Internet Safety and Federal Law (US)

Internet Safety - Federal Law The Google Document for this course can be found here

Welcome to your project on Internet Safety - Federal Law. This project, and others like it are designed to give you a hands-on introduction to a variety of topics related to education, technology, and learning.

Each project is composed of the following sections: Overview - This offers a description of the main ideas within the module, the driving objectives, and the essential questions.

Investigation - Here is a curated pathway for learning about your module’s topics complete with explanations, links and ideas for learning.

Application & Discussions - In this section, you’ll complete a specific activity related to the module topic that asks you to put your learning into action, and a link to posting and sharing your learning for deeper discussion.

Further Investigation - If the initial Investigation was dipping your toe in the learning, this section gives you a chance to dive in, explore things more deeply, and provide yourself with an archive of resources for shifting your practice.

Overview

Objectives: Participants in this project will have a basic understanding of the federal laws affecting students privacy and protection in a public school.

Essential Questions: What are the perception and reality of Internet regulated at school? Why are there no restrictions on websites aimed at children over the age of 13? Why do we need laws such as FERPA, COPA, or CIPA? Key Vocabulary: FERPA - Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act

COPPA - Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Rule

CIPA - Children’s Internet Protection Act

Internet filter - Software or hardware that can help monitor and control web content viewed on a particular computer or network.

Student data - Information about a student including grades and disciplinary actions.

E-Rate - The commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Acceptable Use Policy - a standard document that allows the school district to outline the rights, responsibilities and authority of its network.

Investigation

What does the school do to protect my child? The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is an act enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC requires that any school district that accepts e-rate funding also filter the Internet connection for students. The filters must block pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors. Further schools must also 1) monitor online activities of minors; and 2) educate minors about appropriate online behavior, including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms, and cyberbullying awareness and response.

What does the school do to protect my child’s student data? The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) defines how much information about your students and his or her grades can be shared and with whom it can be shared. Privacy is a growing concern in the digital age. Limiting access to student data is important, but just as important is making sure those who need access to student data can get it, when they need.

Are there any safeguards on the internet to protect my child? The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), an act enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, imposes restrictions on the amount and type of information websites, directed at children under the age of 13, can collect. This act is the reason many websites ask if you are older than 13 before registering. If a website is marketed to children under the age of 13 then they have to follow certain restrictions.

Why is the federal government so involved? The Universal Service Program for Schools and LIbraries (E-Rate) is a program run by the FCC to provide discounted telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections to public schools and libraries.

How does a school district determine what is acceptable use of the Internet? An acceptable use policy (AUP) is a set of rules determined by the school board for how staff, students, and the public can use the Internet at school. Every district creates their own policy based on their values and capabilities.

Application & Discussions

Download or make a copy of this document and answer some of the following questions. Or write a blog post and hyperlink some sources. Create a presentation etc... Tag your post #

Can you find the truth that contradicts these myths?

Common misconceptions about federal restrictions on Internet safety. All schools must filter objectionable material. Students under the age of 13 who sign up for facebook accounts are breaking the law. Websites for children under the age of 13 do not collect any data. Students’ Internet use is tracked. Every site I personally find objectionable should be filtered. Teachers cannot bypass filters for any reason.

Find your local school district Authentic Use Policy (AUP), it should be on the district website, and read it. What parts are too restrictive? What parts are not restrictive enough? What sections are there to protect the school network from malicious hacking? What sections are there to protect student data?

Search for examples of AUPs on the internet and compare. What differences are there? Are they long legal documents? Can you find examples of short simple AUPs?

What do you think are the most important parts of the AUP?

Do you think the Federal laws FERPA, COPPA, and CIPA go far enough to protect our children? Do they go too far?

How much Internet filtering is going on at your school? Can teachers override the filter? Should they be able to?

Further Investigation

This investigation has been very heavy on Federal law, but the real life interpretations and implementation of these laws are sometimes very different. Read some of the Supreme Court cases on the subject and a few real life resources and then take a stab at writing your own AUP.

Harris v. Pontotoc County School District, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2011 Derek Harris and his mother, Phyllis Harris, brought suit against the Pontotoc County School District and its superintendent, Ken Roye. They alleged that Derek was denied his due process rights and defamed, and that Mrs. Harris had her First Amendment rights violated and suffered tortious interference with her contract of employment with the school district. Summary judgment was granted to the defendants. We AFFIRM. Layshock v. Hermitage School Dist. 593 F. 3d 249 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2010 In this appeal and cross-appeal, we are asked to determine if a school district can punish a student for expressive conduct that originated outside of the classroom, when that conduct did not disturb the school environment and was not related to any school sponsored event. We are also asked to determine the extent to which this school district's response to a student posting on the internet interfered with the substantive due process rights of the student's parents. It all began when Justin Layshock used his grandmother's computer to access a popular social networking internet web site where he created a fake internet "profile" of his high school principal, Eric Trosch. His parents filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, after the School District punished Justin for that conduct. The suit alleges,inter alia, that the District's punishment violated Justin's First Amendment rights of expression and the parents' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights in the care and nurturing of their son. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Justin on his First Amendment claim, but ruled in favor of the School District on his parents' due process claim. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the district court. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School Dist. 593 F. 3d 286 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2010 This appeal presents a challenge to J.S.'s suspension from Blue Mountain Middle School after she created from her home computer a MySpace.com Internet profile featuring her principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not state McGonigle's name, but included his photograph from the website of Blue Mountain School District (the "School District"), as well as profanity-laced statements insinuating that he was a sex addict and pedophile. On appeal, J.S. and her parents assert that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the School District, arguing that the School District violated J.S.'s First Amendment free speech rights by punishing her for creating the profile; the School District violated J.S.'s parents' fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their child by regulating her out-of-school conduct; Pennsylvania law does not permit school districts to discipline students for out-of-school conduct; and the School District's disciplinary and computer-use policies were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Because we believe school authorities could reasonably have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of the MySpace profile, as defined by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969), we conclude that the School District did not violate J.S.'s First Amendment free speech rights by disciplining her for creating the profile. We also reject J.S.'s additional arguments and, therefore, we will affirm.

First amendment rights and school disruption. http://blogs.findlaw.com/second_circuit/2011/05/girl-calls-principal-douchebag-first-amendment-in-schools.html Does the Department of Education require schools to block specific sites. http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2011/04/straight-from-the-doe-facts-about-blocking-sites-in-schools/ Acceptable Use Policies https://www.prismnet.com/~kinnaman/aupessay http://dangerouslyirrelevant.org/resources/rethinking-aups http://tomwhitby.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/world%E2%80%99s-simplest-online-safety-policy/