for the very same reasons: such a mixing together of interests can and will be abused. As we see on an ongoing basis. I am well aware that any legislature has a legitimate need to consult the business community, but corporate lobbying goes far beyond consult
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just corporations. California and Illinois financial situation is solely because of state employee unions lobbying.for huge pensions and being able to retire at an early age.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
More like 40 years. Illinois was only 15% funded back in 1972 when my dad was engineering prof at UIUC. Its the reason why he quit and went into private industry, where he did *much* better working for defense contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
Who benefits from it?
Who writes laws?
2+2=4
Re: (Score:1)
Result WIll be Opposite of Intent (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am the admin for a small HS and am quite happy with our Google Apps right now
Though... Thinking about it (Score:2)
Google will simply stop offering free GApps for Education for Massachusetts Schools and Non-Profits. The reason the service is free is google is counting on that data. Disclaimer: I am the admin for a small HS and am quite happy with our Google Apps right now
I suppose I should have said "stated intent". The intent is exactly that as far as MS is concerned
Re:Result WIll be Opposite of Intent (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't that they wanted the Apple because that is what they played with. They wanted it to remain compatible with the platform they had at school. It's the same reason Microsoft wants its Office suite used by businesses. The words
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Result WIll be Opposite of Intent (Score:5, Informative)
Google will simply stop offering free GApps for Education for Massachusetts Schools and Non-Profits. The reason the service is free is google is counting on that data.
Not quite. Google Apps for Non-Profits does show ads, yes, but Google Apps for Education does not show advertisements to students or staff (it's like Google Apps Premier in that regards, except for the increase in quota). Google also goes farther than the bill, because University accounts are free of ads (not just K-12 accounts). Google only asks that once the students become alumni, that the ads get turned on by the University staff. It has always been that way since the very beginning of Google Apps.
May be, this bill is targeted at the Kindle (or perhaps the iPad). I believe these two have made more inroads into the K-12 market than Google Apps anyway.
1.4 Ads.
a. Default. The default setting for the Services is one that does not allow Google to serve Ads. Customer may change this setting in the Admin Console, which constitutes Customer’s authorization for Google to serve Ads. If Customer enables the serving of Ads, it may revert to the default setting at any time and Google will cease serving Ads.
b. Selectively Showing Ads. Notwithstanding Section 1.4(a), if Customer separates different classifications of End Users by domain or Google provides the capability for Customer to show Ads only to particular sets of End Users within the same domain, then Customer must enable the serving of Ads to End Users who are alumni.
c. Selectively Showing Ads. If Customer chooses to separate different classifications of End Users by domain, then Customer must enable the serving of Ads to Alumni. If Google provides the capability for Customer to show Ads only to particular sets of End Users, then Customer must enable Google's serving of Ads to End Users who are not Students or Staff. http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/education_terms.html [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
It's not just about showing ads, it's about spying on your data to make ads (to you or to others) more effective.
Without showing you ads, they could collect your data and build a thick dossier on you, and sell it to others or save it for later for when you use one of their ad-based services. Or they could collect your data for general research ("people who mention th
Re:Result WIll be Opposite of Intent (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is, in the free market you can choose whether getting free cloud services is worth your privacy or not. But the kids didn't have a say in this matter, in fact I bet you didn't even ask them whether they agree with you forwarding their data to a third party.
Re: (Score:3)
Kids have no privacy, by law the schools are required to provide PII to the military recruiters so that they can be hounded for years on end and generally lured into something they probably don't want. If I had wanted to be hounded by the US Navy, I could have given them my contact information, it's not like they don't have advertisements or a phone number for various locations to call.
If I'm understanding the excerpt from the law correctly, this only applies to people that only provide cloud services, so M
Re: (Score:2)
i bet you could get the recruiters to stop harassing you if you told them that you'd love to be trained at their expense so you'd have valuable and useful military skills when you join the american communist revolutionary army.
or just ask them if you'd get in trouble for accidentally shooting an officer - you want to know because you're a bit clumsy and accident-prone when it comes to hierarchies and saluting and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Google will simply stop offering free GApps for Education for Massachusetts Schools and Non-Profits. That's OK.
Really? And that's good how? So local IT staff can manage the in-house mail and document management system in their spare time?
School flock to Google to save money on software and administration. How is this different from Microsoft offering free software to teachers and students [dreamspark.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
That's good because preserving student's privacy is more important than preserving tax breaks for the wealthy. Restore taxes to their Clinton-era rates, hire more IT staff with the money. Jobs and privacy, a win all around.
Re: (Score:2)
That's good because preserving student's privacy is more important than preserving tax breaks for the wealthy.
Don't presume my politics, or that using in-house IT staff provides any guarantee of improved student privacy.
Quick cites: "...It would require the DOE to create a web-based point for authorized researchers to gather aggregated data as well as a âoeresearch engine,â allowing access to âoestudent levelâ data...." [heraldtribune.com]
"Harvard University raised concern on and off campus with the revelation that the administration searched e-mails for leaks to the media during the cheating scandal revealed [businessweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Which is, of course, exactly the outcome Microsoft is looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
I am the admin for a small HS and am quite happy with our Google Apps right now
Maybe that's because it's your students', rather than your, personal information that's being sold by Google.
Re: (Score:2)
So charge for it already (Score:1)
I think I read this maxim on /. first: "If you aren't paying for the product, you ARE the product" (this is from memory, pardon me if I misquoted it).
If it were up to me, there would be no commercial student-targeted advertising in parts of school buildings where students are required to be or at any school-managed facility where students are required to be present or within plain view of any part of any school-managed facility where students are required to be present. Advertising in teachers' lounges and
Re: (Score:2)
There are *many* things wrong with selling student data, but since you're American, let's just say that schools don't own their students' data, the students do. Selling somebody else's property: bad.
Re: (Score:2)
The school is owned by the parents and taxpayers. The schools own NOTHING.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, all those students are a great labour pool. The schools could just sign them up for one of those "make $2500 a month from home!" jobs stuffing envelopes or whatever. That would relieve their funding pressure!
Re: (Score:2)
Several thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
2) that all companies shall be prevented from selling/giving OSs or educational software at lower than their normal price so as to lock-in students.
3)
Re: (Score:1)
Seconded (Score:2)
Unless there's some sneaky bit of small print in the bill that amounts to "unless your name is Microsoft" then I agree.
Personally I have no problems with using cloud services but I respect those who would prefer not to be 'watched' and corporations certainly shouldn't be pushing ads to kids (...and going by other posts here, Google don't).
Even without ads, it is in the interest of cloud providers to offer education a good deal on their services - all those young hearts and minds.
If you can't get it for free, we'll sell it to you (Score:2)
Unless there's some sneaky bit of small print in the bill that amounts to "unless your name is Microsoft"
More likely it's Microsoft wanting to sell some service to the state's school districts that Google would have offered without charge.
Re: (Score:1)
google should just give the stuff away anyway and just not collect the data... even if merely to close the window of opportunity for microsoft
the problem for google is that if microsoft gets its grubby hands on the opportunity, they will lock the education system into the microsoft ecosystem and they will have the contract for eternity
laws can always be amended, and money can be made by other means... i'm sure there are some smart cookies at google that could come up with a revenue stream in such a system t
that's how it's supposed to be? (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile we in Europe laugh, because that's what our corporations by law are allowed only. Process data for the sole purpose it was collected for. No analysis whatsoever afterwards.
Academia has different concerns than most of us. (Score:2)
Coincidentally, just yesterday I got a pointer to this blog entry [berkeley.edu] by a guy at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, noting that while cloud apps are great and useful and all that, cloud app providers are poorly prepared to deal with the academic sector's privacy concerns and needs (some of which may be demanded of the academic sector by law).
I believe Berkeley is in the midst of switching to Google Apps.
So if websites can't collect data for kids under.. (Score:1)
the age of 13 (including 13), why should Google with the Cloud App stuff?
I mean all the way until 12th grade is a bit crazy as the kids are 17-18 years old typically by that point. They should find a grade where kids aren't (maybe without the very rare exception) 13 or under anymore, and make that the cut off.
If websites can't collect data on kids 13 and under it shouldn't be any different for Microsoft, Google, whoever's cloud service within the school. Older than that, well.. if Facebook can then they sho
Re: (Score:3)
No service provider should be collecting data about any school kid. If they go home and sign into Facebook, that's their decision. At school, it's not.
Microsoft may have written this law, but, as described, it sounds like a good one.
Re:Microsofts law. (Score:2)
LOL, WTF. You have no idea what Microsoft is up to here.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-education-database-idUSBRE92204W20130303 [reuters.com]
Linked from
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/04/135248/100-million-student-database-worries-parents [slashdot.org]
"The database is a joint project of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided most of the funding, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and school officials from several states. Amplify Education, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, built the infrast
I like the bill, though not its motives (Score:3)
I concur with the position that our laws should not be authored by corporations and should not be passed using the influence of campaign financing.
That being said, I support the bill. As a teacher, if I were to ask my students to take a survey in class, then aggregate the data and sell the results to a corporation eager to know how to market to that age group, I would be fired. Then why should a school condone corporations like Google or Facebook to permit the same activity? As a parent, I would be very upset to know that schools are allowing corporations to harvest marketing data while at school. And as a taxpayer, I want as little corporate involvement in our public school as possible.
I just wish Microsoft wasn't involved. Especially given all the illegal acts Microsoft has committed over the last two decades, it's almost the pot calling the kettle black.
Not a real big deal (Score:2)
Don't you love it (Score:2)
When corporations write and enforce your laws?
Re: (Score:1)
at least corporations are responsible to their customers... piss the customer off too much and the share price drops and you lose
on the other hand, governments are responsible to nobody and all over the world they are going crazy with power (but particularly in the united states)
Re: (Score:2)
Your just the most precious libertarian!
The hypocrisy is palpable (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Gates funds massive school child database
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/04/new-gates-funded-database-keeps-addresses-and-social-security-numbers-of-millions-of-children-so-dont-worry/
From PJ at Groklaw:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really hypocrisy. The Gates Foundation is a nonprofit, with bylaws written to require the termination of its existence after Bill and Melinda are dead. A law that forbids for-profit use of such data does not conflict with the idea of accumulating the data in the first place.
One of the stated goals of the Gates Foundation is the improvement of education, and the actions of the Foundation since founding have often aligned with that goal. There's an argument to be made that a database of educational out
It's total hypocrisy, and you know it. (Score:2)
Bill Gates is pretending to care about the privacy of children just to continue his Tonya Harding tactics against Google.
If BG gave a damn about the privacy of students, he would not be funding this database.
Slashdot now another MS propaganda site (Score:2)
No mention on slashdot about the student database that Bill Gates is funding. This is becoming normal behavior for slashdot.
It's sad, I can remember when slashdot was a refreshing oasis from all MS propaganda on other sites.
Ah well, at there is Groklaw.
Re: (Score:2)
I left Groklaw when I noticed a strong bias, which to me does equate a "search for truth" but "picking facts selectively". Groklaw's default stance appears to be that anything Google does is excusable (which isn't), and anything Microsoft does is bad (which is mostly correct, but not always). Groklaw hasn't quite worked out yet that Google appears to make most of its revenue in the US and abroad by wilfully breaking laws (the statements made by Google when it is caught only serves to make it clear that Go
Re: (Score:1)
i don't think that there has been any attempts by groklaw to hide bias against corporate interests
groklaw is informative, but it also helps to serve the interests of the little foss developers
for example, groklaw played a part in the demise of sco
Gates Foundation student database spooks parents (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it was on the front page not too long ago.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03/04/135248/100-million-student-database-worries-parents [slashdot.org]
Msoft finally catches on to what google does (Score:2)
And instead of copying the manifestly good idea of making money by giving away software services that allow you to collect valuable data, they try to make that business model illegal.
MALegislature? Almost like expertsexchange! (Score:2)
www.malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H331
We always thought they were malicious.