back to article Google harvests school kids' web histories for ads, claims its Mississippi nemesis

Google is once again facing allegations that its cloud for education may be harvesting and selling information on school kids. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is suing [PDF] for full disclosure of how the Chocolate Factory handles and markets any information it collects through the G Suite for Education service it …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Childcatcher

    Obligatory think of the children child catcher icon.

    1. Dr Stephen Jones
      Holmes

      Obligatory commentard cliche about children.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        >Obligatory commentard cliche about children.

        Meh

      2. The First Dave

        Children? I thought a K-12 school must be some sort of adult-learning thing for dogs?

  2. Stevie

    Bah!

    Shock! Horror! Probe!

    1. AndyS

      Re: Bah!

      "It is disturbing to think that one of the world's most profitable corporations would try to make even more money by deceiving parents and taking advantage of Mississippi school children,"

      Isn't it more disturbing to think of an entire state auctioning off the education of their children to the highest bidder, bringing one of the most profitable commercial advertising companies in the world into contact with one of the richest, most profitable markets (American children), and then acting all surprised and upset when they try and push some adverts?

      Bloody corrupt idiots.

  3. redpawn

    The real problem is..

    They didn't share the revenue with the right people to keep this quiet.

    Graft and Corruption 101.

  4. Drew 11
    Joke

    But it's free so it must be good for the children!

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      FAIL

      That's not even funny.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    According to Hood, the state believes Google has been collecting and selling information on student activity – such as account data and browsing histories – to third parties, who then use that data for targeted advertisements.

    I'm curious whether this is exactly what they are claiming. Google selling browser histories to third parties is a bit hard to swallow, even for standard users. The data is way more valuable if they keep it for themselves.

    I'm going to bet that Hood did not in fact found anybody who ever managed to buy browser histories from Google, but he's betting his status as State Attorney is enough to force Google to disclose what they do. It's a fishing expedition.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Have an upvote. This stinks of "A-G wants to get his name in the press".

      My guess is, the only evidence he has is that students are seeing individually targeted ads. But of course that's what Google does - that in itself is no evidence that they're sharing squat.

      On the face of it, it seems very unlikely that they would. As you say, sharing the data would (a) get them into trouble (as per this story), and (b) cost them money. Seems a very strange business decision.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Well, now I've had time to read the legal filing (linked in the article), and I've done a complete U-turn. I now suspect the AG is completely right and may well have Google bang to rights.

      The key point is, nowhere does he actually allege that Google is sharing the information. That detail is inserted, either by some PR flack who doesn't know what they're doing, or by El Reg, who really should know better 'cuz this is exactly how fake news spreads.

      But apparently "sharing" is neither here nor there. Google promised it wouldn't even harvest or "process" the information, even completely internally, for commercial purposes.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Flame

        Why do I have to go to the comment section to get actual news.

        Bring back the El Reg tombstone, stat.

        1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

          Re: Destroy All Monsters et al

          Huh. What did we get wrong? We summed up the claim, we linked to the filing, a comment poster made an assumption, read the PDF, changed their mind, and... we're the bad guys?

          C.

      2. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

        Re: veti

        "or by El Reg, who really should know better 'cuz this is exactly how fake news spreads."

        What are you on about?

        C.

        1. ratfox

          Re: veti

          I believe the problem is here:

          collecting and selling information on student activity [...] to third parties, who then use that data for targeted advertisements.

          I can't find any other website claiming that Hood is accusing Google of selling data to third parties. Pretty much everybody else agrees that Google is accused of collecting data and using it for its own ads, no third party involved.

          1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

            Re: ratfox

            > I can't find any other website claiming that Hood is accusing Google of selling data to third parties

            This is literally what Hood said on the record, and is quoted in the story saying: "Through this lawsuit, we want to know the extent of Google's data mining and marketing of student information to third parties."

            If you read through the lawsuit (eg, G 52-53), you'll see the AG accusing Google of potentially breaking promises not to share students' info to third parties, such as Google's advertising partners, without disclosing it to parents.

            You guys are trollin' me. Stop it.

            C.

            1. ratfox

              Re: ratfox

              Sorry, I'm going to be a stickler. The lawsuit says:

              G52: Google expressly commits to: "disclose clearly [...] what types of [...] information we collect, if any, and the purpose for which the information [...] is used or shared with third parties."

              G53: Despite this [...] obligation, Google does not clearly disclose in a manner easy for parents to understand what types of information is [...] used, nor does it accurately disclose that it takes certain rights to which it is contractually prohibited from doing.

              Hood says:

              we want to know the extent of Google's data mining and marketing of student information to third parties

              The article says:

              the state believes Google has been collecting and selling information [...] to third parties

              The lawsuit says: Google does not disclose what it does, and does "certain things" it's not allowed to, leaving it unspecified. It does not claim explicitly that Google is selling or even sharing the data to third parties. Hood says: we want to know how much Google is marketing to third parties; he does not explicitly state that Google is doing so. He also uses "marketing" rather than "selling", and I'm not sure that this means the same. The Reg article says: Google is claimed to sell the data.

              The confusion between the first two might be on purpose from Hood in front of the press, but what the article claims is yet another thing.

              1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

                Re: ratfox

                "Sorry, I'm going to be a stickler"

                Look, Hood is on record claiming Google may be selling students' info. We've quoted him as such. The lawsuit accuses Google of breach of contract. We've said as such.

                The lawsuit accuses Google of misusing students' data for "any" advertising purposes. Hood, outside the lawsuit, says this includes marketing/selling data to third parties. So there is a gap there, but the article makes that distinction - Hood says this, Hood says that, the lawsuit wants Google to open up.

                Essentially, Google is being accused of potentially breaching a contract in which it promised to respect kids' privacy. That's the gist of the story however you look at the above. Google, FWIW, declined to comment.

                Please, try not to nitpick us to death and accuse us of fake news. It's tedious.

                C.

                1. Paranoid android

                  Re: ratfox

                  A conversation about this is good, though. It shows that you are accountable. I do understand that it can be annoying for you. But the back-and-forth shows that you are a serious news organisation.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "The data is way more valuable if they keep it for themselves."

      Hemm, no. Google needs to monetize the data. Data have a value if you can sell them. If you keep the data you need other ways to extract value from them - but Google is an ads machine, that's where money come from. If and how Google made data available to third parties is exactly the matter of the investigation. Third parties may have been also forced to sell ads through Google - I don't believe Google sold raw data and let advertiser do whatever they wanted with them.

      Still, using an education contract to gather data about users and use them to sell and funnel ads is something that should not be allowed. Even telemetry.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    individually targeted ads. But of course that's what Google does

    Not in my browser they don't.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The picture is classic. A blond tart and a brunette cookie...

  8. Mage Silver badge

    Education deals

    No School or Educational institution should be promoting Apple, MS, Google Etc.

    Nothing to do with Google should be used in schools, as by design it's meant to exploit private activities. Android and ChromeOS are not fit for purpose for schools due to the lack of privacy.

    1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: Education deals

      "No School or Educational institution should be promoting Apple, MS, Google Etc."

      Tell that to our local school who keeps giving us "rtf" documents. At least it's not Word outright...

      But for some reason the Mac I print from normally (and printer refues to behave as networked) can't handle rtf very well (all images go away).

      Sigh.. I advocated non-proprietary formats back in the 80s...

      Schools are so easily duped by that free first fix.

  9. alain williams Silver badge

    Exchange of staff with Microsoft

    Can anyone tell us how many staff have moved between Microsoft and Google ? Both seem to becoming increasingly sneaky on slurping up what should be private information about you and serving up targeted adverts.

    What else they do with that information no one knows, they won't say - which is just as worrying.

  10. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    I'm always reminded of Donald Plesance as Blowfeld in You Only Live Twice. Roughly

    Blowfeld "I'm asking for some money in advance. $100million"

    Chinese Agent "But that's extortion!"

    Blowfeld "Extortion is my business."

    Moral of story. If you hire an extortionist, expect at some point to get extorted.

    So be very wary if a company who makes their money collecting personal data offers you a deal where they say they won't

    1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

      Re: I'm always reminded of Donald Plesance as Blowfeld in You Only Live Twice. Roughly

      upvote - but in my opinion Google would have to be dumb as rocks to sell advertising in this way. The whole point of offering the suite to schools for free if to get the kids addicted to Google so that they then continue, even insist on, using Google when they graduate.

      Does nobody ever play the long game anymore?

  11. Hans 1

    >Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is suing [PDF] for full disclosure of how the Chocolate Factory handles and markets any information it collects through the G Suite for Education service it operates for roughly half of the state's K-12 schools.

    If the EU counter-part could do the same for Microsoft in France, I would be very much obliged.

  12. FuzzyWuzzys
    Facepalm

    Wakey wakey!

    "It is disturbing to think that one of the world's most profitable corporations would try to make even more money by deceiving parents and taking advantage of Mississippi school children,"

    Not when it involves the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung...

    Come on mate, wake up and smell the cost of stuff! When are people going to realise that "free online X", never is and never will be free. These companies are simply ad revenue factories and nothing more, they need to recoup costs and show a profit else their shareholders start kicking off.

  13. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    It's too good

    The pity is, that Google's offerings to business and education customers are so much more usable that Microsoft's.

    My two kids experience both - one school is Google, one Office365.

    I don't touch the Google stuff, it just works. Offspring 1 has been known to do homework, and submit it, on her phone in the queue to enter a class.

    Offspring 2's computer needs constant fiddling with. I've given up on making OneDrive for Business work, it keeps signing itself out so that the files haven't been synced. The laptop keeps on losing the ability to print as Office inserts OneNote as the default printer - which then fails to work (probably because of the same sign-in problem).

    So, despite the privacy worries, Google wins, because the product has been carefully built to work properly.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's too good

      Right - the worst criminals are those who are good at crime...

    2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: It's too good

      Obviously go with the well known devil that's not been hiding and scheming.

      Don't go with MS with their ugly con-man tactics (Windows 10 "upgrade"). And they SELL Windows 10!! You must be rather naive to actually pay for something they try to force down people's throats for free.

  14. sisk

    Google collects data on school kids

    In other news, water is wet.

  15. hairydog

    Odd choice of photo

    I was under the impression that students in K-12 schools would be twelve years old at most.

    The girls in that photo look like teenagers. Could it be that El Reg choose eye candy over veracity? Surely not!

    1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: Odd choice of photo

      Odd complaint, more like.

    2. Been there, done that, it never ends
      Headmaster

      Re: Odd choice of photo

      Not sure if serious. In the US, K-12 indicates Kindergarten (year before 1st grade) through 12th grade.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Odd choice of photo

      K-12 in the US means Kindergarten (6 years) through 12th grade (18 years).

      Ages approximate - some percolate through the system at faster or slower rates.

  16. noominy.noom

    U.S. K-12 is the entire free public education range. Kindergarten through grade 12, in most locales elementary, middle and high school. Most seniors (grade 12) are 18 years old at graduation. (I should note here that I can't see the picture, I have graphics redirected. A poster earlier said it looked like a teenager.)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like