HRW: Governments Harm Children’s Rights in Online Learning 146 Authorized Products May Have Surveilled Children and Harvested Personal Data

Post origi­nal aqui [traduc­ción al español]

(Tokyo) – Govern­ments of 49 of the world’s most popu­lous coun­tries harmed chil­dren’s rights by endor­sing online lear­ning products during Covid-19 school closu­res without adequa­tely protec­ting chil­dren’s privacy, Human Rights Watch said in a report rele­a­sed today. The report was rele­a­sed simul­ta­ne­ously with publi­ca­ti­ons by media orga­ni­za­ti­ons around the world that had early access to the Human Rights Watch findings and enga­ged in an inde­pen­dent colla­bo­ra­tive inves­ti­ga­tion.

“‘How Dare They Peep into My Private Life?’: Chil­dren’s Rights Viola­ti­ons by Govern­ments that Endor­sed Online Lear­ning during the Covid-19 Pande­mic,” is groun­ded in tech­ni­cal and policy analy­sis conduc­ted by Human Rights Watch on 164 educa­tion tech­no­logy (EdTech) products endor­sed by 49 coun­tries. It inclu­des an exami­na­tion of 290 compa­nies found to have collec­ted, proces­sed, or recei­ved chil­dren’s data since March 2021, and calls on govern­ments to adopt modern child data protec­tion laws to protect chil­dren online.

Graphic showing childrens' faces on computer screens

We think our kids are safe in school online. But many of them are being survei­lled, and parents have often been kept in the dark. Kids are price­less, not products.

ACT NOW

 

 
 

“Chil­dren should be safe in school, whet­her that’s in person or online, ” said Hye Jung Han, chil­dren’s rights and tech­no­logy rese­ar­cher and advo­cate at Human Rights Watch. “By failing to ensure that their recom­men­ded online lear­ning products protec­ted chil­dren and their data, govern­ments flung open the door for compa­nies to surveil chil­dren online, outside school hours, and deep into their private lives.”

Of the 164 EdTech products revi­e­wed, 146 (89 percent) appe­a­red to engage in data prac­ti­ces that risked or infrin­ged on chil­dren’s rights. These products moni­to­red or had the capa­city to moni­tor chil­dren, in most cases secretly and without the consent of chil­dren or their parents, in many cases harves­ting perso­nal data such as who they are, where they are, what they do in the class­room, who their family and friends are, and what kind of device their fami­lies could afford for them to use.

Most online lear­ning plat­forms exami­ned insta­lled trac­king tech­no­lo­gies that trai­led chil­dren outside of their virtual class­ro­oms and across the inter­net, over time. Some invi­sibly tagged and finger­prin­ted chil­dren in ways that were impos­si­ble to avoid or erase – even if chil­dren, their parents, and teachers had been aware and had the desire to do so – without destroying the device.

Most online lear­ning plat­forms sent or gran­ted access to chil­dren’s data to adver­ti­sing tech­no­logy (AdTech) compa­nies. In doing so, some EdTech products targe­ted chil­dren with beha­vi­o­ral adver­ti­sing. By using chil­dren’s data – extrac­ted from educa­ti­o­nal settings – to target them with perso­na­li­zed content and adver­ti­se­ments that follow them across the inter­net, these compa­nies not only distor­ted chil­dren’s online expe­ri­en­ces, but also risked influ­en­cing their opini­ons and beli­efs at a time in their lives when they are at high risk of mani­pu­la­tive inter­fe­rence. Many more EdTech products sent chil­dren’s data to AdTech compa­nies that speci­a­lize in beha­vi­o­ral adver­ti­sing or whose algo­rithms deter­mine what chil­dren see online.

With the excep­tion of Morocco, all govern­ments revi­e­wed in this report endor­sed at least one EdTech product that risked or under­mi­ned chil­dren’s rights. Most EdTech products were offe­red to govern­ments at no direct finan­cial cost. By endor­sing and enabling the wide adop­tion of EdTech products, govern­ments offlo­a­ded the true costs of provi­ding online educa­tion onto chil­dren, who were unkno­wingly forced to pay for their lear­ning with their rights to privacy and access to infor­ma­tion, and poten­ti­ally their free­dom of thought.

Few govern­ments chec­ked whet­her the EdTech they rapidly endor­sed or procu­red for scho­ols were safe for chil­dren to use. As a result, chil­dren whose fami­lies could afford to access the inter­net, or who made hard sacri­fi­ces to do so, were expo­sed to the privacy prac­ti­ces of the EdTech products they were told or requi­red to use during Covid-19 school closu­res.

Many govern­ments put at risk or viola­ted chil­dren’s rights directly. Of the 42 govern­ments that provi­ded online educa­tion to chil­dren by buil­ding and offe­ring their own EdTech products for use during the pande­mic, 39 govern­ments made products that hand­led chil­dren’s perso­nal data in ways that risked or infrin­ged on their rights. Some govern­ments made it compul­sory for students and teachers to use their EdTech product, subjec­ting them to the risks of misuse or exploi­ta­tion of their data, and making it impos­si­ble for chil­dren to protect them­sel­ves by opting for alter­na­ti­ves to access their educa­tion.

Chil­dren, parents, and teachers were largely kept in the dark about these data survei­llance prac­ti­ces. Human Rights Watch found that the data survei­llance took place in virtual class­ro­oms and educa­ti­o­nal settings where chil­dren could not reaso­nably object to such survei­llance. Most EdTech compa­nies did not allow students to decline to be trac­ked; most of this moni­to­ring happe­ned secretly, without the child’s know­ledge or consent. In most instan­ces, it was impos­si­ble for chil­dren to opt out of such survei­llance and data collec­tion without opting out of compul­sory educa­tion and giving up on formal lear­ning during the pande­mic.

Human Rights Watch conduc­ted its tech­ni­cal analy­sis of the products between March and August 2021, and subse­quently veri­fied its findings as detai­led in the report. Each analy­sis essen­ti­ally took a snaps­hot of the preva­lence and frequency of trac­king tech­no­lo­gies embed­ded in each product on a given date in that window. That preva­lence and frequency may fluc­tu­ate over time based on multi­ple factors, meaning that an analy­sis conduc­ted on later dates might observe vari­a­ti­ons in the beha­vior of the products.

It is not possi­ble for Human Rights Watch to reach defi­ni­tive conclu­si­ons as to the compa­ni­es’ moti­va­ti­ons in enga­ging in these acti­ons, beyond repor­ting on what it obser­ved in the data and the compa­ni­es’ and govern­ments’ own state­ments. Human Rights Watch shared its findings with the 95 EdTech compa­nies, 196 AdTech compa­nies, and 49 govern­ments cove­red in this report, giving them the oppor­tu­nity to respond and provide comments and clari­fi­ca­ti­ons. In all, 48 EdTech compa­nies, 78 AdTech compa­nies, and 10 govern­ments respon­ded as of May 24, 12 p.m. EDT. Seve­ral EdTech compa­nies denied collec­ting chil­dren’s data. Some compa­nies denied that their products were inten­ded for chil­dren’s use. AdTech compa­nies denied know­ledge that the data was being sent to them, indi­ca­ting that in any case it was their clients’ respon­si­bi­lity not to send them chil­dren’s data. These and other comments are reflec­ted and addres­sed in the report, as rele­vant.

As more chil­dren spend incre­a­sing amounts of their child­hood online, their reli­ance on the connec­ted world and digi­tal servi­ces that enable their educa­tion will likely conti­nue long after the end of the pande­mic. Govern­ments should pass and enforce modern child data protec­tion laws that provide safe­guards around the collec­tion, proces­sing, and use of chil­dren’s data. Compa­nies should imme­di­a­tely stop collec­ting, proces­sing, and sharing chil­dren’s data in ways that risk or infringe on their rights.

Human Rights Watch has laun­ched a global campaign, #Students­Not­Pro­ducts, which brings toget­her parents, teachers, chil­dren, and allies to support this call and demand protec­ti­ons for chil­dren online.

“Chil­dren shouldn’t be compe­lled to give up their privacy and other rights in order to learn, ” Han said. “Govern­ments should urgently adopt and enforce modern child data protec­tion laws to stop the survei­llance of chil­dren by actors who don’t have chil­dren’s best inter­ests at heart.”

Inter­na­ti­o­nal Media Consor­tium

EdTech Expo­sed is an inde­pen­dent colla­bo­ra­tive inves­ti­ga­tion that had early access to Human Rights Watch’s report, data, and tech­ni­cal evidence on appa­rent viola­ti­ons of chil­dren’s rights by govern­ments that endor­sed educa­tion tech­no­lo­gies during the Covid-19 pande­mic. The consor­tium provi­ded weeks of inde­pen­dent repor­ting by more than 25 inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lists from 13 media orga­ni­za­ti­ons in 16 coun­tries. It was coor­di­na­ted by The Signals Network, an inter­na­ti­o­nal nonpro­fit orga­ni­za­tion that supports whist­le­blo­wers and helps coor­di­nate inter­na­ti­o­nal media inves­ti­ga­ti­ons that speak out against corpo­rate miscon­duct and human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch provi­ded finan­cial support to Signals to esta­blish the consor­tium, but the consor­tium is inde­pen­dent from and opera­tes inde­pen­dently from Human Rights Watch.

The media orga­ni­za­ti­ons invol­ved include ABC (Austra­lia), Chosun Ilbo (Repu­blic of Korea), El Mundo (Spain), Folha de São Paulo (Brazil), The Globe and Mail (Canada), Kyodo News (Japan), McClat­chy/Miami Herald/Sacra­mento Bee/Fort Worth Star-Tele­gram (USA), Medi­a­part (France), Narasi TV (Indo­ne­sia), OCCRP (Came­roon, Kenya, Nige­ria, South Africa, and Zambia), The Daily Tele­graph (UK), The Wire (India), and The Washing­ton Post (USA).

In the coming weeks, Human Rights Watch will rele­ase its data and tech­ni­cal evidence, to invite experts, jour­na­lists, policy­ma­kers, and readers to recre­ate, test, and engage with its findings and rese­arch methods.