Core Claim

Privacy in education isn't optional—it's about power. Each new layer of data collection adds to an expanding infrastructure of surveillance that shapes not only how we study and teach, but how we are governed within the academy.

When we talk about privacy, we're not talking about individual preferences or minor policy details. We're talking about who gets to see, store, and interpret our data, and who gets to decide.

The Normalization Pattern

Over the past decade, what we're seeing is a normalization of surveillance across K-12 and higher education:

• Student information systems
• Proctoring tools
• ID card scanners
• AI analytics platforms
• Mobile credentials
• Bus tracking systems

All collect vast amounts of personal data, often without meaningful consent or clear oversight. Faculty are asked to implement these tools before we've had time to understand what they actually do—or what risks they introduce.

The Tell: Contradictory Messaging

A policy announcement that begins with:

"Do not share this email with students"

...yet claims the policy was "requested by students" and "fast-tracked"—that contradiction says something about how we think (or don't think) about privacy and transparency.

If students requested it, why can't they see the communication about it?

Personal Stakes

This hit home when I noticed my daughter, a 5th grader, needed to scan her card to get on and off the school bus. Questions that arose:

• Where does that data trail go?
• Why is it collected?
• How long is it retained?
• Who has access?
• What decisions could be made from it?

The everyday becomes the infrastructure of surveillance without anyone asking whether it should.

Digital Hygiene and "Better"

There's a question about digital hygiene—what we lose in the pursuit of "better" in the world of surveillance capitalism.

"Better" in this context usually means:

• More convenient
• More efficient
• More trackable
• More monetizable

What we lose:

• Friction that protected privacy
• Anonymity in public spaces
• The right to be forgotten
• Agency over our own data trails

Enshittification of Services

The pattern Cory Doctorow calls "enshittification" applies here:

1. Platform is good to users to attract them
2. Platform extracts value from users to benefit business customers
3. Platform extracts value from business customers to benefit shareholders
4. Platform becomes unusable

Educational technology follows this arc. Tools that start as helpful become extractive, then mandatory, then locked-in—all while collecting more data with each iteration.

Why Faculty Should Care

We Are Subjects Too

Surveillance infrastructure doesn't stop at students. Faculty data is collected through:

• Building access logs
• Email metadata
• LMS analytics
• Collaboration tools
• Now: mobile credentials

We Are Implementers

When we adopt tools without understanding their data practices, we become complicit in surveillance we don't endorse. Every syllabus requirement to use a particular platform is a data collection mandate.

We Are Models

How we talk about privacy—or don't—shapes how students think about their own data. If we treat surveillance as normal, they will too.

The K-12 to Higher Ed Pipeline

Students arrive at college having been surveilled since kindergarten:

• Learning management systems tracking every click
• AI writing detectors scanning every assignment
• Proctoring software monitoring eyes and keystrokes
• Location tracking through school-issued devices

By the time they reach higher education, they may have no concept of learning without surveillance. This is the generation we're normalizing into permanent monitorability.

What "Better" Could Mean

Instead of surveillance-as-improvement, what if "better" meant:

• More privacy-preserving
• More transparent about data use
• More student/faculty control
• More aligned with educational values rather than administrative convenience

The question isn't whether to use technology. It's whose interests the technology serves and whether we've consented to those interests.

Open Questions

• How do we advocate for privacy without being dismissed as paranoid or obstructionist?
• What's the threshold at which convenience becomes coercion?
• How do we teach students to value privacy they've never experienced?
• What alliances between faculty, students, and staff could push back on surveillance creep?

Key Formulations (Preserve These)

"Privacy isn't optional—it's about power."

"When we talk about privacy, we're not just talking about individual preferences. We're talking about who gets to see, store, and interpret our data."

"Faculty are often asked to implement these tools before we've had time to understand what they actually do—or what risks they introduce."

"The everyday becomes the infrastructure of surveillance without anyone asking whether it should."

"If we treat surveillance as normal, students will too."