# data[].attributes.headline
The “Academicon”: AI and Surveillance in

# data[].attributes.subject
The “Academicon”: AI and Surveillance in

# data[].attributes.body
The Academicon, AI and Surveillance in Higher Education by Mark Swartz and Kelly McElroy highlights the now persuasive and near ubiquitous use of AI technologies present in a student's day to day life and studies. The authors present this information through the eyes of Maria, a fictional student, who prepares for a challenging week ahead and uses AI tools both knowingly and unknowingly. Some of the tools that the article highlights are Turnitin(plagiarism detection), Perusall(automated reading assessments), and Proctorio(automated proctoring). The authors use Maria's story to highlight how these programs create a culture of constant surveillance that undermines academic freedom and personal privacy and erodes trust in educational institutions.

If actions that students typically do are under constant surveillance by AI or a remote person, this will negatively impact their academic performance and trust in the institution and curtail learning for pleasure. Learning for pleasure would then be replaced by doing the bare minimum to get around or fools these tools while completing the assignment just to complete the assignment and obtain a positive mark. Without a personal connection to either their professor or their work students in the long run will suffer.

Swartz, M. H., & McElroy, K. (2023). The “Academicon”: AI and Surveillance in Higher Education. Surveillance and Society, 21(3), 276–281. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v21i3.16105

# data[].attributes.headline
Surveillance and Datafication in Higher Education: Documentation of the Human

# data[].attributes.subject
Surveillance and Datafication in Higher Education: Documentation of the Human

# data[].attributes.body
Surveillance and Datafication in Higher Education: Documentation of the Human by Lesley Gourlay illustrates how the use of surveillance technologies in higher education reduces traditional academic practices to quantifiable data. Gourley's premise is that these technologies reinforce normative ideals of a "good performance, and measuring engagement in Learning Management Systems(LMS) and reduce more traditional intangible aspects of learning such as critical thinking and learning the why behind certain phenomena and not solely focusing on what or when a phenomenon occurred.

Gourley encourages people to be cautious when implementing these tools without critical thought, and I agree. Outside of the concerns previously mentioned, Gourley also mentions that utilizing these tools are turning students into data that might be a violation of the student's personal rights. Once these tools are used, there is no clear or easy method for students and faculty to know where their data is going or to whom it is being sent.

Gourlay, L. (2022). Surveillance and Datafication in Higher Education: Documentation of the Human. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00352-x

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Surveillance and Datafication in Higher Education: Documentation of the Human - Postdigital Science and Education

# data[].attributes.headline
Surveillance in the System: Datafication as a Critical Change in Global Higher Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Surveillance in the System: Datafication as a Critical Change in Global Higher Education

# data[].attributes.body
Surveillance in the System: Datafication as a Critical Change in Global Higher Education, by Szcyrek and Stewart, further examines the datafication of higher education. This article focuses more on faculty than students and highlights the extent to which faculty members are knowledgeable about data and privacy. Through a survey and a case study, the authors reveal that faculty lack awareness of how data is collected, stored, or used. A majority of faculty did not know where the LMS servers were located. This is a failure of leadership to ensure that there is top-to-bottom knowledge of the institution's resources that are near critiques in conducting the business of a university.

This article also highlights that AI and Algorithms are not immune to human biases; these biases are dangerous for the institution because they may be violations of local, state, or federal law. For instance, the authors highlight that AI has had issues with facial recognition of individuals with darker skin tones. It is up to the institution to ensure that the use of AI does not cause any bias incidents on campus.

Szcyrek, S., & Stewart, B. (2022). Surveillance in the System: Data as Critical Change in Higher Education. The Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship Association Journal, 2(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18357/otessaj.2022.2.2.34

# data[].attributes.headline
Online Exam Proctoring Technologies: Educational Innovation or Deterioration?

# data[].attributes.subject
Online Exam Proctoring Technologies: Educational Innovation or Deterioration?

# data[].attributes.body
Online Exam Proctoring Technologies: Educational Innovation or Deterioration? Lee and Fanguy examine the rise of online exam proctoring technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic and argue that these tools reinforce authoritarian pedagogical practices, thereby undermining educational equity. Through a study at the "large sized South Korean University" they display that these proctoring tools create a sense of mistrust among the students. This sense of mistrust is one of the reasons students cheat, along with the isolation inherent in an online setting. Another negative effect for students is the classification of students as cheaters versus non-cheaters, which leads to students prioritizing compliance over critical thinking.

It is important to note that through these methods, the university in question did reduce the number of students cheating, although, as Lee and Fanguy argue, this came at the cost of students' academic thought and critical thinking skills. Which ultimately leads to educational deterioration among students. One of the arguments for continuing to implement these tools is that students are more likely to cheat in an online setting. This is not true for proctored exams; students cheat the same amount of time if the exam is proctored, regardless of whether it is an AI or a human being. This article highlights how implementing leadership decisions regarding surveillance without faculty or student input can undermine the institution's goals.

Lee, K., & Fanguy, M. (2022). Online exam proctoring technologies: Educational innovation or deterioration? British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13182

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brit J Educational Tech - 2022 - Lee - Online exam proctoring technologies  Educational innovation or deterioration

# data[].attributes.headline
Your- U-Well-Being Journal is due today": Intersections between Surveillance and Student Wellbeing in Future Universities

# data[].attributes.subject
Your- U-Well-Being Journal is due today": Intersections between Surveillance and Student Wellbeing in Future Universities

# data[].attributes.body
Your- U-Well-Being Journal is due today": Intersections between Surveillance and Student Wellbeing in Future Universities by Anna Wilson and Jen Ross focuses on the future of higher education wellness for students on campus by using AI methods to ensure positive outcomes for students. One of the speculative futures that the article focuses on is a first-year student's experience where a student participates in a mandatory well-being journal that is monitored and run by AI. There is a suggestion of penalties for missing this wellness test. Another story that the authors focus on is William Stone P267, where a student has had to learn how to control his entire body in order to pass an exam. He is forced to such great lengths because he knows that the AI system will closely monitor him.

What the authors focus on here is the normalization of surveillance and the erosion of autonomy to the point where students are forced to have check-ins or appear physically perfect in order to pass an exam. This takes away the choice and freedom that have become a selling point of college to students in order to ensure that they never fail or feel bad. This will lead to students saying whatever they need to say to cease the surveillance by an ever-growing AI big brother institution.

Wilson, A., & Ross, J. (2024). “Your U-Well-Being Journal is due today.” Studies in Higher Education, 50(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2368264

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your U-Well-Being Journal is due today   on some possible intersections between surveillance and student wellbeing in the future university

# data[].attributes.headline
Professors Worry About ‘Digital Surveillance’ of Their Work

# data[].attributes.subject
Professors Worry About ‘Digital Surveillance’ of Their Work

# data[].attributes.body
This article focuses on concerns that faculty members have with the growing overreach of online monitoring. In a UK survey of 2,000 academics, 82% believe that digital performance monitoring has reduced academic freedom, and 84% believe that digital tracking of student experiences further erodes autonomy. This phenomenon has caused some faculty members to feel that they lack the freedom to discuss certain subjects or take certain positions, mainly due to a perception that upper administration sides with students, regardless of how nonsensical their complaints may be.

Universities must exercise caution when monitoring faculty lectures or research, as historical examples have shown that sometimes controversial research is indeed correct. One of the most famous incidents throughout history is Copernicus's finding that the sun is the center of the solar system and not the Earth, as previously thought. If institutions continue to monitor and utilize AI to do so, prioritizing metrics such as student satisfaction, then the important research conducted at these institutions will be reduced.

Tucker, W., & Vance, A. (2016). EDUCATION LEADERS REPORT School Surveillance: Th e Consequences for Equity and Privacy. Educational Leaders Report, 2(4).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Professors worry about “digital surveillance” of their work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Union’s survey of academics elicits concerns that electronic systems that track teaching, grades and research productivity limit independence and well-being.

# data[].attributes.headline
School Surveillance: The Consequences for Equity and Privacy

# data[].attributes.subject
School Surveillance: The Consequences for Equity and Privacy

# data[].attributes.body
School Surveillance: The Consequences for Equity and Privacy by J. William Tucker and Amelia Vance focuses on the institution's ability to keep students on task, ensure safety, and improve efficacy and the tradeoffs. Some of the negative consequences could be that continuous monitoring may stifle creativity, self-expression, and trust, in addition to low-income and minority students who rely more on school-provided devices may be more negatively affected by these techniques. One of the counter-examples that is mentioned in this article is a scenario where a student complains of a hit and run, and campus security uses the continuous monitoring system to discover the culprit based on license plate monitoring.

This technology is seen as a double-edged sword at first glance, but afterward, careful consideration of the negatives outweighs the positives. If institutions want to implement these measures, there need to be well throughout guardrails to ensure student privacy and that any incidents that may or may not occur on campus do not follow students for the rest of their lives. This constant monitoring is hazardous because it goes against the very ethos of the college experience, which is a place of freedom and learning from mistakes. This technology, especially with the biases already inherent in AI, reduces this freedom to an afterthought.

# data[].attributes.headline
Digital Dystopia: The Danger in Buying the EDtech Surveillance Industry is Selling

# data[].attributes.subject
Digital Dystopia: The Danger in Buying the EDtech Surveillance Industry is Selling

# data[].attributes.body
This article, Digital Dystopia: The Danger in Buying the EDtech Surveillance Industry is Selling, focuses on the marketing of surveillance technology that the educational technology industry is using in gaining institutions as clients. The report stresses the fact that these companies market themselves and their services as highly effective in increasing campus security and safety for students. However, the report rebuts these claims, highlighting the fact that these studies are not independent and are designed to deceive schools.

One of the first claims that is rejected in the study is the claim that Bark, an EdTech company, has claimed that it has stopped sixteen school shooting incidents. This is disproven in multiple ways. The only thing that Edtech companies care about is the bottom line, and increasing their profit margins; this, combined with institutions increasingly becoming more business-minded, leads to students' rights being violated with no concern under the guise of safety.

ACLU. (2023). Digital Dystopia: The Danger in Buying the EDtech Surveillance Industry is Selling. ACLU Publications.

# data[].attributes.body
Higher Education After Surveillance is a rebuke of the role of surveillance technologies in academia. An aspect that the article makes sure to mention is that Edtech often has a romanticized future vision for its place in the field of education. Although it could be true, it also has the potential to not be true as well. This article challenges higher education administrators to imagine any adverse consequences of surveillance technology.

Once again, this article highlights an instance where higher education professionals want Edtech to have one outcome and forget to consider the other possibilities, including the fact that these technologies could lead to the creation of a surveillance state that moves to "save students from themselves" even though there is no clear or immediate danger.  This removes personal freedom and security from students under the guise of protection and safety.

Collier, A., & Ross, J. (2020). Higher Education After Surveillance? Postdigital Science and Education, 2(2), 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00098-z

# data[].attributes.body
Breaking the AI Fever by Lindsey Weinburg focuses on three key problem areas for universities using AI. She begins by describing an incident that took place where a social media account shared an advertisement stating that the University of Michigan was licensing academic papers and other student work to train AI language modules. She takes a multi-pronged approach to her critique of the University and AI as a whole. Firstly, she brings up privacy concerns by pointing out that the university's statement fails to name the third-party vendor. She continues to state that other academic publishers have announced deals with AI companies to allow academic work to be used to train AI models without asking for permission from individuals who upload.

I agree with Dr. Weinberg's thesis that the proliferation of this trend would be negative for higher education and that students, faculty, and staff must collaborate to fight back against universities selling and profiting from their work. The article ends with the author highlighting those groups battling back from refusing to work and research on any AI applications to open letters.

Weinberg, L. (2024). AI is consolidating corporate power in higher ed (opinion). Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2024/11/06/ai-consolidating-corporate-power-higher-ed-opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI is consolidating corporate power in higher ed (opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI is consolidating corporate power in higher education, Lindsay Weinberg writes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Data Privacy in Higher Education: Yes, Students Care

# data[].attributes.subject
Data Privacy in Higher Education: Yes, Students Care

# data[].attributes.body
This article is discussing how students care about the issue of data privacy concerns and how this will impact the field. The study goes on to state that one third of college students in 2016 were concerned about the privacy of their data. Although students are reportedly concerned about their privacy, they oftentimes continue to engage in activities that put their data at risk. This phenomenon has been described as the privacy paradox.

The theme of this grouping of articles is that regardless of whether it is students, faculty or staff, there are grave concerns from all three groups about their data privacy and how it will affect their current and future work.  These concerns are valid until there is clear and concise communication from universities, upper administration, AI companies, and EDTech companies about the process for data once it is sold.

Park, J., & Vance, A. (2021, February 11). Data Privacy in Higher Education: Yes, Students Care. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/2/data-privacy-in-higher-education-yes-students-care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many in higher education believe that students who have grown up using digital technologies ("digital natives") have little concern for the privacy of their data. Research proves otherwise.

Credit: View Apart / Shutterstock.com © 2021

A popularly held belief is that people who have grown up using digital technologies ("digital natives," born in 1983 and later) have little concern for the privacy of their data. This is particularly concerning because many in this age group live much of their academic and personal lives online. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey found that almost all Americans 18 to 24 years old use social media platforms: YouTube (94%), Facebook (80%), Snapchat (78%), Instagram (71%), and Twitter (45%).

What does this mean for higher education? A 2019 Inside Higher Ed survey found that 46 percent of faculty taught an online course, up from 44 percent in 2018 and 30 percent in 2013. And of course, when campus buildings shut down across the country in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, many colleges and universities transitioned to online learning-a trend that is likely to continue in the years ahead. In addition, higher education institutions increasingly depend on online platforms related to student learning, advising, and management in order to optimize processes and deliver student services at scale.

Today's students not only are users of these data products and platforms and online learning but also will become tomorrow's software engineers, technology entrepreneurs, and professionals in other fields integral to privacy conversations. Their attitudes toward data privacy will shape the policies and practices that govern the internet.

Students' Attitudes and Expectations
Students care about their data privacy, and this concern is increasing. Students want to protect information regarding their personal lives and their academic or professional prospects, but they prioritize the latter.
In an informal survey conducted by The Atlantic in 2018 to understand how the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach impacted social media use, David, a young professional living in Boston, explained that he began self-censoring his social media posts after a friend's mother found Facebook photos of him drinking while underage and reported the behavior to his school headmaster. He continued: "Right off the bat I . . . understood that anything you post on there can be seen pretty much by anyone at any time. . . . So I don't really post anything at all. Anything that could be out there for public consumption, I try to manage very closely." The Atlantic found that of the 2,218 respondents, 82.2 percent self-censored on social media.

Suffering negative effects from admissions officers and potential employers discovering compromising information on social media profiles is more likely than being the victim of doxing or identity theft. The outcome of the latter is much worse, however, as students may suffer constant psychological, emotional, and even physical harassment or bear the reputational, financial, and perhaps criminal costs of someone having stolen their identity. Young people express a keen awareness of this personal risk.
Students expect boundaries between their personal and academic lives and want colleges and universities to use their data predominantly for educational purposes.
A 2015 EDUCAUSE report on undergraduate students' views of information technology found that more than three-fourths of students approved data collection for analytics when institutions used it for progress toward a degree or certificate goal and that most approved of such collection for assessing course performance. However, less than half of the students approved of data collection to analyze students' campus-based activities logged through their IDs, smart cards, or smartphones; one-third approved of geolocation data collection; and one-quarter approved of data collection to analyze their social media activities. Another interview-based study likewise found that students felt data collection was justified if the data was used only for educational purposes. One participant stated: "If they had the intention of using my data to create better programs or better educational tools, then I'm all for it." However, the study also revealed that students were generally unaware of which information their schools collected and for what purposes.
Students care more about protecting immutable identifiers, such as biometric information, in higher education contexts.
Students have also mobilized to prevent schools and governments from adopting privacy-invasive systems that use biometric information. Erica Darragh, a community organizer from Georgia, is part of a campaign to ban facial recognition on campuses. In an article published in VICE, she wrote:

We have already given up so much privacy and liberty for the sake of "security," but facial recognition must be where this stops. Facial recognition does not improve security and may actually make it worse. It's also a technology that, once mainstreamed, can never be taken back. It is fundamentally coercive for educational institutions to require students to participate in biometric surveillance in order to attend class. While we wait for the government to ban facial recognition at the federal level, young people can take control of the narrative and demand policies that ban the technology in school districts and on college campuses.

Some personal identifiers, such as email addresses, are easily replaced, or people can possess many of them. But biometric information-such as facial, retinal, or fingerprint scans-is singular and irreplaceable. Students' strong belief in protecting immutable identifiers thus likely stems from their desire to shield themselves from privacy risks and harms that may follow them for the rest of their lives.
Students have greater confidence in educational institutions and the government to protect their privacy than they do in technology companies.
Recommendations
#1. Higher education institutions should teach data privacy, ethics, and literacy courses to encourage students to think critically about privacy.
Research demonstrates that students care about privacy, but knowledge of the depth and breadth of their awareness is still lacking. The higher education system must prepare students to fully comprehend the implications of the collection, use, and sharing of their personal information without their knowledge and consent. The US education system was built to develop an informed citizenry able to participate in a democracy. Now more than ever, students need to understand the factors that shape their opinions and influence their decisions. Understanding how data is collected and used, as well as how they can protect their personal information and actively engage with the platforms collecting and the policies governing their data, is a key defense against targeted advertisements and other manipulative techniques.

To keep pace with societal and technological developments and cultivate data-literate citizens, higher education should develop curricula that include instruction on data privacy and ethics. The benefits of this instruction are clear. In an article published in the Stanford Daily, Trisha Kulkarni, an undergraduate student, shared her reflections on taking the course "Computer Science, Ethics, and Policy": "By the end of the class, I was overwhelmed at the details I had overlooked in my daily practices, such as clicking 'accept' without reading a privacy notice or continuously giving an app or website information about my interests in order to customize my experience." Practitioners, scholars, and policymakers should also collaborate to design data ethics curricula.
#2. To foster trust and cooperation, higher education institutions and technology companies should communicate how and why they collect and use students' personal information.
Higher education institutions should collect and use only the information necessary to fulfill goals related to understanding and improving students' educational outcomes and well-being. Institutions should also convene town halls, organize student advisory boards, hold office hours, and publish clear explanations of how and why they collect and use students' personal information. They should share these policies on institutional websites in plain language that clearly communicates the methods that students can use to review, change, or opt out of data collection. Moreover, because third-party technology companies often mediate data use by higher education organizations, these companies should also provide transparency related to their proprietary systems and the processes, scope, and intent of data collection, analysis, and use. Social media companies should do the same, given that students use their products.
#3. Organizations should release additional findings on students' attitudes toward privacy, and researchers should conduct more studies on specific privacy topics.
To verify and extend the findings we have outlined, researchers and organizations should conduct more studies of students' attitudes about privacy. The field would greatly benefit if Pew, Gallup, and other organizations conducted public opinion polls on privacy concerns, with subgroup data reported by age, including a narrow range for "traditional age" college/university students (18- to 24-year-old students). Rather than attempt to replicate these well-designed surveys, organizations holding the data should consider releasing their information tailored to the target population.

Studies should also be conducted to determine how students' privacy attitudes differ based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, special needs, citizenship status, gender, and other characteristics. Education stakeholders need to better understand which types of personal information students want to protect and from which parties they believe they need protection. Studies could also explore which contexts, sources, and events influence students' attitudes about privacy. Finally, we need to understand how students' attitudes about privacy change over time.

Conclusion

Leaders at higher education institutions increasingly rely on data collected from students to inform decision making, and they employ technology platforms that allow them to collect, analyze, and use vast amounts of this data. As students have become more aware of this ongoing data collection and use, they have begun to express their concerns and desires to limit the use of their data to guide institutional decision making. The conversation about the use and privacy of students' data has just begun, and students' voices need to be privileged in that conversation. Higher education institutions, technology companies, researchers, other interested stakeholders and students can collectively shape the future of data privacy in higher education.

This content is part of the EDUCAUSE showcase series Post-Pandemic Future: Implications for Privacy. In 2021 EDUCAUSE is spotlighting the most urgent issues in higher education through this thematic series. For each topic, we've gathered all the tools and resources you need into one place, to help you guide your campus forward.

Notes

The authors would like to thank the various people who contributed to this article, particularly Larissa Kehne, Preeti Jain, Dr. Carrie N. Klein, and Ashleigh Imus.

1. For more about our scope, methodology, selection of sources, and limitations, refer to the full report, "Higher Education Voices: College Students' Attitudes Towards Data Privacy," to be published in late February on https://studentprivacycompass.org/.

2. D. Christopher Brooks, ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, EDUCAUSE (2016), p. 22; John Fleming, Millennials Most Trusting on Safety of Personal Information, Gallup, May 11, 2015; John H. Fleming and Amy Adkins, Data Security: Not a Big Concern for Millennials, Gallup, June 9, 2016; Jeffrey M. Jones, Facebook Users' Privacy Concerns Up Since 2011, Gallup, April 11, 2018.

3. Libby quoted in Katey Psencik, "How Much Do College Students Care about Online Privacy?," USA Today, May 29, 2013; Andrew Perrin, Americans Are Changing Their Relationship with Facebook, Pew Research Center, September 5, 2018.

4. Nis Bornoe and Louise Barkhuus, "Privacy Management in a Connected World: Students' Perception of Facebook Privacy Settings," Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2011.

5. Katherina Glac, Dawn R. Elm, and Kirsten Martin, "Areas of Privacy in Facebook: Expectations and Value," Business & Professional Ethics Journal 33, no. 2/3 (2014); Bornoe and Barkhuus, "Privacy Management in a Connected World."

6. Kaplan, Kaplan Survey: Percentage of College Admissions Officers Who Visit Applicants' Social Media Pages on the Rise Again, January 13, 2020; Kaplan, Kaplan Test Prep Survey: Social Media Checks by College Admissions Officers Decline Due to Savvier Applicants and Shifting Attitudes, November 27, 2018; Alice Marwick, Claire Fontaine, and danah boyd, "Nobody Sees It, Nobody Gets Mad": Social Media, Privacy, and Personal Responsibility among Low-SES Youth," Social Media + Society, May 2017.

7. Bornoe and Barkhuus, "Privacy Management in a Connected World."

8. Simon Parkin, "Gamergate: A Scandal Erupts in the Video-Game Community," New Yorker, October 17, 2014; Aviva quoted in Marwick, Fontaine, and boyd, "Nobody Sees It, Nobody Gets Mad."

9. John H. Fleming and Amy Adkins, Data Security: Not a Big Concern for millennials, Gallup, June 6, 2016; 2018 Digital Future Project, Surveying the Digital Future: The 16th Annual Study on the Impact of Digital Technology on Americans, Center for the Digital Future at USC Annenberg (2018), p. 89; The Generation Lab, Youth Dems and GOP Love Tech and Want It to Stop, January 28, 2021.

10. Jones et al., "'We're Being Tracked at All Times.'"

11. Joseph Galanek and Ben Shulman, "Not Sure If They're Invading My Privacy or Just Really Interested in Me," EDUCAUSE Review, December 11, 2019; Alexander Whitelock-Wainwright et al., "The Student Expectations of Learning Analytics Questionnaire," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 35, no. 5 (October 2019).

12. Roberts, Howell, Seaman, and Gibson, "Student Attitudes toward Learning Analytics in Higher Education.'"

13. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 332.10, Bachelor's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by field of study: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2016-17 (August 2018).

Jasmine A-young Park is a Policy Fellow with the Youth and Education Privacy project at the Future of Privacy Forum.

Amelia Vance is Senior Counsel and Director of the Youth and Education Privacy project at the Future of Privacy Forum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Data Privacy in Higher Education: Yes, Students Care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many in higher education believe that students who have grown up using digital technologies ("digital natives") have little concern for the privacy of their data. Research proves otherwise. A popularly held belief is that people who have grown up using digital technologies ("digital natives," born in 1983 and later) have little concern for the privacy of their data.