Recently, the Andalusian Transparency and Data Protection Council opened disciplinary proceedings against the Andalusian Regional Government for violating personal data protection regulations, specifically for breaching several articles of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in its agreement with Google Ireland. This agreement facilitated the use of the Google Workspace for Education platform in schools. In its subsequent report on compliance with the resolution , the Council noted that the data protection impact assessment itself identified a “very high” risk.
Student data at risk
Following the corrective measures proposed by the Council, the risk was reduced to “acceptable”. However, this body warned that this transformation of the risk, although plausible, was not sufficiently documented.
The Council stated that the intrinsic risk of processing this data is very high due to “the nature of the processing, the volume of data subjects and the special protection due to minors.”
Educational platforms from technology giants
These types of agreements are not unique to Andalusia. Since the pandemic, they have spread to other autonomous communities. What do they mean for minors and for the very concept of education?
First, it’s worth highlighting that Google is a company beholden to its shareholders and operates from abroad, with an infrastructure spread across the globe. Its business is data. According to Randall Stross, author of Planet Google , it has been collecting different categories of information on a massive scale for years, sometimes with no direct relation to its core business.
This is a company that has been convicted of monopolistic practices in the US and repeatedly fined by the European Union. The most recent fine was just six months ago for abuse of its dominant market position .
The importance of the precautionary principle
We live in a global context marked by conflict in transatlantic relations and active questioning by prominent American actors of European regulations governing the internet. This legislation, while not a panacea, establishes some limits for these large corporations and guarantees certain rights for users.
All of this should be sufficient to warrant a degree of caution or the application of a technological precautionary principle, especially in this case where fundamental legal rights are at stake. This principle would be similar to that applied to environmental or health risks.
On the other hand, there are no isolated solutions to structural problems. And even less so on the internet, where power dynamics are at play. Public opinion is beginning to grasp the complexity of the technological challenge when the consequences of minors’ access to social media, the spread of hate speech or fake news, and the questionable, if not criminal , use of AI generate public alarm.
Education is one of the pillars of our societies, and it makes perfect sense to remain vigilant when it comes to debunking fictions – such as, for example, the environmental harmlessness of the internet – or reducing the mythical aura that this technology still retains.
Any changes made must be well thought out and should be subject to serious and rigorous processes of collective reflection and deliberation.
Education, a collective good
Education should be considered primarily a social need, subject to the common good, where private entities can make decisions, but always subject to the strict guarantee of fundamental rights.
To educate is to guide. In an age of excessive automation and scant reference to the art and thought that have shaped us as individuals, it is essential to foster critical thinking. Our students should have a greater understanding of the possibilities offered by the internet. Perhaps there should be a subject dedicated to teaching them about its potential and risks .
In this scenario, normalizing the technological ecosystem of a large corporation whose sole purpose is to make money could have undesirable consequences for our students. As our grandmothers used to say: there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
There are transparent, auditable, and adaptable alternatives that can be tailored to the needs of individual schools. Open, collaborative, and creative approaches linked to free software and transparency, such as the open-source educational platform Moodle , should not be dismissed .
No one asked us what kind of internet we wanted. Now, there’s no serious debate about the use of artificial intelligence, its objectives, or the sectors in which it’s applied.
In practice, the values that constitute democracies are increasingly conditioned by decisions made primarily by private, profit-driven entities. Should social and democratic states governed by the rule of law “adapt” to technological change? Or, rather, should it be the other way around?
Author Bio: Rafael Rodriguez Prieto is a University Professor. Philosophy of Law and Politics at Pablo de Olavide University
