# data[].attributes.body
https://www.businessinsider.com/woman-lost-a-nasa-scholarship-over-a-series-of-profanity-laden-tweets-2018-8?r=UK&IR=T

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It would be ideal if schools were more focused on getting textbooks that aren't falling apart, and less focused on some photo a teacher puts on her Facebook - a photo that isn't offensive at all.

Let's talk about English teacher Lydia Ferguson, who teaches at the Ousedale School. And we need to talk about her because she was suspended because, according to the administration, shared a "sultry" and "provocative" selfie on Facebook. Ferguson was then escorted off the property.

Want to see the photo that drove her bosses up the wall? Look how shocking it is...

Oh my God, so provocative! In reality, there is nothing wrong with this photo at all.

Ferguson of course defended this photo, and the other photos she's shared on her Facebook.

Hey, as long as her grandad is OK with it, right?

Ferguson, who is 38 according to The Sun, has had a petition started by her students on her behalf called "Get Miss Ferguson Back," and it already has reeled in over 250 signatures, with some even coming from parents themselves. Going to assume they are mostly dads. Because...

Yeah.

Students have accused the school of being way too prudish. And obviously, any sane person would agree.

Here's what the lady in charge, Sue Carbert had to say:

"If we have any concerns about a staff member, this would not be discussed with students. We are aware of rumors but conclusions are being drawn which have no factual basis."

In conclusion, Carbert is no fan of Ferguson. But here's hoping Ferguson prevails.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teacher Suspended For Posting 'Sultry' Selfie On Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It would be ideal if schools were more focused on getting textbooks that aren't falling apart, and less focused on some photo a teacher puts on her Facebook - a photo that isn't offensive at all. Let's talk about English teacher Lydia Ferguson, who teaches at the Ousedale School.

# data[].attributes.body
http://mediashift.org/2008/10/teacher-fired-for-inappropriate-behavior-on-myspace-page289/

# data[].attributes.body
www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/athens-high-school-targeted-latest-social-media-shooting-threat/8MkgixusJpQIdN1LiZp7eM/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After lists of students and their test scores, readers asked whether such public displays of academic "achievement" - without parental permission - violate the federal student privacy law I wrote last week about "data walls" in public schools that often include known as FERPA (technically the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). One privacy expert says that such lists can indeed violate FERPA.

A U.S. Education Department spokeswoman says officials there are planning to issue guidance on the overall issue of student privacy soon.

School data walls are becoming ubiquitous in this school reform era in which "data-driven instruction" is promoted by policy makers who believe that the truth about student achievement and teacher effectiveness lies in data - especially test scores. With this emphasis, which has been promoted by the Obama administration, schools have encouraged teachers to create data walls to share various kinds of data. Many times, these walls include lists of students - by name, number or other identifier - along with test scores and other academic "accomplishments."

It's bad enough that such lists often humiliate kids - even as young as kindergartners - who find their accomplishments, or, rather, lack of them, posted on a wall for all to see, but without parental permission, these displays can violate FERPA, a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records and gives parent some rights in regard to their children's records. After a student turns 18 or attends a school beyond high school, those rights revert to the student.

Under FERPA, according to the Education Department website:

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):

*School officials with legitimate educational interest;
*Other schools to which a student is transferring;
*Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;
*Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;
*Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;
*Accrediting organizations;
*To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;
*Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and
*State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them. Schools must notify parents and eligible students annually of their rights under FERPA. The actual means of notification (special letter, inclusion in a PTA bulletin, student handbook, or newspaper article) is left to the discretion of each school.

It doesn't seem like there is a lot of room for a K-12 test score list that identifies students and is posted without parental permission in that information.

Khaliah Barnes, director of the Student Privacy Project and administrative law counsel for the non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center, said in an e-mail:

If a school posts a student's name and test score without obtaining student (or parental consent), that violates FERPA. If a school posts a student ID number and test score, without student consent, that may violate FERPA if that student ID number is publicly linked to a specific student (e.g., if the student ID is displayed on a student badge).

When I asked the Education Department, spokeswoman Dorie Nolt replied in an e-mail:

Technology moves quickly, and we are working with schools and districts to address the ever changing landscape of new learning resources. The U.S. Department of Education believes that the benefits of technological advancement for students can't be a trade-off with the security and privacy of our children. The federal student privacy law known as FERPA has always maintained that student data isn't for sale and is for education purposes only. We will issue guidance for school and districts addressing this topic soon.

It should be pointed out that the guidance isn't actually about data walls but about student privacy issues.

My earlier post quoted from a story published in In These Times, that included an interview with Agustin Morales, an English teacher at Maurice A. Donahue Elementary School in Holyoke, who felt pressure from administrators to create a data wall but felt they were mean. The story said:

One of his top students did poorly on a standardized test in November and found her name at the bottom of the data wall. Afterward, in a writing assignment for class, she "wrote about how sad she was, how depressed she was because she'd scored negatively on it. She felt stupid."

You'd think that should be enough to get rid of lists that have the powerful potential to hurt kids. But since it isn't, maybe the Education Department can address this issue along with other student privacy issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How some school 'data walls' violate U.S. privacy law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After lists of students and their test scores, readers asked whether such public displays of academic "achievement" - without parental permission - violate the federal student privacy law I wrote last week about "data walls" in public schools that often include known as FERPA (technically the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BETHEL PARK, Pa. - The Bethel Park School District did not comment Thursday regarding a tweet that a teacher sent out about his students' performance on a test.

According to Channel 11's news exchange partners at TribLIVE, the tweet included violent language from "Firefly," a canceled show on FOX TV.

The tweet was allegedly sent by Christopher Tobias, a German teacher at Bethel Park High School.

"Do I tell my class the test scores didn't just (deleted) the pooch, they (deleted) it to death, ate its flesh and sewed its fur into their clothing?" he wrote, according to TribLIVE.

Tobias deleted the tweet once it had been online for about seven hours and an anonymous person complained to the school district.

Tobias also complained on Twitter that his First Amendment rights were being violated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bethel Park teacher allegedly sends profane tweet about...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BETHEL PARK, Pa. - The Bethel Park School District did not comment Thursday regarding a tweet that a teacher sent out about his students' performance on a test. According to Channel 11's news exchange partners at TribLIVE, the tweet included violent language from "Firefly," a canceled show on FOX TV.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeffrey Province, 13, claims he saw teacher Thomas Yohn watching porn

Province said he told the principal about it before Yohn confronted him

Fellow student filmed as Yohn shouted at Province in front of other pupils

Province's mother admits her son has had problems with teacher in the past, but said his rant at the boy is still inappropriate

School officials are investigating, but say no trace of porn has been found

A school board in West Virginia is investigating after a teacher was recorded shouting at a student after the pupil claimed to have witnessed the instructor watching porn on his laptop.

Jeffrey Province, 13, a sixth grade student at East Bank Middle School, claims that he saw teacher Thomas Yohn watching adult material in his math classroom on Tuesday.

Province said he reported what he saw to the school principal before Yohn burst into his English lesson later the same day before launching into an angry rant that was caught on camera.

In the footage, shot by another student on his cell phone and handed to WOWK-TV, Yohn says: 'Next time you open your big stinking mouth pal I will write you up and send you to the office for coming into my room without permission, is that clear?

'What I watch as an adult is my choice, you as a child will wait in the hall until you're invited into my room, is that clear?

'I'm not putting up with this and he tried to blackmail me! He said "Oh Mister Yohn," he said "I'm going to get an A this quarter or I'm going to tell that you're watching inappropriate things on TV and I saw it."'

Province's mother Carmelene Short admits that he son has had problems with Yohn already this year, and says the boy is 'no saint.'

But she added that she is angry Yohn was allowed to shout at her son, and that the English teacher allowed him to interrupt her class for the berating to take place.

Short told Huffington Post that she only found out about the incident via social media after the video was posted to Facebook, and is angry that the school did not inform her themselves.

School principal Mike Wilkinson said that Yohn is not longer in the building, but would not confirm whether he has been officially suspended.

He added that Yohn's computer was seized and no evidence of him watching porn was found on the device, but said the investigation is still ongoing.

Short said that according to her son, the video in question featured a man and two women discussing a threesome, but does not believe her son witnessed sexual activity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student claims he found teacher watching porn before row broke out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeffrey Province, 13, claims he saw teacher Thomas Yohn watching porn Province said he told the principal about it before Yohn confronted him Fellow student filmed as Yohn shouted at Province in front of other pupils Province's mother admits her son has had problems with teacher in the past, but

# data[].attributes.body
http://theconversation.com/can-schools-punish-students-for-off-campus-online-speech-52466

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeffrey Province, 13, claims he saw teacher Thomas Yohn watching porn

Province said he told the principal about it before Yohn confronted him

Fellow student filmed as Yohn shouted at Province in front of other pupils

Province's mother admits her son has had problems with teacher in the past, but said his rant at the boy is still inappropriate

School officials are investigating, but say no trace of porn has been found

A school board in West Virginia is investigating after a teacher was recorded shouting at a student after the pupil claimed to have witnessed the instructor watching porn on his laptop.

Jeffrey Province, 13, a sixth grade student at East Bank Middle School, claims that he saw teacher Thomas Yohn watching adult material in his math classroom on Tuesday.

Province said he reported what he saw to the school principal before Yohn burst into his English lesson later the same day before launching into an angry rant that was caught on camera.

In the footage, shot by another student on his cell phone and handed to WOWK-TV, Yohn says: 'Next time you open your big stinking mouth pal I will write you up and send you to the office for coming into my room without permission, is that clear?

'What I watch as an adult is my choice, you as a child will wait in the hall until you're invited into my room, is that clear?

'I'm not putting up with this and he tried to blackmail me! He said "Oh Mister Yohn," he said "I'm going to get an A this quarter or I'm going to tell that you're watching inappropriate things on TV and I saw it."'

Province's mother Carmelene Short admits that he son has had problems with Yohn already this year, and says the boy is 'no saint.'

But she added that she is angry Yohn was allowed to shout at her son, and that the English teacher allowed him to interrupt her class for the berating to take place.

Short told Huffington Post that she only found out about the incident via social media after the video was posted to Facebook, and is angry that the school did not inform her themselves.

School principal Mike Wilkinson said that Yohn is not longer in the building, but would not confirm whether he has been officially suspended.

He added that Yohn's computer was seized and no evidence of him watching porn was found on the device, but said the investigation is still ongoing.

Short said that according to her son, the video in question featured a man and two women discussing a threesome, but does not believe her son witnessed sexual activity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student claims he found teacher watching porn before row broke out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeffrey Province, 13, claims he saw teacher Thomas Yohn watching porn Province said he told the principal about it before Yohn confronted him Fellow student filmed as Yohn shouted at Province in front of other pupils Province's mother admits her son has had problems with teacher in the past, but

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A school board in Tennessee is being accused of violating the constitutional rights of students over a policy that allows school officials to search any electronic devices students bring to campus and to monitor and control what students post on social media sites.

The broadly written policy also allows schools to monitor any communications sent through or stored on school networks, which would essentially allow the school to read the content of stored and transmitted email.

The policy (.pdf) is intended to "protect students and adults from obscene information," "restrict access to materials that are harmful to minors" and help secure the school's network from malware.

But parts of the policy are so broadly written, they constitute clear violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They say the policy oversteps the school's authority and exhibits "a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional rights" of students.

Disciplinary actions for failing to follow the rules are also problematic, the groups say. Under the policy, failure to comply can result in "loss of network privileges, confiscation of computer equipment, suspension ... and/or criminal prosecution."

>The Tennessee policy would allow authorities to seize and search a device for no compelling reason.

The groups note that denying students access to school computers and networks that are needed for their education essentially denies them the right to an equivalent education that other students obtain. Requiring students to sign an agreement essentially waiving their constitutional rights is also not permissible.

The two groups sent a letter (.pdf) today to the Williamson County Board of Education after parent Daniel Pomerantz complained that he was forced to agree to the policy. He initially refused to sign the policy at the start of the school semester, but relented after the school prohibited his 5-year-old daughter from using the computers at Nolensville Elementary School without the agreement.

"The first time they were using the computers [in her classroom], they told her she had to go sit aside and do something else and she started to cry and complain," Pomerantz told WIRED. "It was not a pleasant experience as a family. They told her it was all because of me, that [because] I wouldn't do this was why she couldn't learn on computers with all the other students."

There are 41 schools in the Williamson school district, and the policy affects all 35,000 students.

The policy contains a number of points that on their face seem designed to protect the privacy and safety of students. For example, students must provide consent before their photo, name or work can be posted on a school web site or in a school publication. Students are also required to report any "electronically transmitted attacks" made by others.

But the sections pertaining to the school's Bring Your Own Technology policy and other parts go too far, the civil liberties groups say. Students in grades three through twelve are allowed to bring their own electronic devices to school-smartphones, laptops, tablet computers, and eReaders-as long as they're used for educational instruction purposes and the students use only the school's Wi-Fi network to access the internet with the devices. Students in classes below the third grade are not allowed to bring computers, but are provided computers in class and still need to have their parents sign the agreement.

In the case of students who do bring devices to school, the policy allows the school to collect and examine any of the devices at any time for purposes of enforcing the policy, investigating student discipline issues, and "for any other school-related purpose," a term not clearly defined in the policy. This would essentially force students to submit to "suspicionless searches" of their property.

>The policy also gives school officials authority to determine if a student's off-campus speech is "inappropriate."

Courts have ruled that a school can conduct a search when there are reasonable grounds to suspect a student has broken the law or the rules of the school and when the search is narrowly tailored and conducted for a compelling purpose, such as deterring drug sales and use on campus. But the Tennessee policy would allow authorities to seize and search a device for no compelling reason. Searches, particularly of smartphones, can contain a lot of private and sensitive information not only about a student but about his or her family, opening students to embarrassment. The policy, however, does not define a "school-related purpose" nor does it specify whether authorities can extract data from the phone or how extracted data can be used.

Under the policy's rules for using social media, students are not permitted to post any photos of other students or employees of the school district without permission from a teacher. But the policy also gives school officials authority to determine if a student's off-campus speech is "inappropriate."

"Personal social media use, including use outside the school day, has the potential to result in disruption in the classroom," the policy notes. "Students are subject to consequences for inappropriate, unauthorized, and illegal use of social media."

But this policy amounts to prior restraint of speech by "allowing school officials to censor student speech in and out of school," the ACLU of Tennessee and EFF note. The groups cite a Third Circuit Court ruling from 2011 that found that a school did not have the authority to punish a student for creating an off-campus MySpace profile of his principal that was considered lewd and offensive.

A section of the policy that pertains to network security provides that the school can monitor all network activity, and that student email accounts "are filtered for content and monitored by authorized personnel." Furthermore, it says that a "mobile device management (MDM) client may be installed on their personal device for the purpose of managing the device while on the WCS network."

>"We want the schools to recognize that there are limits on their powers to search or monitor."

This policy incorrectly assumes that "students have no reasonable expectation of privacy to data and communicates stored on or transmitted" through the school's network, the civil liberties groups say. They cite a 2006 ruling involving a woman in the Navy, which found she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails she sent over a government server even though a banner advised her that she had no expectation of privacy and that her use of the government network was subject to monitoring.

Tom Castelli, legal director for the ACLU of Tennessee, says it's possible the school district didn't intend to over-reach and just made a mistake.

"We hope this was just a case of they wanted to create a comprehensive policy and what they inadvertently created was something that covers more than maybe they intended," he told WIRED. "That's our hope that once we bring it to their attention that they'll work with us to create a policy that fits what they need [while] not infringing on the rights of the students...We want the schools to recognize that there are limits on their powers to search or monitor...so they're not thinking it's okay to do these things."

Castelli went on: "We want to nip an infringement in the bud before it happens."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ACLU Calls Schools' Policy to Search Devices and 'Approve' Kids' Web Posts Unconstitutional

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A school board in Tennessee is being accused of violating the constitutional rights of students over a policy that allows school officials to search any electronic devices students bring to campus and to monitor and control what students post on social media sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The truth is, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The internet is so woven into our lives, we need to be aware of the worst-case scenarios that can strike when we're unprepared. Below are a few of those scary things that can and do happen. But with some eyes and ears to the ground, they are totally preventable.

Your kid could be spied on.

Smart toys including My Friend Cayla, Hello Barbie, and CloudPets are designed to learn and grow with your kid. Cool, right? Unfortunately, many of these toys have privacy problems. As the 2015 data breach of Vtech's InnoTab Max uncovered, hackers specifically target kids because they offer clean credit histories and unused Social Security numbers that they can use for identity theft. These toys also collect a lot of information about your kid, and they aren't always clear about when they do it and how they use it.

Protect yourself. Make sure you buy a toy that has a good privacy policy that you understand. Only provide required information, not the optional stuff they ask for, and turn off the toy when it's not being used.

Your kid could get accused of a crime.

Everyone has the right to privacy, especially in their own home. But home assistants such as Amazon Alexa, Google Home, and Mattel Aristotle are designed to butt their noses into conversations. These devices collect -- and store -- untold amounts of data. It's unclear what the companies do with the extraneous "noise" they pick up. And if it's subpoenaed, they might have to hand it over.

Say your kid jokes about terrorism or something else illegal; if there's an investigation into those activities, the companies might have to cough up the transcripts. In Arkansas, a prosecutor asked for a murder suspect's Echo smart speaker in case its information could shed light on the crime. The suspect agreed to hand over the recordings, and Amazon was compelled to make them available.

Protect yourself. Turn off your home assistant's microphone when you're not using it. You also can prune your data in your devices' app settings, deleting stuff you don't want to store on your phone or in the companies' cloud servers. Or choose not to use a home assistant until the privacy regulations are ironed out.

Your kid could get hurt.

With location-aware social media such as Twitter, Kik, and Facebook, kids can reveal their actual, physical locations to all their contacts -- plenty of whom they don't know personally. Imagine a selfie that's location-tagged and says, "Bored, by myself, just hanging out looking for something fun to do."

Protect yourself. Turn off location sharing on your kids' devices, both in the phone settings and in the apps they use, so their status updates and photos are not automatically tagged with their locations. Make sure your kids never tell strangers their address, their school name, where they hang out, or where they're going to be. Teach kids to choose "no" when asked to share their locations.

Your kid could lose out on opportunities.

Posting wild and crazy pics from prom '17 paints a picture for potential admissions counselors, hiring managers, and others whom teens want to impress. They may not care that your kid partied -- only that he showed poor judgment in posting compromising images.

Protect yourself. Tell your kid not to share photos of questionable activities on the internet. If those kinds of photos do wind up online, tell your kid to ask his or her friends either to take them down or not to tag them so the photos can't be traced back. And remember to model responsible online sharing; don't share photos of your kid without asking permission, and share them with a limited audience -- for example, only grandparents.

Your kid could be sold short.

Schools are increasingly using software from third-party providers to teach, diagnose potential learning issues, and interact with students. This software includes online learning lessons, standardized tests, and 1:1 device programs. And the companies that administer the programs are typically allowed to collect, store, and sell your kids' performance records.

Wondering about all those offers for supplemental reading classes you're receiving in the mail? Maybe your kid stumbled on her reading assessments -- and marketers are trying to sell you "solutions." Curious why Harvard isn't trying to recruit your kid? Maybe they already decided she's not Ivy League material based on her middle school grades. ( Learn about our Student Privacy Initiative.)

Protect yourself. If you know that your kid is going to be using third-party programs at school, find out what the software opts them into and what they can opt out of. Tell your kid to only supply required, not optional, information. If you have the time (and the stomach for it), you could read through the privacy policies of all the software your kid uses at school. Otherwise, talk to the principal about how the school vets companies' policies. If you're not satisfied, raise the issue with other parents (say, at the PTA meeting) to learn how your school can do more to protect student privacy.

Your kid could be limited.

As schools automate procedures, they create student records with sensitive -- and potentially damaging -- information. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), schools are allowed to share certain information without getting parents' consents. That means that an individual education plan (IEP), attendance records, a disciplinary record, prescribed medication, or even a high body mass index could be disclosed and used to unfairly disqualify your kid from opportunities, such as advanced classes, government services, or special schools.

Protect yourself. Schools are required to send parents information on how they handle student privacy. Find out what information your school collects, how it's stored, who gets to see it, and what future administrators are allowed to do with it. Under FERPA, you have the right to request, correct, or add an amendment to your kid's records through your district's educational department.

Your kid could be humiliated.

Sharing fun stuff from your life with friends is fine. But oversharing is never a good idea. When kids post inappropriate material -- whether it's a sexy selfie, an explicit photo session with a friend, an overly revealing rant, or cruel comments about others -- the results can be humiliating if those posts become public or shared widely.

Protect yourself. Talk to your kids about keeping private things private, considering how far information can travel and how long it can last, and how they can talk to their friends about respecting one another's personal privacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why you should protect your child's online privacy - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why you should protect your child's online privacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The truth is, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The internet is so woven into our lives, we need to be aware of the worst-case scenarios that can strike when we're unprepared. Below are a few of those scary things that can and do happen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nat wrote, "It's censorship, plain and simple, when you can't access more than a handful of news sites and some purely educational, not opinion-based sites."

Most students agreed with that sentiment.

Gheff wrote: "Just recently I was doing a project on Super Smash Bros. and its history for web design. I could not even get to the REAL website which gives information from the creator and what will happen next with the game. For this I had to change my topic to something I was not really wanting to learn more on."

Olivia added, "The other day I was researching birth control for my health class and it took me way longer than it should have to complete my essay because the web filter wouldn't let me open any websites including Planned Parenthood."

Tyler wrote, "It's too much when I can't even go on an informal website talking about breast cancer or sexual abuse because they have the words 'breast' or 'sexual'."

In a statement about Banned Websites Awareness Day, the American Association of School Librarians, a division of the American Library Association, includes the following background:

Usually the public thinks of censorship in relation to books, however there is a growing censorship issue in schools and school libraries - overly restrictive filtering of educational websites reaching far beyond the requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Students, teachers, and school librarians in many schools are frustrated daily when they discover legitimate educational websites blocked by filtering software installed by their school.

Filtering websites does the next generation of digital citizens a disservice. Students must develop skills to evaluate information from all types of sources in multiple formats, including the Internet. Relying solely on filters does not teach young citizens how to be savvy searchers or how to evaluate the accuracy of information.

Over extensive filtering also extends to the use of online social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Blogger, etc. In order to make school more relevant to students and enhance their learning experiences, educators need to be able to incorporate those same social interactions that are successful outside of school into authentic assignments in the school setting. Unfortunately, filters implemented by school districts also block many of the social networking sites.

Students: We want to hear what you think. Tell us:

- What internet sites are blocked in your school and why?

- How have web filters affected teaching and learning at your school? How have they affected your experience as a student?

- Do you agree with the American Library Association that overly restrictive filtering of educational websites "does the next generation of digital citizens a disservice"? Why? If so, what would you say to your principal or school board if asked to argue for making your school's filters less restrictive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are the Web Filters at Your School Too Restrictive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nat wrote, "It's censorship, plain and simple, when you can't access more than a handful of news sites and some purely educational, not opinion-based sites." Most students agreed with that sentiment. Gheff wrote: "Just recently I was doing a project on Super Smash Bros. and its history for web design.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ted Nash realised that his gossip website had somewhat backfired when a media scrum descended upon his parents' home in rural south-west England.

Aged 19 at the time back in late 2010, and still living with his mum and dad in Somerset, Mr Nash had developed a website called Little Gossip, where schoolchildren could anonymously post news of interest to their fellow pupils.

Mr Nash, now 25, says he had the best of intentions, but things very quickly went wrong.

The website was an immediate viral hit, gaining 33,000 users in just its first hour, then hundreds of thousands across the length and breadth of the UK within a few days.

Unfortunately, at least 10% of the comments posted were malicious. And amid accusations that it was a bullying free-for-all, schools and parents were soon loudly complaining.

And Mr Nash was doorstepped by tabloid reporters and TV crews.

Mr Nash says: "My mum walked out one morning in her dressing gown to open the front gate for someone, and suddenly there were reporters asking her, 'Does Ted Nash live here?'

"She ran back inside, shouting to me, 'What have you done?'"

With the story being widely reported across national UK newspapers, and on TV, Mr Nash shut down the website a few months later.

A serial technology entrepreneur, who set up his first money-making website when he was just 12 years old, Mr Nash describes Little Gossip as "an unbelievable learning curve".

He says: "As is more often the case, I came up with the idea for the website to solve my own problems.

"At school I was always much more interested in building a company. Because of that I felt that I had missed out on a huge amount of gossip and socialising, so I thought something like Little Gossip would be very useful, and it was started with good intentions.

"Unfortunately it was a sad state of affairs that you couldn't allow some people to be anonymous [without them abusing it], and we had to close it."

'Spark'

Now chief executive of a start-up technology company called Tapdaq, which aims to help small mobile phone apps more easily grow user numbers, Mr Nash is already 13 years into a busy and eventful business career.

At 17 he made almost £3m when three million people around the world paid 99 cents to download an app he had developed called Face Rate, and then he subsequently spent 18 months helping Rupert Murdoch's UK newspaper group, News UK, develop its mobile presence.

But Mr Nash says it all started when, aged 12, and on a family holiday in Spain, he was inspired by an 18-year-old he met who had made a decent amount of money by developing an early internet search engine.

"I saw all the material items that he had, and me being 12 I wanted that as well.

"It completely set off a spark in my head, and from that point onwards I was just fascinated by technology and the impact it can have. And, of course, the money it can make.

"At that age all I could think about was buying the next toy - literally. But [as] you get older you realise that the money is not so important, and that it is a subset for building something of value for other people to use."

Returning to the UK, Mr Nash set to work on learning how to build websites, and still just 12, was successful with one of the first ones he built. Called Rediz, it was an online shopping index, with links to shopping websites.

Mr Nash was savvy enough to build up a user base, and he was soon getting paid by retailers for each customer who clicked through to their websites from his.

"I was earning the kind of money that 12-year-olds shouldn't, but I had to get my parents to sign all my contracts, because I was obviously too young."

Many of Mr Nash's other websites, including an attempt at a search engine, were far less successful.

He says: "From age 12 to 16, it was pretty much all trial and error. I built [metaphorically speaking] thousands of websites, the majority of which didn't see the light of day."

Support, advice and occasional investment along the way came from Steve Pankhurst, the founder of one-time UK social networking website Friends Reunited. Mr Nash had met Mr Pankhurst via his father.

'Billion dollar'

After Rediz, Mr Nash's next big hit was Face Rate, an app that measured - or at least tried to measure - how attractive a user was. It went viral, and Mr Nash says he "made an obscene amount of money for a kid of that age".

The ignominy of Little Gossip then followed, before Mr Nash helped the Times and Sunday Times newspapers improve their digital presence.

Mr Nash says his sole attention since 2013 has been London-based Tapdaq, which helps mobile phone apps cross-advertise on each other's platforms, thereby helping them to more easily build up user numbers. He says it has so far secured financial backing of $8m (£5.5m).

The ambitious Mr Nash has high hopes for the company, which he says "could become a multibillion-dollar business".

"For me being an entrepreneur is both a blessing and a curse," he says. "I'm always thinking [of business ideas]. It keeps me awake at night."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The teenager who sparked an internet scandal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ted Nash realised that his gossip website had somewhat backfired when a media scrum descended upon his parents' home in rural south-west England. Aged 19 at the time back in late 2010, and still living with his mum and dad in Somerset, Mr Nash had developed a website called Little Gossip, where schoolchildren could anonymously post news of interest to their fellow pupils.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
25 School Suspensions Caused by Social Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Smarten up, the Tweets (and Facebook) is watching.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many years, the Internet was the "final frontier," operating largely unregulated - in part because of the jurisdictional nightmare involved in trying to enforce laws when communications crossed not just state lines but also national boundaries. That was then; this is now. Legislation that affects the use of Internet-connected computers is springing up everywhere at the local, state and federal levels. You might be violating one of them without even knowing.

In this article, we'll take a look at some of the existing laws and some of the pending legislation that can influence how we use our computers and the Internet. Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice; this is merely an overview of some of the legislation that's out there, how it has been interpreted by the courts (if applicable), and possible implications for computer users.
Note: This article is also available as a PDF download.
1: Digital Millennium Copyright (DMCA) Act

Most computer users have heard of this law, signed in 1998 by President Clinton, implementing two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties. The DMCA makes it a criminal offense to circumvent any kind of technological copy protection - even if you don't violate anyone's copyright in doing so. In other words, simply disabling the copy protection is a federal crime.

There are some exemptions, such as circumventing copy protection of programs that are in an obsolete format for the purpose of archiving or preservation. But in most cases, using any sort of anti-DRM program is illegal. This applies to all sorts of copy-protected files, including music, movies, and software. You can read a summary of the DMCA here.

If you're a techie who likes the challenge of trying to "crack" DRM, be aware that doing so - even if you don't make or distribute illegal copies of the copyrighted material - is against the law.

2: No Electronic Theft (NET) Act

This is another U.S. federal law that was passed during the Clinton administration. Prior to this act, copyright violations were generally treated as civil matters and could not be prosecuted criminally unless it was done for commercial purposes. The NET Act made copyright infringement itself a federal criminal offense, regardless of whether you circumvent copy-protection technology and whether you derive any commercial benefit or monetary gain. Thus, just making a copy of a copyrighted work for a friend now makes you subject to up to five years in prison and/or up to $250,000 in fines. This is the law referred to in the familiar "FBI Warning" that appears at the beginning of most DVD movies. You can read more about the NET Act here.

Many people who consider themselves upstanding citizens and who would never post music and movies to a P2P site think nothing of burning a copy of a song or TV show for a friend. Unfortunately, by the letter of the law, the latter is just as illegal as the former.

3: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

This treaty is still in negotiation between the United States, European Commission, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Canada, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. The most recent round of negotiations took place in Mexico in January 2010, and the next is scheduled for April 2010 in New Zealand.

As with the DMCA, many regard the ACTA as a workaround for governments to impose regulations and penalties through international treaties that they would not be able to pass into law through their regular legislative processes. ACTA covers a number of areas, including counterfeit products and generic medicines, but the part that affects computer users is the chapter titled "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights."

Although the treaty negotiations are conducted in secret, a leaked document indicated that one provision in the treaty would force ISPs to give information about customers suspected of copyright infringement without requiring a warrant. According to reports, another provision would allow customs agents to conduct random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cell phones for illegally downloaded or ripped music and movies. Not surprisingly, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a supporter of the treaty. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposes it, as does the Free Software Foundation. You can read the EFF's stance on ACTA here.

4: Court rulings regarding border searches

Most Americans are aware of the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution's fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. In general, this means that the government cannot search your person, home, vehicle, or computer without probable cause to believe that you've engaged in some criminal act.

What many don't know is that there are quite a few circumstances that the Courts, over the years, have deemed to be exempt from this requirement. One of those occurs when you enter the United States at the border. In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of Customs officers to search laptops and other digital devices at the border (the definition of which extends to any international airport when you are coming into the country) without probable cause or even the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other groups strongly disagree with the ruling. You can read more on the EFF Web site.

Meanwhile, be aware that even though you've done nothing illegal and are not even suspected of such, the entire contents of your portable computer, PDA, or smart phone can be accessed by government agents when you enter the Unites States. So if you have anything on your hard drive that could be embarrassing, you might want to delete it before crossing the border.

5: State and federal laws regarding access to networks

Many states have criminal laws that prohibit accessing any computer or network without the owner's permission. For example, in Texas, the statute is Penal Code section 33.02, Breach of Computer Security. It says, "A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network or computer system without the effective consent of the owner." The penalty grade ranges from misdemeanor to first degree felony (which is the same grade as murder), depending on whether the person obtains benefit, harms or defrauds someone, or alters, damages, or deletes files.

The wording of most such laws encompass connecting to a wireless network without explicit permission, even if the Wi-Fi network is unsecured. The inclusion of the culpable mental state of "knowing" as an element of the offense means that if your computer automatically connects to your neighbor's wireless network instead of your own and you aren't aware of it, you haven't committed a crime. But if you decide to hop onto the nearest unencrypted Wi-Fi network to surf the Internet, knowing full well that it doesn't belong to you and no one has given you permission, you could be prosecuted under these laws.

A Michigan man was arrested for using a café's Wi-Fi network (which was reserved for customers) from his car in 2007. Similar arrests have been made in Florida, Illinois, Washington, and Alaska.

The federal law that covers unauthorized access is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, which prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access. But it applies to "protected computers," which are defined as those used by the U.S. government, by a financial institution, or used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. In addition to fines and imprisonment, penalties include forfeiture of any personal property used to commit the crime or derived from proceeds traceable to any violation. You can read the text of that section here.

In a recent case regarding unauthorized access, a high profile lawsuit was filed against a school district in Pennsylvania by students who alleged that district personnel activated their school-issued laptops in their homes and spied on them with the laptops' webcams. The FBI is investigating to determine whether any criminal laws were broken. Because the school district owned the computers, there is controversy over whether they had the right to remotely access them without the permission of the users.

6: "Tools of a crime" laws

Some states have laws that make it a crime to possess a "criminal instrument" or the "tool of a crime." Depending on the wording of the law, this can be construed to mean any device that is designed or adapted for use in the commission of an offense. This means you could be arrested and prosecuted, for example, for constructing a high gain wireless antenna for the purpose of tapping into someone else's Wi-Fi network, even if you never did in fact access a network. Several years ago, a California sheriff's deputy made the news when he declared Pringles can antennas illegal under such a statute.

7: Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying laws

Stalking is a serious crime and certainly all of us are in favor of laws that punish stalkers. As Internet connectivity has become ubiquitous, legislatures have recognized that it's possible to stalk someone from afar using modern technology. Some of the "cyberstalking" laws enacted by the states, however, contain some pretty broad language.

For example, the Arkansas law contains a section titled "Unlawful computerized communications" that makes it a crime to send a message via email or other computerized communication system (Instant Messenger, Web chat, IRC, etc.) that uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, with the intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass another person. Some of the lively discussions on mailing lists and Web boards that deteriorate into flame wars could easily fall under that definition. Or how about the furious email letter you sent to the company that refused to refund your money for the shoddy product you bought?

Closely related are the laws against cyberbullying. Such laws have been passed by some states and local governments. In April 2009, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (H.R. 1966) was introduced in the U.S. Congress. The act would make it a federal crime to "intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior." Subcommittee hearings have been held and the bill is continuing through the legislative process.

Opponents of the proposed law point out that the language is open to interpretation, and could be construed to apply to someone who merely gets into heated discussions on a web board or email list. The best policy is to watch your language when sending any type of electronic communications. Not only can a loss of temper when you're online come back to embarrass you, it could even get you thrown in jail.

8: Internet gambling laws

Like to play poker online or bet on the horse races from the comfort of your home? The federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 criminalizes acceptance of funds from bettors - but what about the bettors themselves? Are they committing a crime?

Under this federal law, the answer is no, but some state laws do apply to the person placing the bet. For example, a Washington law passed in 2006 makes gambling on the Internet a felony. The King County Superior Court just recently upheld that law, although challengers have vowed to take it to the Supreme Court. Be sure to check out the state and local laws before you make that friendly online bet.

9: Child pornography laws

We all want to protect children and keep pedophiles away from them, but could you be arrested for possession of child pornography or for exposing children to pornography even though you would never voluntarily indulge in such a thing? Unfortunately, as the laws are written and enforced, the answer is "yes." In January 2007, a substitute teacher in Norwich, CT, was convicted of four felony pornography charges, although she claimed the offending pictures were the result of pop-ups and that she did not knowingly access the Web sites in question. The conviction was set aside after forensics and security experts examined her hard drive and found the school's antivirus software was out of date and the computer had no anti-spyware, firewall, or pop-up blocking technology. The teacher ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

Pornographic images of children are illegal to possess. This includes not just photographs of actual children, but also computer-generated pictures and drawings in which no real people are involved and photos of models who are of adult age but look like children. There are many ways such images can get on a computer. Viruses can infect your system and allow another person to remotely access your hard drive. Your computer can be taken over to become a bot, controlled by someone else without your knowledge. Someone can email you an illegal image. You can click a link on a non-pornographic Web site that takes you to a site where the illegal images are displayed, and they're then downloaded into your Web cache on your hard drive.

In another 2007 case, a 16-year-old was charged with possession of child pornography and got 18 months probation and over a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees, even though he passed polygraph tests in which he denied knowledge of the images and an examination of the hard drive found more than 200 infected files and no firewall.

10: Pro IP Act

Returning to the copyright front, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (Pro IP Act), which was signed into law in 2008, imposes stricter penalties for copyright infringement. It created a new position of "copyright enforcement czar" (formally called the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator) in the federal bureaucracy and gives law enforcement agents the right to seize property from copyright infringers.

This may all sound fine in theory, but when you look at the way other seizure and forfeiture laws have been applied (for instance, the ability of drug enforcement officers to seize houses, computers, cars, cash, and just about everything else that belongs to someone tagged as a suspected drug dealer - and in some cases, not returning the property even when the person is acquitted or not prosecuted), it makes many people wary. Read more about the bill here.

Some local jurisdictions have also established seizure authority for piracy. In September 2009, Victoria Espinel was appointed as the first copyright czar. She has asked for public input by March 24, 2010.

Check out 10 Things... the newsletter

Get the key facts on a wide range of technologies, techniques, strategies, and skills with the help of the concise need-to-know lists featured in TechRepublic's 10 Things newsletter, delivered every Friday. Automatically sign up today.

Related Topics:
Innovation Hardware Tech & Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 ways you might be breaking the law with your computer: UPDATED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many years, the Internet was the "final frontier," operating largely unregulated - in part because of the jurisdictional nightmare involved in trying to enforce laws when communications crossed not just state lines but also national boundaries. That was then; this is now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An email sent out Tuesday did more than just inform students about their academic status.

Students who earned a GPA below 2.0 were notified in December about their academic progress, and on Jan. 10, another email was intended to inform students about ways to improve their GPAs.

But university spokesperson Joan Todd confirmed that the university retention office sent emails to students on academic probation containing the names of other students on academic probation.

The email, Todd said, contained a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet of 59 students on academic probation for the spring semester. Next to each student's name on the list was their GPA, phone number, university email and Ball State ID number. Originally, the email was supposed to contain an attachment reminding students about upcoming academic help sessions.

"Just the contact email was supposed to go to the individual 59 students on that list," Todd said. "But what happened was that Excel spread sheet was inadvertently forwarded just to those 59 students."

The Daily News has spoken with several students on academic probation for the Spring 2017 semester who have not received the email with the attachment, however.

To comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), schools can generally not disclose "personally identifiable information from an eligible student's education records to a third party" without written consent from the eligible student.

A representative from the U.S. Department of Education's Family Policy Compliance Office confirmed with the Daily News that the distribution of the list of students and their information - although unintentional - does violate FERPA. However, specifics about what could happen next - legally or otherwise - were not available.

"I don't have an answer about the FERPA violation," Todd said. "I know the compliance office issued an apology to the students and called each of the students."

Following the accidental email attachment, Todd said the university also made phone calls to all 59 students who reportedly received the list.

"Part of the reason the phone calls were made was to suggest to [students who received the list] - encourage them - not to forward it," Todd said. "So if other students got it, it's because the students of the 59 forwarded it."

Nonetheless, Todd said the university is very apologetic about what happened and emphasized that this was a mistake.

"There is human error from time to time," Todd said. "It is very unfortunate that it happened."
This story will be updated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
University sends 'accidental email,' violates federal privacy law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An email sent out Tuesday did more than just inform students about their academic status. Students who earned a GPA below 2.0 were notified in December about their academic progress, and on Jan. 10, another email was intended to inform students about ways to improve their GPAs.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nbc26.com/news/national/bedford-teacher-on-paid-leave-after-snapchat-complaint-made-public

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teenagers love social media. Seven in 10 teens use Facebook, and more than half use Instagram, according to a 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center. Snapchat and Twitter are popular, too.

Education Week rounded up 10 such incidents that made headlines this school year.

For parents and the public, the list shows how big a problem social media can be. For teachers and school administrators, these incidents put a face on tough policy questions about monitoring students' social-media activity, demanding passwords to access students' social media accounts, and teaching digital citizenship.

In preparing this list, Education Week sought accounts from established news organizations, as well as relevant public records.

1. An Unauthorized Rap Video (YouTube)

In real life, Anthony Talvacchio is a student at New Jersey's Egg Harbor Township High. On social media, he's aspiring musician @TonyBeatz. Last fall, those two identities collided when Talvacchio posted to social media a music video that was apparently filmed inside his school, without permission, according to CBS Philly. The video features profane language, teens playing dice in the bathroom, and gestures that look like shooting guns. ( You can watch the video here. Warning: explicit language.)

2. Exposing Her School's Dirty Water (Facebook, Twitter)

The water coming out of the restroom faucets at John Glenn High School in Westland, Mich., was so yellow it looked like urine. So senior Hazel Juco used her phone to post a photo to social media.
Above: This tweet of a photo of dirty bathroom water led to a controversy at John Glenn High in Westland, Mich.
3. Posting to a Nazi Chat Group (Facebook)

4. 'Let's Shoot Up the School at Homecoming' (Instagram)

School officials determined that the post was a prank, not an actual threat. The girls were still suspended and faced possible expulsion from the school, as well as disorderly conduct charges, according to the paper. School officials declined to specify for Education Week what disciplinary action was ultimately taken against the students. A juvenile court directed both girls into a diversion program, according to the Findlay police department.

5. 'Liking' a Post Referencing a School Shooting (Instagram)
Above: The news report from WCNC-Charlotte on a controversy involving students at Bradford Preparatory who 'liked' an Instagram post.
A statement from the school said officials had "immediately engaged law enforcement" and "the students involved [in the original post] have been detained."

6. Sharing an Image of a Teacher Photoshopped to Look Like Porn (Snapchat)

The teacher involved pressed charges against the students for "posting an injurious message on the internet," according to the Meridian Star. In Mississippi, that crime is punishable by up to five years of prison and a $10,000 fine, according to the paper. The Lauderdale County deputy sheriff told Education Week the case was ultimately directed to a juvenile court, but he could provide no further updates.

7. A Nude Recording of a School Administrator (Snapchat)
Above: The news report from KBCW-San Francisco about a controversy involving a nude recording of a school administrator.
8. The Million-Dollar Lawsuit (Facebook and Twitter)

Among the text messages described by the Sun-Times: "I F-- HATE N--."

9. When the ACLU Steps In (Snapchat)

The American Civil Liberties Union got involved, arguing that suspensions were unfair because the students did not include threats or personal attacks, made the post off campus and after school hours, and did not violate the privacy of the student who had originally written the problematic text messages, Cleveland.com reported.

10. Students Push Back Against Offensive Posts (Instagram)

"Having a sister with Down syndrome, this kind of stuff hits me on a personal level and I don't stand by it in any way," Naposki-Abdalah told the TV station.

The student behind the offensive posts was suspended, according to Fox 61.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Social Media Controversies That Landed Students in Trouble This School Year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teenagers love social media. Seven in 10 teens use Facebook, and more than half use Instagram, according to a 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center. Snapchat and Twitter are popular, too. Education Week rounded up 10 such incidents that made headlines this school year.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.craveonline.com/mandatory/1240299-teacher-suspended-posting-sultry-selfie-facebook

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/health/internet-safety-kids-social-media-parents/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facebook users take note: If you want to keep your job, you're better off doing your job-related griping offline.

Massachusetts high school teacher June Talvitie-Siple learned the hard way that a Facebook wall is probably not the best place to spout off about the students and parents in her community.

Talvitie-Siple, a supervisor of the high school math and science program in Cohasset, Mass., was forced to resign this week after parents spotted Facebook comments she wrote describing students as "germ bags" and parents as "snobby" and "arrogant."

Two parents in the community alerted the school superintendent after noticing the posts on her Facebook wall, Talvitie-Siple said. The superintendent, who was on vacation overseas, sent an e-mailing asking her to resign.

"She did what was probably the most appropriate thing to do," Talvitie-Siple told ABCNews.com. "I embarrassed her, I embarrassed the school district and, you know, if I were her, I probably would have done the same thing. It was not a surprise."

The 54-year-old teacher said she thought her posts would only be visible to her friends and didn't realize that her Facebook settings made the comments visible to others on the Internet.

In one of the posts, she said, she joked to her friends that students were "germ bags" because she was so tired of catching illnesses from school kids. She said had been sick for six months, and every time she started to recover she would get another bug from a student.

Teacher: Facebook Posts Grew Out of Frustration

"I was on my third round of antibiotics and I just basically said, 'Oh my goodness, I remember now why I got out of teaching,'"she said. "It actually is a fact that at one point I was so sick that I decided that I don't have a strong constitution for upper respiratory infections, so I went into another aspect of education to get away from that."

"When I took this job, I knew I was risking the possibility that I would be exposed to kids again in a concentrated form and that I might get sick. And, sure enough, I ended the year with pneumonia."

The comment about the parents stemmed from "political activity" between the teachers' union, the administrators, the school committee and parents, she said.

"It's caused a very stressful year for every administrator, not just me. And it's made it a very caustic place to work," Talvitie-Siple said. "[It's] a product of a lot of frustration and angst about whether I should leave or not."

After writing on Facebook "I'm so not looking forward to another year at Cohasset Schools," she added that the community was "arrogant" and "snobby."

"I made a stupid mistake, it may have cost me my career," she said.

Talvitie-Siple said she's adjusted her Facebook settings and hopes her experience can be a lesson for others.

"I take full responsibility for my stupidity and I hope it serves as an example to kids that they need to be very, very vigilant about their privacy," she said.

If nothing else, Talvitie-Siple can take heart in the fact that she's not the first to get fired for a Facebook faux pas.

Earlier this year, a sociology professor at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania, said she was suspended after updating her Facebook status with complaints about work that alluded to violence.

Employers Want to Control Their Online Image

In January, Gloria Gadsden wrote: "Does anyone know where I can find a very discrete hitman? Yes, it's been that kind of day?" Then in February: "had a good day today. DIDN'T want to kill even one student. :-). Now Friday was a different story."

Gadsden said she posted the comments in jest, on a profile she thought could only be seen by friends and family. She says officials were notified of the posts by a student -- even though she says she had no students in her "friend" list.

She said she just venting after a bad day, but university officals were unhappy about the allusions to violence and even referenced a recent shooting spree at the Univerisyt Alabama-Huntsville.

Experts say that online venting sessions can harm a worker's career because employers not only want to control their online image but area also vulnerable to hurt pride.

"When you badmouth your boss and the boss is hearing, whether you're doing it online or at the coffee maker, the boss isn't going to be happy," says Jonathan Ezor, assistant professor of Law and Technology at Touro Law Center in Central Islip, N.Y. "The fact that it's online makes it more easily findable and have a broader potential impact."

Obscenities Draw Attention

The comments that provoke employers into action usually contain obscenities or exaggerations that could hurt relations with customers.

Last year, for example, Dan Leone, a stadium worker for the Philadelphia Eagles, was fired after he reacted with an online obscenity to news that one of the Eagles' star players was leaving to join the Denver Broncos.

"Dan is [deleted] devastated about Dawkins signing with Denver. Dam Eagles R Retarted," was the comment that cost Leone his job.

Although he later apologized and tried to get his job back, his employer wouldn't budge.

''If you know your boss is online, or anyone close to your boss is online, don't be making comments that can be detrimental to your employment,'' Leone told The New York Times after the incident.

Virgin Workers Fired

In the U.K., Virgin Atlantic Airlines fired 13 cabin crew members after they made fun of passengers in their postings and quipped about defective engines.

The discount airline, owned by Sir Richard Branson, told The Guardian at the time that the postings were "totally inappropriate" and "brought the company into disrepute."

Social media mavens can even get in trouble before they've been hired. Remember the case of the Cisco fatty that went viral last year?

Cisco Fatty's Lost Opportunity

One Twitter user posted an update last year saying "Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work."

A Cisco employee responded, "Who is the hiring manager? I'm sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the Web."

Needless to say, the applicant did not end up working at Cisco.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Germ Bags': Teacher Loses Job Over FB Posts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook users take note: If you want to keep your job, you're better off doing your job-related griping offline. Massachusetts high school teacher June Talvitie-Siple learned the hard way that a Facebook wall is probably not the best place to spout off about the students and parents in her community.

# data[].attributes.body
Erika Paredes

# data[].attributes.body
Rima

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last month, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Education held a workshop in Washington, DC. The topic was "Student Privacy and Ed Tech." We at EFF have been trying to get the FTC to focus on the privacy risks of educational technology (or "ed tech") for over two years, so we eagerly filed formal comments.

We've long been concerned about how technology impacts student privacy. As schools and classrooms become increasingly wired, and as schools put more digital devices and services in the hands of students, we've been contacted by a large number of concerned students, parents, teachers, and even administrators.

They want to know: What data are ed tech providers collecting about our kids? How are they using it? How well do they disclose (if at all) the scope of their data collection? How much control (if any) do they give to schools and parents over the retention and use of the data they collect? Do they even attempt to obtain parental consent before collecting and using incredibly sensitive student data?

In the spring of 2017, we released the results of a survey that we conducted in order to plumb the depths of the confusion surrounding ed tech. And as it turns out, students, parents, teachers, and even administrators have lots of concerns-and very little clarity-over how ed tech providers protect student privacy.

Drawing from the results of our survey, our comments to the FTC and DOE touched on a broad set of concerns:

The FTC has ignored our student privacy complaint against Google. Despite signing a supposedly binding commitment to refrain from collecting student data without parental consent beyond that needed for school purposes, Google openly harvests student search and browsing behavior, and uses that data for its own purposes. We filed a formal complaint with the FTC more than two years ago but have heard nothing back.

There is a consistent lack of transparency in ed tech privacy policies and practices. Schools issue devices to students without their parents' knowledge and consent. Parents are kept in the dark about what apps their kids are required to use and what data is being collected.

The investigative burden too often falls on students and parents. With no notice or help from schools, the investigative burden falls on parents and even students to understand the privacy implications of the technology students are using.

Data use concerns are unresolved. Parents have extensive concerns about student data collection, retention, and sharing. Many ed tech products and services have weak privacy policies. For instance, it took the lawyers at EFF months to get a clear picture of which privacy policies even applied to Google's student offerings, much less how they interacted.

Lack of choice in ed tech is the norm. Parents who seek to opt their children out of device or software use face many hurdles, particularly those without the resources to provide their own alternatives. Some districts have even threatened to penalize students whose parents refuse to consent to what they believe are egregious ed tech privacy policies and practices.

Overreliance on "privacy by policy." School districts generally rely on the privacy policies of ed tech companies to ensure student data protection. Parents and students, on the other hand, want concrete evidence that student data is protected in practice as well as in policy.

There is an unfilled need for better privacy training and education. Both students and teachers want better training in privacy-conscious technology use. Ed tech providers aren't fulfilling their obligations to schools when they fail to provide even rudimentary privacy training.

Ed tech vendors treat existing privacy law as if it doesn't apply to them. Because the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") generally prohibits school districts from sharing student information with third parties without written parental consent, districts often characterize ed tech companies as "school officials." However, districts may only do so if-among other things-providers give districts or schools direct control over all student data and refrain from using that data for any other purpose. Despite the fact that current ed tech offerings generally fail those criteria, vendors generally don't even attempt to obtain parental consent.

We believe it is incumbent upon school districts to fully understand the data and privacy policies and practices of the ed tech products and services they wish to use, demand that ed tech vendors assent to contract terms that are favorable to the school districts and actually protect student privacy, and be ready not to do business with a company who does not engage in robust privacy practices.

While we understand that school budgets are often tight and that technology can actually enhance the learning experience, we urge regulators, school districts, and the ed tech companies themselves to make student privacy a priority. We hope the FTC and DOE listen to what we, and countless concerned students, parents, and teachers, have to say.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Time to Make Student Privacy a Priority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last month, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Education held a workshop in Washington, DC. The topic was "Student Privacy and Ed Tech." We at EFF have been trying to get the FTC to focus on the privacy risks of educational technology (or "ed tech") for over two years, so we...

# data[].attributes.body
https://patch.com/illinois/downersgrove/bp--has-cyber-bullying-gone-too-far-administrators-at03f95ac484

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
David Lim | Published 06/15/15 5:36pm
Security video footage of a public school should remain classified as an educational record under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Judge Michele Christiansen of the Utah Court of Appeals ruled May 29.

Roger Bryner, the father of a child who attended Butler Middle School, requested a recording of the security camera's video from October 1, 2012. The footage allegedly showed an altercation that his child was involved in.

The Utah Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's initial ruling saying that Bryner could pay $120 within 10 days of the ruling to the school district to have the video redacted to only contain footage of his son, in order to comply with FERPA. The district would then have 15 days to deliver the redacted video.

Christiansen wrote that the court viewed FERPA as being broad in scope, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe and other rulings.

"Nothing in the plain language of the statute limits the application of FERPA to only academic records," Christiansen said.

The students in the video who were involved with the altercation had their images represented in the security video recording, and therefore the video constitutes part of their educational records. As a result, Christiansen wrote, the video is subject to FERPA protections.

Bryner argued that the video was not maintained by administrators or educators and therefore could not be considered an educational record, but the judge disagreed.

"FERPA requires only that the record be maintained by or on behalf of an educational agency, not that educators themselves maintain the records or review them," Christiansen said.

In response to a similar situation in Ohio regarding school bus cameras, Student Press Law Center Executive Director Frank LoMonte argued the security footage was not covered by FERPA because, among other reasons, the video did not pertain to the educational performance of the students involved.

LoMonte said the Department of Education needs to further define what FERPA is intended to protect.

"Clarification is badly needed, because the Department unhelpfully muddied the issue in a February 2004 letter ruling that said a parent could not view a school surveillance tape of a fight if the tape showed any kids fighting other than her own," he said. "Try saying with a straight face: 'A parent does not have a right to know who beat up her child because we wouldn't want to violate the attacker's privacy.'"
Tagged: Bryner, Butler Middle School, Christiansen, FERPA, news, recent-news, Security video, Utah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Judge rules school security videos subject to FERPA protections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
David Lim | Published 06/15/15 5:36pmSecurity video footage of a public school should remain classified as an educational record under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Judge Michele Christiansen of the Utah Court of Appeals ruled May 29.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The South Hadley case is leading some states to re-examine their laws against bullying; while more than 40 states address the issue, they tend to focus on punishment, not prevention.

Mr. Jenkins this year began using lessons from Common Sense Media, which cautions students to consider their online behavior before they get into trouble.

Financed largely by foundation money, Common Sense will offer a free curriculum to schools this fall that teaches students how to behave online. New York City and Omaha have decided to offer it; Denver, the District of Columbia, Florida, Los Angeles, Maine and Virginia are considering it.

"You want to light a fire under someone's fanny?" said Liz Perle, editor in chief of Common Sense Media. "Have your child post something that is close to a hate crime."

And the Internet is where children are growing up. The average young person spends seven and a half hours a day with a computer, television or smart phone, according to a January study from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Considering that the time is mostly outside of school, the results suggest that almost every extracurricular hour is devoted to online life.

Common Sense's classes, based on research by Howard Gardner, a Harvard psychology and education professor, are grouped into topics he calls "ethical fault lines": identity (how do you present yourself online?); privacy (the world can see everything you write); ownership (plagiarism, reproducing creative work); credibility (legitimate sources of information); and community (interacting with others).

Raquel Kusunoki, a sixth-grade teacher at Spangler, recently asked Mr. Jenkins, now an educational technology specialist for the school district, to teach Common Sense classes to her students. The class listened as Mr. Jenkins read a story about a girl who got annoyed when her parents quizzed her about details from her online journal.

Lucas Navarrete, 13, asked, "What's their right to read her personal stuff?"

"Maybe they're worried," suggested Morgan Windham, a soft-spoken girl.

"It's public!" argued Aren Santos.

"O.K., O.K., if it was a personal diary and they read it, would you be happy?" Lucas asked. "They have no right, see?"

Mr. Jenkins asked the class if there is a difference between a private diary on paper and a public online diary. But the class could not agree.

"I would just keep it to myself and tell only people that were really, really close to me," Cindy Nguyen said after class. "We want to have our personal, private space."

That blurred line between public and private space is what Common Sense tries to address.

"That sense of invulnerability that high school students tend to have, thinking they can control everything, before the Internet there may have been some truth to that," said Ted Brodheim, chief information officer for the New York City Department of Education. "I don't think they fully grasp that when they make some of these decisions, it's not something they can pull back from."

Common Sense bases all its case studies on real life, and insists on the students' participation. "If you just stand up and deliver a lecture on intellectual property, it has no meaning for the kids," said Constance M. Yowell, director of education for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which has provided financing.

But some media experts say that in focusing on social issues, Common Sense misses some of the larger, structural problems facing children online.

"We can't make the awareness of Web issues solely person- and relationship-centered," said Joseph Turow, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Children should learn things like what a cookie or a Web virus is, and how corporations profit from tracking consumers online, he said.

In San Francisco, the Schools of the Sacred Heart, related boys' and girls' schools, met with parents earlier this year to discuss their Common Sense pilot program with Sister Anne Wachter, the head of the girls' school.

"The messes they get into with friends, or jumping onto someone's site and sending a message," she said. "They don't know, sometimes, how to manage the social, emotional stuff that comes up."

Crowded into a basement math classroom, the parents listened to a teacher, Bill Jennings, discuss lessons he had been trying. In front of Sister Wachter and the parents, many of whom are Catholic, he gave an example of a social-networking message the girls might see about a new student: "Amy is a slut; her mom's a whore."

There was startled silence from the parents.

"If I came up with five scenarios for Maya, they'd probably be so far from that - they're not calling someone's mother a whore," said Sheila Chatterjee, a parent of a seventh grader.

"But the language of that is what they hear," Mr. Jennings said.

"It's authentic," Ms. Chatterjee agreed.

Shirin Oshidari, who has a son in seventh grade, said this lesson seemed obvious. "To me, it's exactly how you behave person to person," she said. "Everything you write, the college you want to go to, they will see it. And the job you want to get, they will see it."

Jaime Dominguez, the head of the boys school, said: "The hard part is, as adults we see that connection. They don't."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching About the Web Includes Troublesome Parts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The South Hadley case is leading some states to re-examine their laws against bullying; while more than 40 states address the issue, they tend to focus on punishment, not prevention. Mr. Jenkins this year began using lessons from Common Sense Media, which cautions students to consider their online behavior before they get into trouble.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/tennessee-school-boards-rights-violations/