Chromebooks are now in the hands of Santa Fe High students, and students can bring these computers home to do their schoolwork.

Because I want to preserve my privacy, I have chosen to not get a Chromebook. During the presentations on these new computers, it was mentioned that the district could track the locations of the computers and in turn track the location of the students themselves, as well as track what was searched on the computers.

According to Neal Weaver, SFPS director of Digital learning, all Chromebooks are fitted with iBoss, a program that is required by law in order for the school to get funding for the new technology. iBoss allows the district to choose which sites the students have access to and which ones are blocked.

If a student tries to access a blocked site, the computer logs the site location and the student ID associated with that computer. This info is stored in one mass list that the district can reference.

According to Weaver, the district does not have a full-time tracker for the computers, so the district does not know the current location of the Chromebooks at all times.

But they have the potential. They could track the current location of all devices if they wanted to, and they could log all sites visited, not just those blacklisted, if they chose to.

The computers are also equipped with a program called GoGuardian. GoGuardian’s main purpose is to direct all Internet access through the school networks, allowing iboss to filter out sites the school deems inappropriate no matter what network the computer is using. This means that even if the computer is on a personal Wi-Fi connection, iboss can still filter, and traffic can still be tracked.

So why is this a problem?

The problem is the principle. If we say that this surveillance is okay, that this principle is okay on this scale, then it makes it more likely that we will allow the same kind of surveillance on a much larger scale that could potentially threaten our way of life.

Lots of people use the “I have nothing to hide argument,” which basically says that it doesn’t matter if a person’s privacy is destroyed because they aren’t doing anything wrong. To apply this on a more local scale, it doesn’t matter if the school knows your location because you’re only where you’re supposed to be.

However, this is a very bad argument, as explained by Robin Doherty with ThoughtWorks, a software consultancy whose purpose is to revolutionize software design, creation and delivery while advocating for positive social change. According to Doherty, “It doesn’t matter if you have ‘nothing to hide.’ Privacy is a right granted to individuals that underpins the freedoms of expression, association and assembly, all of which are essential for a free, democratic society.”

In other words, privacy is what allows us to have the rights that we enjoy as Americans. For example, as Doherty says, “Your freedom of expression is threatened by the surveillance of your Internet usage, and the knowledge that you are being surveilled can make you less likely to research a particular topic.”

Shouldn’t a school be a place that encourages and grows curiosity in young minds? And how can students satisfy their curiosity and become more informed if they worry about researching a topic because their searches are monitored?

For example, what if a student is researching issues in the Middle East and wants to learn about ISIS and what they stand for, but decides not to research it out of fear that the school will track keywords such as “radical Islam” and they’ll get in trouble? The result is that this student will be less informed about our world.

And even if we are okay with the tracking and monitoring, do the computers actually help students learn?

Personally I find working with computers to be very frustrating in certain classroom settings. While computers can be helpful for writing papers or in the computer sciences, why would a math class ever need a computer? If I am asked to work out a long math problem, I reach for a paper and pencil, not a computer, and yet I have taken multiple math exams on computers.

Santa Fe High is a public school, a government-funded institution for the benefit of the public. But where do we get our computers? Google and Apple, which are private, for-profit companies. And these companies are happy to fill the public schools with their products because it makes them a lot of money.

But should a private company have a say in my public education? I signed up to be educated by the state of New Mexico, not by Google, or Apple, or Schoology, or Khan Academy, or Edmodo, or any other company that makes money off my education because they have mixed interests. In fact, this has been a problem for years in public education: Everything from desks to massive standardized tests are bought from private companies.

And a company’s number-one goal is to make money, not to educate. These companies couldn’t care less about how well we are being educated as long as they’re bringing in the bucks. I come to school to learn, not to make a corporation money.

Even the Internet being provided to students on free or reduced lunch is provided through Comcast, another private company. Why should all these private companies benefit so much from public education?

Is it worth it to potentially destroy our democratic society and give private companies massive control over public education just to have computers available to students? I truly believe it is not.