Task 1
Working on the text
Do the following tasks, writing coherent texts. Use your own words as far as appropriate.
(28 BE)
1.
Summarize the article.
2.
Analyze how the author presents the topic.
Writing
Choose one of the following tasks:
(32 BE)
3.1
“[...] Montgomery county gives students laptops and has hired tech companies to track students' activities on those computers, including monitoring what they search for and what websites they visit.” (l.13-15)
Using the quotation from the text as a starting point, discuss the benefits and risks of digitalization at schools.
or
3.2
Keeping secrets has become increasingly difficult in today's world.
Comment on this statement.
“Why parents in a school district near the CIA are forcing tech companies to erase kids' data”
1
Parents at a public school district in Maryland have won a major victory for student privacy:
2
tech companies that work with the school district now have to purge the data they have collected
3
on students once a year. Experts say the district's "Data Deletion Week" may be the first of its
4
kind in the country.
5
It's not exactly an accident that schools in Montgomery county, in the suburbs of Washington
6
DC, are leading the way on privacy protections for kids. The large school district is near the
7
headquarters of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. It's a place
8
where many federal employees, lawyers and security experts send their own kids.
9
As digital surveillance of American students expands rapidly in schools across the country,
10
sparking new debates over trade-offs between privacy and safety, Montgomery county is a
11
revealing example of what protections some of the nation's most well-informed, privacy-savvy
12
parents think their children need.
13
Like thousands of American public school districts, Montgomery county gives students laptops
14
and has hired tech companies to track students' activities on those computers, including
15
monitoring what they search for and what websites they visit.
16
This digital surveillance - a booming industry - is marketed as a way to keep kids safe from
17
school shootings and self-harm. lt also generates detailed data on individual children.
18
Montgomery county parents fear that data might someday be used against their kids.
19
This is not a distant worry. Teenagers are already facing consequences for private behavior
20
online. [ ... ]
21
Parents across the US told the Guardian that they were afraid about having detailed educational
22
data about their children - like how quickly they complete their homework - being fed into the
23
enormous black box of the data mining industry. Companies have long gathered, traded and
24
sold vast quantities of data on individuals' online behavior and consumer purchases,
25
information that is also combined with public voter data and used to create targeted political
26
advertising. Individuals have little way to know how their data is shared from one company to
27
another, and no power to prevent giant, frequent data breaches.
28
By requiring tech companies to delete data they collect on schoolchildren once a year, parent
29
activists in Montgomery county said they hope to shield kids from being held accountable in
30
adulthood for youthful mistakes, as well as to guard them from exploitation by what one parent
31
termed "the student data surveillance industrial complex". [ ... ]
32
The district demands more than a vague assurance from tech companies that the data has been
33
erased: "They send us a certification that officially confirms legally that the information has
34
been deleted from their servers,"Cevenini said.
35
GoGuardian has already submitted its formal certification; the district is still waiting for formal
36
certification from Google, Cevenini said.
37
One of the parent leaders of the Data Deletion Week campaign was Bradley Shear, an attorney
38
who specializes in social media and privacy policy. Shear said he was attending a conference
39
for privacy law scholars in Washington a few years ago when he received a phone call from his
40
son's teacher informing him that the second-grader was in trouble for having Googled the song
41
Fuck You, by CeeLo Green, on his school laptop.
42
Shear said he was certain that his son had not searched for the song on purpose, and that the
43
auto-complete function in Google search was to blame. But the incident prompted him to try to
44
make sure that GoGuardian, which the school pays to monitor students' search and website
45
visits, would delete the data it had collected on his son.
46
The response he eventually got from the tech company in 2017, a pledge to delete or "deidentify"
47
his child's data, was not enough for Shear. As a policy expert who had worked to pass
48
social media privacy laws in states across the country, Shear said, he knew that "de-identified"
49
data could usually be re-identified again.
50
He decided to push for district-wide changes in how GoGuardian and other companies retain
51
children's data, including working to educate and organize other parents to push the school
52
district to change its policies and require tech companies to regularly delete student data.
53
“You don't need to keep for ever what these kids are searching for online, or what's in their
54
Gchats,“ Shear said.
55
"Even when data is supposed to only be used for one purpose, it will be used for other purposes,"
56
he added. "We don't want any of this stuff hanging out and then being used against kids when
57
they apply to college." Shear met with district officials to discuss his concerns, and he soon found
58
allies on the district's active parent-teacher association, which has an entire committee dedicated
59
to "safe technology" issues.
60
One parent on the safe tech committee, who asked that her name not be used to protect her son's
61
privacy, had an experience similar to Shear's.
62
She said her then eight-year-old son typed in "save the land" when doing a book report on
63
conservation, "and up came the Ku Klux Klan ... 'Save the land, join the Klan.' He didn't know
63
what that was," she said.
64
When she talked to the teacher and suggested wiping the search from her son's browser history,
65
the teacher said that would not be possible, the parent recalled.
66
If anyone was building a digital footprint of her son's behavior, the parent said, there would
67
now be a visit to a Klan site in it.
68
"Kids are curious. They're just going to plug in some key words thinking that they're funny,
69
and it just might stick," she said.
70
I want my child to do whatever he wants to do with his career and his life," said Ellen Zavian,
71
a George Washington University law professor and another of the parent advocates. [ ... ]
72
"My goal is to have my son have the smallest [data] footprint to give him the largest opportunity," she said.
Beckett, Lois: Why parents in a school district near the CIA are forcing tech companies to erase kids' data.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/dec/05/schools-monitor-students-online-activity (05.12.2019)
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/dec/05/schools-monitor-students-online-activity (05.12.2019)
Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!
monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?
Note:
Our solutions are listed in bullet points. In the examination, full marks can only be achieved by writing a continuous text.
Our solutions are listed in bullet points. In the examination, full marks can only be achieved by writing a continuous text.
1.
The article "Why parents in a school district near the CIA are forcing tech companies to erase kids' data" by Lois Beckett published in The Guardian in 2019, is about the victory of parents concerning student privacy at a public school in the school district of Maryland.
Introduction
- the campaign named "Data Deletion Week" was brought to life by parents working for the CIA or NSA because of the increasing surveillance of children at school
- children use school computers and search engines thus leaving a digital footprint
- the student's search history is stored on the school servers and detailed data on children individually saved
- parents are calling on data companies to change their data retention practices and delete all data annually, to protect their children's privacy
- childish recklessness by randomly searching for keywords can lead to sites being accessed that will cause serious damage to students in the future
- parents fear that the data might be used against them one day in chollege application processes or different other purposes for instant
- parents allie with other parents to raise awareness of the problem and educate others across the country
Main Body
2.
- initially, the author starts by describing an innovative campaign called "Data Deletion Week" against student data surveillance at public schools in Montgomery County initiated by parents with expertise through working in comparable sectors (e.g. CIA, NSA, law)
- by emphasizing the seriousness of the topic and illustrating it with examples of what the result of web searches by students can lead
- in her article, Lois Beckett aims to spread warnings, raise awareness, and calls to action that something has to change
Description of the project and its goal
- the author speaks approvingly of the parent's campaign
- she uses positive ambiguous expressions when speaking of the initiative e.g. "most well-informed, privacy-savvy parents" (l. 11-12) or "sparking new debates" (l. 10)
- to express the problem of surveillance, the author uses negative ambiguous terms, "black box of the data mining industry" (l. 23) or "the student data surveillance industrial complex" (l. 31)
- thus takes the side of parents who have a critical opinion of data surveillance in schools
Use of language
- the author as well as parents use a wide variety of linguistic devices to express their concerns about the data surveillance and the digital footprint of their children
- the parallelism "...have my son have the smallest [data] footprint to give him the largest opportunity" (l. 72) illustrates the concern about the professional future that could be endangered by the negative effects of data surveillance
- metaphorical phrases from the realm of battle are used to illustrate that surveillance is a very serious problem and highlight the urgency with which it must be addressed (cf. l. 39-41)
- Lois Beckett uses quotes from parent experts in her article to emphasize the reliability (Bradley Shear, an attorney who specializes in social media and privacy policy, for instance)
- the use of technical terms like "de-identified" and "re-identified" (l. 48/49) is supposed to indicate the risk that the data does not simply disappear
- the use of enumerations like "federal employees, lawyers, and security experts" (l. 8) proves once more the reliability of Beckett's sources and are listed in the form of a climax
- Metaphors like "digital footprint" underscore how much our presence is visible on the web and remains traceable
- Metaphors such as "black box" describes the extent of surveillance, i.e., that every mouse click can be traced back
- strong adjectives like "giant...", "a thousand...", and "enormous..." are used to illustrate the immense extent of the issue
- the use of colloquial language in citations ensures that the article remains authentic and thus grants closeness to the people
linguistic devices
- All in all, it can be said that the author is clearly on the side of the parents' initiative and sees surveillance in schools as an immense problem.
- with regard to the parents' initiative, she clearly positions herself positively and argues in their favor
Conclusion
3.1
“[...] Montgomery county gives students laptops and has hired tech companies to track students' activities on those computers, including monitoring what they search for and what websites they visit.”
- the discussion about digitization in schools has increasingly come into focus in recent years, triggering controversial debates
- proponents, as well as polemicists, list a variety of arguments for and against the use of digital devices and content in schools
- the quote from the article by Lois Beckett, picks up exactly one of the strongest arguments against digitization in schools
- however, does digitization in schools offer great opportunities if it is used properly
- these benefits and risks are presented and discussed in the following elaboration
Introduction
- the use of electronic devices such as laptops can promote learning
- by accessing the vast knowledge of the Internet, students can search for solutions independently
- online learning content can be accessed anywhere and at any time
- independent as well as distance learning can be encouraged
- students can be motivated to look for their own approaches to solving problems
- digitization in schools is a great opportunity for more participation and more equal and fair opportunities in education
- digital education can enable individual support for students
- enables international exchange
Main Body
Benefits
Benefits
- incorrect handling due to lack of media competence
- face-to-face teacher-student interaction could suffer as a result
- personal data of students could be published or shared
- working on a laptop, for example, could lead to distractions
- increased risk of cyberbullying
- possible risk of neglecting motor skills
Risks
- in conclusion, there are some points in favor of digitization in schools, but also some risks that need to be considered
- digitization offers great opportunities for everyone involved in school life
- however, so that students do not have to fear that their data will be misused, passed on or published, certain precautions must be taken and data protection ensured
Conclusion
3.2
Keeping secrets has become increasingly difficult in today's world.
- nowadays, the world is strongly influenced by Google, Facebook, Instagram, and co.
- ask Google is the motto concerning almost every life situation for many
- printing out picture books to show to relatives is long obsolete when they can easily be shared with everyone via social media
- but the question of whether only data we want is shared is rarely questioned
- the quote picks up exactly on the question of which secrets, i.e. information, we really share with the world and which are still our own and how we can protect them from being shared
Introduction
- articles like the one by Lois Beckett underline this statement that it is becoming more and more difficult to keep personal information (secrets) to oneself when there is a whole industrial complex that does nothing but collect data on the net
- Google searches and every mouse click are saved
- it has long become normal to share our personal lives on social media and for friends to re-share it
- search behavior is analyzed, stored and processed, and used by companies to advertise products
- the digital footprint is left on the internet and reflects the wishes, interests, questions, or even the personality of individual people
- people often underestimate the impact of sharing private information on the internet
Main Body
Arguments that underline the statement
Arguments that underline the statement
- it is possible to keep secrets if only selected and not too personal content is shared on social media
- there is a need to create awareness of the extent to which the digital footprint is left on the net
- there is a need to create awareness of the extent to which the digital footprint is left on the net and that published data is collected and further processed
Arguments against the statement
- all in all, it can be summarized that the statement shows one of the biggest risks in today's digital world at its core
- I agree with the fact that the tendency of people to share only personal data leads to difficulties in maintaining secrets
- every digital footstep is recorded, stored, and usually shared
Conclusion