I read the “FIPPA, Privacy, and Consent Resources” post in mid-September. I am more familiar with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner as a means of accessing government documents. This post/article broadened my awareness about privacy and consent issues, especially in light of technology. I recognize that the complexity of the combined issues of personal privacy, informed consent, and citation of electronic resources requires an ongoing commitment to be informed about best practices. I also recognize that this commitment is governed by the responsibility of assuming the role of a “public body.”
I see flaws in this fragile, largely untested paradigm we have created for students, families, and citizens in general. Specifically, I am wary of the vague language in the following statement:
Teachers should ensure that they are—Aware that the Canadian federal government states that the chances are remote that the US Patriot Act will access personal information of Canadians, but recognizes that it is our responsibility to protect privacy preferences and to ensure that consent obtained is informed consent.
How can anyone, least of all students, give truly informed consent when this consent relies on the naive hope that the US will always refrain from abusing the power we have apparently given them over us? How can we consent to an unknown future? How can I, as a teacher, assume responsibility of protecting the privacy of students when the only “protection” I can provide is so precarious?
This “informed” consent relies on the stability of the current relationship that Canada has with the US and with the private corporations involved in these agreements. Given the wild fluctuations in the private sector and the lack of transparency that private status affords these entities, the assumption that anyone can give truly informed consent really stretches our definition of “informed.”
So, are we really protecting student privacy when we check off the boxes regarding privacy concerns, or are we protecting ourselves from liability should their privacy be compromised?
Of course, every effort must be made to protect student privacy and to ensure informed consent. Concurrently, we must engage in an ongoing critical conversation regarding how these terms are defined and negotiated.
I found these concerns well articulated in the Google in Education section of the EDCI 336 website. In the featured CBC podcast, the father of a student in Victoria describes his concerns about assuming that large corporations have benign interests in the personal information that they receive via student use of technology in schools: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/spark/episode-402-1.4706579/what-you-told-us-about-google-for-education-1.4706585
The disheartening response that this father received from School District 61 does little to bolster my confidence in the District’s grasp of the situation.