In the ever puzzling school shooter phenomenon that the United States finds itself in, many different proposals have been made in attempts to make schools safer, to detect early signs of potential violence, and to increase connection to school counselors and other mental health services. One of these proposals that has gotten significant traction is digital surveillance, where companies such as Gaggle (and other competitors like it) utilize algorithms and programs to detect concerning language and photos that may be indicative of abuse, suicidal ideation, and/or school violence. These programs work by being tied to school computers and software, such that if a student types something up in a Google document and emails it via their school email, Gaggle's system will comb through it and if any concerning images or language is detected, it gets flagged and sent to a 2-person review team. If the team finds the flag to be of legitimate concern, Gaggle's team then reaches out to the school and/or local law enforcement so that it can be followed-up on. Gaggle's CEO mentioned in the below Vice documentary that their system has reviewed over 10 billion items, 200 million of which contained "concerning content" that was flagged.

Proponents say that it makes schools safer due to the potential to detect early signs of violence, increases the likelihood of a school counselor reaching out to a student who may otherwise be silently suffering, and allows for intervention if a student is being exploited or abused. Opponents argue that it impinges on the freedom of students and their right to privacy, creates a generation that is ever-more accepting of being surveilled, and lessens institutional trust as students are unsure to what extent they're truly being surveilled. Opponents also argue that if/when students are made aware that their content via school computers/devices/servers is being monitored, that they will simply take those conversations elsewhere as there is no shortage of social media apps and websites outside the school's reach.

There also has been concerns that Gaggle's algorithm has been designed to flag LGBTQ+ content, and there have been instances where students were outed for being gay, transgender, or simply questioning due to Gaggle deeming those words as "concerning content".

What do you think, PaRD? Is the trade of privacy worth the potential safety? If we continue to utilize this for children, do we risk raising a generation that is more amenable to being surveilled?

Who cares about this, though, if they're not being surveilled in school, is that better than if they take it elsewhere? These lazy kids could be doing that in the first place.

It is but one thought brought up by opponents.

What do you think overall about this?

How about holding parents and counselors accountable when one of the kids they are watching over goes astray. If the parents are failing the kid, isn't it the counselor's job to notice and take appropiate action? Obviously this would also mean investing more in counseling but it would also add additional pressure on the parents to actually care about the wellbeing of their kids. Hell this might even foment a different 'school' culture.

The school library isn't your house, it's public property and you're underage. I think it goes without saying that you're going to be under some manner of surveillance. I don't think we want to go overboard, but if someone is searching "how to use a gun" on a school computer, it's probably a good time to step in.