Like, if a school system gave a student a laptop for school work, but exactly what that laptop is doing is kept secret by the laptop and software developers.
For example, the laptop could be recording the child in their room through that laptop's built-in camera, but the inner workings of that laptop are kept secret from school, the child, and the child's parents so they would never know it's doing that.
Is that really acceptable? Shouldn't school systems only give out devices whose functionality is entirely known and verifiable?
Is it reckless or irresponsible for school systems to subject children to devices and software whose functionality is kept secret from them both?
there is no one solution or single way and the data gathering is probably priceless in terms of determining things like curriculum level and and current standards of impact of education. I think that the software involved is probably fully covered with disclaimers and contracts. I think it should be standard to not only have a camera cover but use a pizza delivery bag to cut off wireless transmissions when not in use or even a specialised laptop case for schools use. Parents and schools should be able to petition for any data gathered if they're interested. I'm not afraid of perverts I mean especially in the system screens for that kind of thing. I worry about marketing practises which are unethical and market research which is corporate private use as unethical period things like political ideology polling or even nascent minds being manipulated by steering search engines. These are not conspiracy theories they're quite normal systems of control in socialist countries it's just in the past it's done in print and TV. Direct targeting could be very effective. A non-partisan unaffiliated audit should be done on all publicly should equipment from free obamaphones to free school computers. Government intelligence by issuing free phones to everyone in terms of drugs crime terrorism has been a bargain compared to the cost of the service. We have opted into technocracy l see there's no way out. As I have always said with the choices we have made Big brother is not only inevitable big brother is here our job is to make sure he acts like a real brother. Auditing should be done/evaluated by some kind of technical arm of the ACLU. Participating in the program then becomes a step towards a role in democracy for everyone providing valuable data getting a free computer etc.
By viewing the source code. You can also verify the authenticity of your code with software like the GNU Privacy Guard.
Also, most devices don't fully turn off nowadays. Apples devices being the most prominent example. Unless you see the source code and verify the code you are using (or if you remove the power supply), you don't actually know if your device is turned off.
Since you suggested it as a solution, I presume you'd question the whole "not actually off" thing, so here's one example: www.theglobaldispatch.com/.../
If you're curious, you can also look into how Apple can traxk your device for things like "find my phone" when the phone is "turned off."
Really? Who would you trust to view the source code? Source code for what? Malware? Google? Most devices don't fully turn off? What do you even mean by that?
You might want to back out. I am a technologist.
So here are the issues.
1. You claim that these devices could be compromised somehow. Well, you need to explain the nature of that security issue.
2. It can't just be about the device itself, right? You need software, control, etc. in order to manipulate the device as you have claimed. So you are talking about viewing the source code. What source code? Because I can use any package to manipulate the device. I use Zoom and Teams on my computer. But any bad actor could get a package onto my machine and use my camera, microphone, or speakers. Or anything else I have on my computer.
3. So the issue would be monitoring any activity on the device that is not authorized by the user. Which is still problematic, especially when you are talking about a computer being compromised. A bad actor could simply use the credentials I entered to tell the device what to do. Ever hear of pass the hash?
4. So the right way, well at least the way I my clients to it is to authorize by application. I have certain app that have access to certain devices. My camera/mic, I authorized to use Zoom/Teams. When my computer receives a request to activate the webcam, a dialog box appears with the name of software wanting access. Every computer should have this feature on it. If it doesn't you have a problem.
5. So in this deployment, you would need a consulting firm to manage this. So who would you trust? You don't actually think the government does this themselves, do you? No, they contract folks like me. The government sets security compliance standards that I would have to meet.
Er. . . find my iPhone only works if your phone has charge. If you battery is drained, you will only get last known position.
I thought you knew this. And it only works if there is a signal. It has to connect to the internet either using cell phone connectivity or wifi.
And I am not talking about smarttvs that is a different topic.
I didn't expect this long of a response and at the moment I don't have time to read all that and type it out, so could you respond to this so I get the notification? I'd be more than happy to respond later.
No problem, I understand. Good luck on the upgrade.
And I dabble into technology, myself. It may be my field of work one day. And even if I wasn't, why would I "want to back out"? This isn't a "who knows the most about technology" contest, this is a philosophical discussion. But I'm glad you're a technologist, I'd imagine you may be familiar with Intel's Management Engine and AMD's Platform Security Processor, which work independently from the rest of the computer, draws their own power, can connect to networks when the rest of the computer is "turned off," etc (link: proprivacy.com/.../intel-management-engine ). Or Apple's ability to "find your phone in real-time even if the device is turned off" (link: www.makeuseof.com/.../ ).
And who I'd trust to view the source code would be everyone, just like open-source code is dealt with today. More specifically, I'd expect some sort of branch of the school system/government to review this source code. But more importantly, the code would be viewable to everyone. So if that branch goes "yep. We reviewed the code and it's all good to go, no worries here." And then somebody (like a parent who is a software developer, or anyone else) reviews the code and finds that their privacy is being invaded, that branch would be held accountable for missing, or failing to fix, that issue. This threat of being outed as incompetent or corrupt would likely cause them to try hard to find issues and fix them (otherwise their job/livelihood would be at stake), as we've already seen in the open-source community. Not to mention, if a device's hardware and software manufacturer knows their device will be open-source, they'd much, MUCH less likely to attempt to violate people, as it will be open, knowable, and have social (and sometimes legal) ramifications. Lastly, if an issue IS found, when they fix the issue and publish the correction, people can actually read the updated code to verify if it was actually fixed in the first place, AND fixed sufficiently.
"The source code for what?" Every piece of code that is on that system prior to the child coming into possession of it, as well as any future software the school system subjects to them. In this case, yes, it would be google as it is Chromebooks that children are being subjected to (but a better option would to be using a different manufacturer all together, considering Google doesn't have the best track record regarding respect for privacy).
And by most devices don't fully turn off, I mean most devices don't solely depend on whether you press the power button or not. The power button is not the end all be all of whether the device runs or not, some examples were mentioned in the first paragraph, with IME, AMD's PSP, and Apple's Find My Device feature. Another simple, harmless, and indisputable example is the hardware on your motherboard that keeps track of time, so that your computer knows what time it is despite having "been turned off," and despite not having connection to any other devices that could inform it of the time. And I'm not suggesting that in and of itself is a problem, I'm simply using it as an obvious example of a device continuing to run despite "turning the device off."
Now to respond to your numbered points.
1. I didn't "claim the device could be compromised," per se, I was speaking more generally. I used compromise (the Weeping Angel example) to give you a definitive scenario where "just turn off the device" doesn't ensure the device isn't violating your privacy. I was not suggesting that is the sole issue, or even the primary issue, it was simply the first result that popped up when I searched "device fake off-state." In this scenario, compromise implies 3rd-party corruption, but many devices we use daily have been found to be spying on you by default, not via a 3rd-party corrupting the device's functionality.
2. With all due respect, I think you're over-simplifying. With this logic, why have any security at all? What's the point if "any bad actor could get a package onto my machine and use my camera, microphone, or speakers." The answer is because with better security, you better protect yourself to such things. Additionally, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if we assume a bad actor WILL corrupt the system, that doesn't mean that it's okay for the system or software manufacturers to be doing it as well.
Additionally, for the zealots, there are practices some open-source community members can employ to address this issue. Like preventing automatic updates, so you can compile and verify the code on your machine yourself, rather than trusting the update to be sent to you unchanged by a bad actor. You can use things like GNU's Privacy Guard to test whether the code has been tampered with in transit.
3. I don't see your point. I believe my response above addresses this logic.
4. That addresses 3rd-party applications (if you trust the security of whatever grants those permissions, obviously permission escalation is already a thing among viruses, but generally speaking they're pretty decent at preventing unwanted authorization). But what it doesn't address is the operating system itself. And even if it did, or in cases where it indicates it is restricting itself, without the source code you can't always determine if it actually is restricting itself. For example, if I ONLY have Windows on my computer, no other 3rd-party applications, if I go into the settings and turn off access to my location, I don't know if locations information is actually disabled or not. Microsoft could have it continue to ping them with my location information despite the graphical user interface suggesting it is disabled, and I'd virtually have no way of knowing.
As a side-note, there are many cases where your information is still stolen despite the operating system having some sort of permission granting functionality. Like, how often do keyloggers have your computer prompt you "hey, can this application record your keystrokes?" Virtually never, I'd imagine.
5. You've already asked this at the beginning of your response, which I already answered.
As for your following remark "iPhone only works if your phone has charge. If you battery is drained, you will only get last known position." I'm not sure if we had a misunderstanding, but I didn't say "iPhones can track your device's location when it is completely depleted of power." I stated that when you "power your device off" it doesn't completely power off, components within the phone continue their power usage and transmit data to other places. This comment of mine was addressing your suggestion to just "turn the device off" (implying that is all that needs to be done to prevent your device from potentially spying on you). Which, needless to say, in the face of the points I just made, doesn't hold up.
And the Smart TV is just the first example that came up to exemplify that devices can appear to be turned off, but aren't actually. My points about IME, AMD's PSP, Apple's Find MY Device are other, more applicable, examples (among many others).
1. Again, what in the world is the "source code"? The Windows OS? Apple? Android? IOS? The statement doesn't apply to real world applications, right?
2. If these are students being issued Macbooks, they are using the MacOS. Then again the software using to access these cameras would be the software they have loaded for video conferencing and/or collaboration. . Zoom, 8x8, Teams, Webex, etc. You are not going to gain access to any of the source code for shrink wrapped applications.
3. If you went open-source, it would be even more perilous. Because like you said, you are incurring additional cost for "inspection", testing, updates, etc. If I buy Teams, I don't have that worry. Because Microsoft is going to keep up with any updates to my OS.
But your examples have nothing to do with a real life deployment of laptops in a school district. No one is going to use some hand-written software, for anything having to do with the government.
I am pretty certain that any governmental body must comply with the NIST framework.
To preface, I know we don't always agree on politics, and considering our tense political climate, I'd understand if there was some sort of negative emotions you may have towards me. Admittedly, I fall victim to that as well, albeit less than others. But what I'm trying to say is I can empathize with how you may be feeling. However, I think it isn't reasonable to be letting these emotions impact this discussion. I could be wrong but I get the impression that you're kind of defaulting to not only opposition, but also (and more importantly) some extent of ill will. For example, rather than simply asking for clarification, you say "again, what in the world is 'source doe'"? As if I'm inconveniencing you and you're fed up with my (supposed) inability to convey my point. I just think we can benefit from a calmer, more civil discussion, despite our past differences. Besides, the world, especially our political climate, could used more kindness and civility.
But speaking of that question I just quoted, you had already asked this, hence your use of "again," however, I did actually answer this. Earlier, you asked "(the) source code for what?", to which I answered "Every piece of code that is on that system prior to the child coming into possession of it, as well as any future software the school system subjects to them." So yes, in the case they provide MacBooks to the children, the source code for MacOS should be available (assuming that MacOS is what is installed, nowadays you may be able to install Linux on it). In the case they provide the children with Android devices, yes, the source code for Android should be available.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "the statement doesn't apply to real world applications, right?" If you're asking about practicality, you're right, it's very unlikely Apple, Google, or Microsoft would reveal their source code (I mentioned those 3 because as of now, that's what most schools are using). But if you're asking whether it is within the realm of reasonable possibility that children can be given an open-source alternative to those other options, yes, that is easily within the realm of reasonable possibility. And that alternative is Linux. If you aren't familiar, it's an (almost completely) open-source operating system. (Technically Linux itself is just a kernel, but it's paired with other open-source components to create a full-fledged operating system, but for simplicity, most people just refer to the operating system as "Linux"). And before you ask, yes, you can remove the closed-source code (usually things like drivers for hardware that the company refuses to open-source), as is already done in many Linux distributions.
And yes, you're right. I doubt Zoom or any of those would be willing to provide their source code. So, if my conditions are met, you would instead use open-source alternatives to those applications.
And if we use Microsoft, Google, or Apple products, yes, you're right. The cost, time, and energy to fix the invasive practices/code would be tremendous. But that's not what I suggest is ideal. I suggest we use products that are already open-source. In the world of open-source, "inspectors" aren't constantly battling with invasive practices/code or foul play. The very nature of your code/intentions being publicly available heavily discourages anyone from attempting to enact malice or impropriety. If we use open-source products, all the inspectors would likely have to do is view the code, determine it's alright, and move on with their day. If they're wrong, it's very likely someone will call them out, considering many, MANY eyes are on that code.
If you're questioning how onlookers of the code could reasonably aid in the security of it, here's an example (again, the first example that popped up, not necessarily the most recent or the best example): https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/browser-bug/ , an incident where someone who doesn't work for the company was reviewing the code, found a vulnerability, and reported it to the company, of which the company then fixed.
And I find your point of "If I buy Teams, I don't have that worry. Because Microsoft is going to keep up with any updates to my OS" to not quite hold up because, yes, you don't have to worry about fixing the code because you don't have the ability to. That'd be like saying "I don't have to worry about laws and governmental overreach because I don't have access to a means of changing any laws." While the the government (or in your case, it'd be Microsoft) enacts unjust practices/laws/policies towards gay people. But obviously, when they were outlawing sodomy, gay people weren't like "If I live in America, I don't have that worry. Because the American government is going to keep up with any updates to the legal system."
To more clearly analogize, here is your statement followed by the analogized version.
"If I buy Teams, I don't have that worry. Because Microsoft is going to keep up with any updates to my OS."
"If I live in America, I don't have that worry. Because the American government is going to keep up with any updates to the legal system."
Just because the task of updating something is relegated to someone else, doesn't mean you don't have to worry about it. Because those in control of updating it, aren't always right, they're not always competent, and sometimes they're outright malicious. Not to mention, in the case of open-source software, the software producers will still be updating the software regardless of any inspectors. Granted, at the time I don't think I made it clear that my suggestion would be already open-source products, so I think I see where you're coming from. But to be clear, in the same way you rely on Microsoft updating the software, you can rely on the open-source software developer to update the software AS WELL as the inspectors, IN ADDITION to any potential onlookers/reviewers. (And my use of caps is meant to emphasis, not indicate me raising my voice. It'd be cool if we could italicize, here on Girls Ask Guys).
And I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "but your examples have nothing to do with a real life deployment of laptops in a school district. No one is going to use some hand-written software, for anything having to do with the government." Can you explicitly regard which examples you're referring to? And what do you mean by "hand-written software, for anything having to do with the government"?
And can you link directly to the "NIST framework" or whatever "standards" they have? I'd also prefer it if you link to some references stating that governmental bodies must comply with it (I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct, but I feel like potentially arguing over something that they don't need to comply with is a bit of a waste of time). But even if we do assume "they have to comply with governmental standards," the government doesn't have the best track record in that regard to begin with. They government has been caught on numerous occasions invading on the privacy of its citizens, and via mass-surveillance, rather than targeted surveillance.
It appears in my first paragraph that was responding to your last response, I typed "doe" instead of "code" when I was quoting you. My mistake, hopefully that didn't cause any confusion.
It can be hard to do. You could open the computer up and add components that alert you when the camera is turned on. I'm sure there are other ways but I'm no expert in computer forensics.
The problem is the source code to most computers are closed-source, which means it is incredibly difficult if not nearly impossible to know exactly what your computer is doing.
The average person likely isn't willing, but you could switch to open-source alternatives (like Linux instead of Windows of MacOS), where creepy tracking and recording are very difficult to do without being caught. But the experience isn't always as smooth as it is on Windows or MacOS.
If you're not willing to make the switch, I understand, but you may need to just wait until the open source movement gathera more steam and becomes more mainstream.
2K opinions shared on Technology & Internet topic.
Don't be a conspiratorial jackass.
I've done setups and IT architect projects for various schools and workplaces using Google Workspace, Azure, SharePoint and others.
Yes they can know what you're doing on their machine and platform, but you agree to that when you signed up. They aren't doing anything you have not given your consent to.
If you're too dumb to read the form and policies before signing, then that is on you.
As I've stated elsewhere, I didn't ask "did we consent to this?" nor did I state "we have not consented to this!", so the majority of your criticism is moot (not to mention, the ethics, practicality, and efficacy of consent forms/terms and conditions consisting of long legalese is most certainly debatable).
As for your "conspiratorial" assertion, this isn't a conspiracy, the government has already been caught on numerous occasions employing mass surveillance programs, the most notable one being the whole Snowden ordeal (as I'm sure you're aware of if you're in the field of IT), and you only need to look back a few months (if that) to see yet another whistle blower.
And Google doesn't have the best track record in this regard, either.
And even if none of that was true, my stance still stands on principle. You don't lock your doors at night because you think someone is going to rob you. You lock your doors at night because you know they could, and you want to act preemptively.
Great intentions but 1. many students will forget, especially the younger ones. 2. most computers come with a piece of hardware that can turn the computer on, access local networks, and do literally anything else (called Intel's Management Engine or AMD's Platform Security Processor), which is questionable in and of itself but has been exploited by bad actors in the past several times, and inevitably will again. 3. Is the proper response "well, since we're subjecting children to unknown factors, we should try to mitigate factors we don't fully understand or know about" rather than "we shouldn't subject children to these unknown factors in the first place"?
I don't know if he's referring to you or me but as I stated in the other comment, the question is about whether it's reckless or irresponsible, not whether they may or may not have agreed to it (knowingly or otherwise).
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Home > Technology & Internet > Questions > Is it reckless or irresponsible for school systems to subject children to devices and software whose functionality is kept secret from them both?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
