Andrew 🌻 Brandt 🐇<p>Last night I attended the <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/Boulder" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Boulder</span></a> BVSD school district's District Accountability Committee meeting. I am the representative to my kids' high school at the DAC, that advises the school board on policy matters. It's a commitment I made to staying involved in local school operations, regardless of the outcome of the election last year.</p><p>The DAC is considering updates to policies surrounding the searches of and interrogations of students on school grounds. The DAC policy subcommittee made several positive changes that strengthen the protections this policy gives to students, who under these kind of circumstances are obviously in a power-imbalance situation.</p><p>But there was one change that I couldn't abide, and when I brought it up, it started a nearly hourlong debate in which many other DAC representatives chimed in with their own concerns.</p><p>The change was to give schools the permission to search students' mobile devices and laptops. It was a one-line insertion into an existing policy that gives school officials permission to search student lockers. </p><p>I made the point that phones/laptops often contain highly sensitive, personal information that falls outside the scope of any legitimate investigation, and that the language was overbroad and failed to take into account the need for student data privacy and limiting the scope of the search, and raises significant civil rights issues.</p><p>Another DAC member raised the issue that the policy seems to lay the responsibility for students maintaining the security of their devices on the students, even when an adult has access to those devices, which seemed weirdly out of sync.</p><p>Yet another DAC member was concerned that there was no guidance about how such searches would be conducted, and under what circumstances. Doesn't changing a policy like this lead to potential 'fishing expeditions' on specious evidence or even just allegations of misbehavior without evidence? </p><p>In the end, the DAC thought this policy would sail through and be passed along to the BVSD board for their approval next week. I think the policy needs significant rework and there's no way the board should pass it in its current form. I will speak at the school board meeting next week to get that point across, because the way it looks right now, I would not want my name connected to this policy.</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/COpolitics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>COpolitics</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/BVSD" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>BVSD</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/SchoolBoard" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SchoolBoard</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/policy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>policy</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/electmorehackers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>electmorehackers</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/4thAmendment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>4thAmendment</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/PolicyHackers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PolicyHackers</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/education" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>education</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/USPol" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>USPol</span></a></p>