As a parent I want to protect my son. I could try and protect him from the world by hiding him on a proverbial “island” devoid of online connectivity. I would unplug the Internet and take away all the mobile devices. This would isolate him from potential harms. At the same time it would deprive him of all the benefits of a connected education and tools that help him grow. In the end, it’s all about striking the right balance.
Laws protecting students must also seek to strike the same balance between safety and growth – between isolation and discovery. Unfortunately, the Student Digital Privacy and Parental Rights Act (SDPPRA) of 2015 misses this balance. Through overly proscriptive language, SDPPRA retreads existing law while shackling educational innovation.
{mosads}We have plenty of laws designed to keep educational services from using information they collect for purposes of interest-based advertising to students. Already federal and state laws prevent this form of interest-based advertising. At the same time, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is undergoing an update and last year the FTC released a sweeping overhaul of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). And just three months ago 125 education technology companies signed a Student Privacy Pledge that forbids them from using information they collect as part of school services for delivery of interest-based advertisements to students.
With all these laws already on the books to protect student information, what’s the value of the SDPPRA?
Very little.
Global competition combined with the expansion of the internet is transforming education. Four walls no long bind classrooms – technology makes the entire globe available to students. The new paradigm of K-12 education has made textbooks antiquated and connectivity a requirement.
Education laws need to ensure that students are protected. But these laws should not be so protective they prevent the next educational innovation to help our school systems.
SDPPRA would limit development of new educational services. This bill’s definition and its application are so broad it would prevent school services from creating a school directory for teachers.
Moreover, if passed, the bill would create an environment where there is no opportunity to get comprehensive parental consent for sharing. Parental consent is limited to only certain instances and requires new consent for each disclosure. Limitations on data portability could prevent a student from taking their data to a new school system. With the broadest definition yet of covered and personal information, the SDPPRA would capture publicly available information and limit the development of general audience services.
Perhaps if the SDPPRA were the only law on the books its simplification could out weight its limitations. But lacking any state and federal preemption, the SDPPRA only adds to the quagmire of legal confusion for education technology companies – forcing them to navigate up to 51 different requirements for delivering educational services.
I want to protect minors. But laws trying to put minors in technological islands only isolate them from growth.
Szabo is senior policy counsel for NetChoice, a trade association of e-commerce businesses and online consumers all of whom share the goal of promoting convenience, choice, and commerce on the net.