was originally reported by Amanda Becker of . .

An effort by Democratic lawmakers to lower snowballing child care costs has a new high-profile front woman: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The New York representative is now the lead House sponsor of Sen. Elizabeth Warren鈥檚 Child Care for Every Community Act, The 19th has exclusively learned. Ocasio-Cortez replaces original House sponsor Mikie Sherrill, who is now the governor of New Jersey.

The progressive women鈥檚 effort comes as Republicans at the national level are calling for larger American families but have struggled to craft policies that make it easier for parents. Ocasio-Cortez鈥檚 backing also comes as Democrats head into a midterm elections cycle where they plan to highlight affordability issues, which polls show are a top concern for voters, including finding affordable child care. High-profile Democratic strategists are already suggesting that universal child care be added to the party鈥檚 official policy platform ahead of the 2028 presidential elections.

鈥淲e鈥檝e turned childhood itself into a privilege, not a promise. It is time that we give all families the quality, affordable child care they deserve,鈥� Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement to The 19th.

James Carville, who advised President Bill Clinton, among others, wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times: 鈥淲hen 70 percent of Americans say raising children is too expensive, we should not fear making universal child care a public good.鈥� David Plouffe, who managed President Barack Obama鈥檚 2008 campaign and advised the 2024 campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris, recently said that universal child care should be in Democrats鈥� 2028 platform.

Warren is a senator from Massachusetts who made affordable child care the central pillar of her own 2020 presidential campaign, and she has introduced a series of bills in the Senate related to reducing its cost. If enacted, the most recent legislation would result in half of U.S. families paying no more than $10 a day for child care and cap costs for families in higher income brackets. It would use a sliding scale modeled on the U.S. military鈥檚 child care program. There is no funding mechanism attached to the legislation.

鈥淚n the wealthiest country on the planet, we can鈥檛 keep treating affordable, high-quality child care like a luxury reserved for only the richest Americans,鈥� Warren wrote to The 19th.

Democrats at the state and city levels have already made moves to implement universal or reduced-fee child care. In New Mexico, where lawmakers have been working to lower child care costs since 2019, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced last year that the state would as of November.聽 In New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned on the issue, and one of his first moves after being sworn in was announcing a plan for universal child care for children under five. In San Francisco, which has some of the highest child care costs in the country, Mayor Daniel Lurie recently launched a 鈥淔amily Opportunity Agenda鈥� that would likewise ensure children under five can access child care.

Analysis of polling done by the First Five Years Fund, which aims to build bipartisan support for child care policies at the federal level, showed that voters of all political persuasions believe child care is unaffordable and lawmakers should do something about it. Seventy-two percent of Republican voters, for example, said increasing federal funding for child care was an important priority, along with 70 percent of political independents and 90 percent of Democrats.

While President Donald Trump has said Republicans want to reduce child care costs, and they have aimed to do so by restructuring tax incentives, he has also cut off federal funding for child care programs in states seen as political enemies. During his reelection campaign, Trump that child care is 鈥渞elatively speaking, not very expensive.鈥� Congressional Republicans have not prioritized legislation related to child care affordability.

鈥淯niversal child care is incredibly popular, being able to access affordable child care that works for your child and your family is not a 鈥榬ed鈥� or 鈥榖lue鈥� issue, it鈥檚 something that people across parties experience every single day,鈥� said Julie Kashen, director of women鈥檚 economic justice for the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank.

Thomas and their peers watched videos during high school gym class that stressed the importance of abstinence 鈥� and the horrors that can come from sex before marriage. But for Thomas, who is bisexual and nonbinary, the lessons didn鈥檛 explain who they were as a person. 

鈥淚t was very confusing trying to navigate understanding who I am and my identity,鈥� said Thomas, now a student at Arizona State University. It was on the internet that Thomas learned about a whole community of young people with similar experiences. Blog posts on Tumblr helped them make sense of their place in the world and what it meant to be bisexual. 鈥淚 was able to find the words to understand who I am 鈥� words that I wouldn’t be able to piece together in a sentence if the internet wasn鈥檛 there.鈥� 

But now, as states adopt anti-LGBTQ laws and abortion bans, the digital footprint that Thomas and other students leave may come back to harm them, privacy and civil rights advocates warn, and it could be their school-issued devices that end up exposing them to that legal peril.

For years, schools across the U.S. have used digital surveillance tools that collect a trove of information about youth sexuality 鈥� intimate details that are gleaned from students鈥� conversations with friends, diary entries and search histories. Meanwhile, student information collected by student surveillance companies are regularly shared with police, according to a recent survey conducted by the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology. These two realities are concerning to Elizabeth Laird, the center鈥檚 director of equity in civic technology. Following the Supreme Court鈥檚 repeal of Roe v. Wade in June, she said information about youth sexuality could be weaponized. 

 鈥淩ight now 鈥� without doing anything 鈥� schools may be getting alerts about students鈥� who are searching the internet for resources related to reproductive health,鈥� Laird said. 鈥淚f you are in a state that has a law that criminalizes abortion, right now this tool could be used to enforce those laws.鈥�

Teens across the country are already to fill the void for themselves and their peers in the current climate. Thomas, the ASU student and an outspoken reproductive justice activist, said that while students are generally aware that school devices and accounts are monitored, the repeal of Roe has led some to take extra privacy precautions. 

鈥淚 have switched to using Signal to talk to friends and colleagues in this space,鈥� they said, referring to the . 鈥淭he fear, even though it鈥檚 been common knowledge for basically my generation鈥檚 entire life that everything you do is being surveilled, it definitely has been amplified tenfold.鈥�

Police have long used social media and other online platforms to investigate people for breaking abortion rules, including where police obtained a teen鈥檚 private Facebook messages through a search warrant before charging the then-17-year-old and her mother with violating the state鈥檚 ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. 

LGBTQ students face similar risks as lawmakers in Florida and elsewhere impose rules that prohibit classroom discussions about sexuality and gender. This year alone, lawmakers have proposed 300 anti-LGBTQ bills and about a dozen have . They so-called 鈥淒on鈥檛 Say Gay鈥� laws in Florida and Alabama that ban classroom discussions about gender and sexuality and require school officials to tell the parents of children who share that they may be gay or transgender. 

In a survey, a fifth of LGBTQ students told the Center for Democracy and Technology that they or another student they knew had their sexual orientation or gender identity disclosed without their consent due to online student monitoring. They were more likely than straight and cisgender students to report getting into trouble for their web browsing activity and to be contacted by the police about having committed a crime. 

LGBTQ youth are nearly twice as likely as their straight and cisgender classmates to search for health information online, according to . But as anti-LGBTQ laws proliferate, student surveillance tools should reconsider collecting data about youth sexuality, Christopher Wood, the group鈥檚 co-founder and executive director, told 蜜桃影视. 

鈥淩ight now, we are not in a landscape or an environment where that is safe for a company to be doing,鈥� Wood said. 鈥淚f there is a remote possibility that the information that they are trying to provide to help a student could potentially lead them into more harm, then they need to be looking at that very carefully and considering whether that is the appropriate direction for a company to be taking.鈥�

鈥楨xtraordinarily concerned鈥�

For decades, has required school technology to block access to images that are obscene, child pornography or deemed 鈥渉armful to minors,鈥� and schools have used web-filtering software to prevent students from accessing sexually explicit content. But in some cases, the filtering to block pro-LGBTQ websites that aren鈥檛 explicit, including those that offer crisis counseling.  

Many student monitoring tools, which saw significant growth during the pandemic, go far beyond web filtering and employ artificial intelligence to track students across the web to identify issues like depression and violent impulses. The tools can sift through students鈥� social media posts, follow their digital movements in real time and scan files on school-issued laptops 鈥� from classroom assignments to journal entries 鈥� in search of warning signs. 

They鈥檝e also come under heightened scrutiny. In a report this year, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey warned that schools鈥� widespread adoption of the tools could trample students鈥� civil rights. By flagging words related to sexual orientation, the report notes, LGBTQ youth could be subjected to disproportionate disciplinary rates and be unintentionally outed to their parents. 

In in July, Warren and Markey cautioned that the tools could pose new risks following the repeal of Roe and asked four leading student surveillance companies 鈥� GoGuardian, Gaggle, Securly and Bark 鈥� whether they flag students for using keywords related to reproductive health, such as 鈥減regnant鈥� and 鈥渁bortion.鈥�

鈥淲e are extraordinarily concerned that your software could result in punishment or criminalization of students seeking contraception, abortion or other reproductive health care,鈥� Markey and Warren wrote. 鈥淲ith reproductive rights under attack nationwide, it would represent a betrayal of your company鈥檚 mission to support students if you fail to provide appropriate protections for students鈥� privacy related to reproductive health information.鈥�

The scrutiny is part of a larger concern over digital privacy in the post-Roe world. In August, the Federal Trade Commission and accused the company of selling the location data from hundreds of millions of cell phones that could be used to track peoples鈥� movements. Such precise location data, the , 鈥渕ay be used to track consumers to sensitive locations, including places of religious worship, places that may be used to infer an LGBTQ+ identification, domestic abuse shelters, medical facilities and welfare and homeless shelters.鈥� 

School surveillance companies have acknowledged their tools track student references to sex but sought to downplay the risks they pose to students. Bark spokesperson Adina Kalish said the company began to immediately purge all data related to reproductive health after a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion suggested Roe鈥檚 repeal was imminent 鈥� despite maintaining a 30-day retention period for most other data. 

鈥淏y immediately and permanently deleting data which contains a student鈥檚 reproductive health data or searches for reproductive health information, such data is not in our possession and therefore not produce-able under a court order, subpoena, etc.,鈥� Bark CEO Brian Bason , which the company shared with 蜜桃影视. 

GoGuardian spokesperson Jeff Gordon said its tools 鈥渃annot be used by educators or schools to flag reproductive health-related search terms鈥� and its web filter cannot 鈥渇lag reproductive health-related searches.鈥� Securly didn鈥檛 respond to requests for comment. Last year its web-filtering tool categorized health resources for LGBTQ teens as pornography. 

Gaggle founder and CEO Jeff Patterson to the senators that his company does not 鈥渃ollect health data of any kind including reproductive health information,鈥� specifying that the monitoring tool does not flag students who use the terms 鈥減regnant, abortion, birth control, contraception or Planned Parenthood. 鈥� 

Yet tracking conversations about sex is a primary part of Gaggle’s business 鈥� more than references to suicide, violence or drug use, according to nearly 1,300 incident reports generated by the company for Minneapolis Public Schools during a six-month period in 2020. The reports, obtained by 蜜桃影视, showed that 38% were prompted by content that was pornographic or sexual in nature, including references to 鈥渟exual activity involving a student.鈥� Students were regularly flagged for using keywords like 鈥渧irginity,鈥� 鈥渞ape,鈥� and, simply, 鈥渟ex.鈥� 

Patterson, the Gaggle CEO, has acknowledged that a student鈥檚 private diary entry about being raped wasn鈥檛 off limits. In touting the tool鈥檚 capabilities, he told 蜜桃影视 his company uncovered the girl鈥檚 diary entry, where she discussed how the assault led to self-esteem issues and guilt. Nobody knew she was struggling until Gaggle notified school officials about what they鈥檇 learned from her diary, Patterson said. 

鈥淭hey were able to intervene and get this girl help for things that she couldn鈥檛 have dealt with on her own,鈥� Patterson said.

Any information that surveillance companies collect about students鈥� sexual behaviors could be used against them by police during investigations, privacy experts warned. And it鈥檚 unclear, Laird said, how long the police can retain any data gleaned from the tools. 

鈥楧on鈥檛 Say Gay鈥�

Internet search engines are 鈥減articularly potent鈥� tools to track the behaviors of pregnant people, by the nonprofit Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. In 2017, for example, a with second-degree murder of her stillborn fetus after police scoured her browser history and identified a search for an abortion pill. 

While GoGuardian and other companies offer web filtering to schools, Gaggle has sought to differentiate itself. In his letter to the senators, Patterson said the company 鈥� which sifts through files and chat messages on students鈥� school-issued Microsoft and Google accounts 鈥� is not a web filter and therefore 鈥渄oes not track students鈥� online searches.鈥� Yet Patterson鈥檚 assurance to lawmakers appears misleading. The company acknowledges on its website that it partners with several web-filtering companies, including Linewize, to analyze students鈥� online searches. By working in tandem, flags triggered by Linewize鈥檚 web filtering 鈥渃an be sent straight to the Gaggle Safety Team,鈥� if the material 鈥渟hould be forwarded to the school or district.鈥� 

In an email, Gaggle spokesperson Paget Hetherington said that in 鈥渁 very small number of school systems,鈥� the company reviews alerts from web filters before they鈥檙e sent to school officials to 鈥渁lleviate the large number of false positives鈥� and ensure that 鈥渙nly the most critical and imminent issues are being seen by the district.鈥� 

Gaggle has also faced scrutiny for including LGBTQ-specific keywords in its algorithm, including 鈥済ay鈥� and 鈥渓esbian.鈥� Patterson said the heightened surveillance of LGBTQ youth is necessary because they face a disproportionately high suicide rate, and Hetherington shared examples where the keywords were used to spot cyberbullying incidents. 

But critics have accused the company of discrimination. Wood of the nonprofit LGBT Tech said that anti-LGBT activists have used surveillance to target their opponents for generations. Prior to the seminal 1969 riots after New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn gay bar, LGBTQ spaces and made arrests for 鈥渋nferring sexual perversion鈥� and 鈥渟erving gay people.鈥� From the colonial era and into the 19th century, anti-sodomy laws carried the death penalty and police used the rules to investigate and incarcerate people suspected of same-sex intimate behaviors. 

Now, in the era of 鈥淒on鈥檛 Say Gay鈥� laws, digital surveillance tools could be used to out LGBTQ students and put them in danger, Wood said. Student surveillance companies can claim their decision to include LGBTQ terminology is designed to help students, but historically such data have 鈥渂een used against us in very detrimental ways.鈥� 

Companies, he said, are unable to control how officials use that information in an era 鈥渨here teachers and administrators and other students are encouraged to out other students or blame them or somehow get them in trouble for their identity.鈥� In Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott calling on child protective services to investigate as child abuse any parents who provide gender-affirming health care to their transgender children. 

鈥淭hey can鈥檛 control what鈥檚 going to happen in Florida or Texas and they can鈥檛 control what鈥檚 going to happen in an individual home,鈥� where students could be subjected to abuse, Wood said. 鈥淎ny person in their right mind would be horrified to learn that it was their technology that ended up harming a youth or driving a youth to the point of feeling so isolated that they felt the only way out was suicide.鈥� 

When private thoughts become public

Susan, a 14-year-old from Cincinnati, knows firsthand how surveillance companies can target students for discussing their sexuality. In middle school, she was assigned to write a 鈥渢ime capsule鈥� letter to her future self. 

Until Susan retrieved the letter after high school graduation, her teacher said that no one 鈥� not even him 鈥� would read it. So Susan, who is now a freshman and asked to remain anonymous, used the private space to question her gender identity. 

But her teacher鈥檚 assurance wasn鈥檛 quite true, she learned. Someone had been reading the letter 鈥� and would soon hold it against her. 

In an automated May 2021 email, Gaggle notified her that the letter to her future self was 鈥渋dentified as inappropriate鈥� and urged her to 鈥渞efrain from storing or sharing inappropriate content.鈥� In a 鈥渟econd warning,鈥� sent to her inbox, she was told a school administrator was given 鈥渁ccess to this violation.鈥� After a third alert, she said, access to her school email account was restricted. She said the experience left her with 鈥渁 sense of betrayal from my school.鈥� She said she had no idea words like 鈥済ay鈥� or 鈥渟ex鈥� could get flagged by Gaggle鈥檚 algorithm.

鈥淚t鈥檚 frustrating to know that this program finds the need to have these as keywords, and quite depressing,鈥� she said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 always going to be oppression against the community somewhere, it seems, and it鈥檚 quite disheartening.鈥� 

School administrators reviewed the time capsule letter and determined it didn鈥檛 contain anything inappropriate, her mother Margaret said. While Susan lives in an LGBTQ-affirming household, Thomas, who grew up in Mississippi, warned that鈥檚 not the case for everyone.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 not just the surveillance of your activities, that鈥檚 the surveillance of your thoughts,鈥� Thomas said of Susan鈥檚 experience. 鈥淚 know that wouldn鈥檛 have gone very well for me and I know for a lot of young people that would place them in a lot of danger.鈥�

Such harms could be exacerbated, Margaret said, if authorities use student data to enforce Ohio鈥檚 strict abortion ban, which has already become the subject of national debate after a 10-year-old girl traveled to Indiana for an abortion. A 27-year-old man and accused of raping the child. 

Cincinnati Public Schools spokesman Mark Sherwood said in an email that 鈥渓aw enforcement is immediately contacted鈥� if the district receives an alert from Gaggle suggesting that a student poses 鈥渁n imminent threat of harm to self or others.鈥� 

Given the state of abortion rules in Ohio, Susan said she鈥檚 concerned that student conversations and classroom assignments that discuss gender and sexuality could wind up in the hands of the police. She lost faith in school-issued technology after her assignment got flagged by Gaggle. 

鈥淚 just flat out don鈥檛 trust adults in positions of power or authority,鈥� Susan said. 鈥淵ou don鈥檛 really know for sure what their true motives are or what they could be doing with the tools they have at their disposal.鈥�

Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to clarify how schools should monitor students鈥� online activities, that educators鈥� widespread use of digital surveillance tools could trample students鈥� civil rights.

They also want the U.S. Education Department to start collecting data on the tools that could highlight whether they have disproportionate 鈥� and potentially harmful 鈥� effects on certain student groups. 

In October, the senators asked four education technology companies that keep tabs on the online activity of millions of students across the country 鈥� often 24 hours a day, seven days a week 鈥� to provide information on how they use artificial intelligence to glean their information. 

Based on their responses, the senators said:

• The companies鈥� software may be misused to identify students who are violating school disciplinary rules. They cited a recent survey where 43% of teachers reported their schools employ the monitoring systems for this purpose, potentially increasing contact between police and students and worsening the school-to-prison pipeline.

• The companies have not attempted to determine whether their products disproportionately target students of color, who already face harsher and more frequent school discipline, or other vulnerable groups, like LGBTQ youth.

• Schools, parents and communities are not being appropriately informed of the use 鈥� and potential misuse 鈥� of the data. Three of the four companies indicated they do not directly alert students and guardians of their surveillance.

Warren and Markey concluded a dire 鈥渘eed for federal action to protect students鈥� civil rights, safety and privacy.鈥�

鈥淲hile the intent of these products, many of which monitor students鈥� online activity around the clock, may be to protect student safety, they raise significant privacy and equity concerns,鈥� the lawmakers wrote. 鈥淪tudies have highlighted unintended but harmful consequences of student activity monitoring software that fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations.鈥�

An FCC spokesperson said they鈥檙e reviewing the and an Education Department spokesperson said they 鈥渓ook forward to corresponding with the senators鈥� about its findings.

Lawmakers鈥� inquiry into the business practices of school security companies Gaggle, GoGuardian, Securly and Bark Technologies is the first congressional investigation into student surveillance tools, whose use grew dramatically during the pandemic when  learning shifted online.

It follows on the heels of investigative reporting by 蜜桃影视 into Gaggle, which uses artificial intelligence and a team of human content moderators to track the online behaviors of more than 5 million students. 蜜桃影视 used public records to expose how Gaggle鈥檚 algorithm and its hourly-wage workers sift through billions of student communications each year in search of references to violence and self harm, subjecting youth to constant digital surveillance with steep implications for their privacy. Gaggle, whose tools track students on their school-issued Google and Microsoft accounts, reported a during the pandemic.

Bark didn鈥檛 respond to requests for comment. Securly spokesman Josh Mukai said in a statement that the company is reviewing the senators鈥� March 30 report and looks forward 鈥渢o continuing our dialogue with Senators Warren and Markey on the important topics they have raised.鈥�

鈥淧arents expect that schools will keep children safe while in the classroom, on a field trip or while riding on a bus,鈥� GoGuardian spokesman Jeff Gordon said in a statement. 鈥淪chools also have a responsibility to keep students safe in digital spaces and on school-issued devices.鈥� 

Gaggle Founder and CEO Jeff Patterson submitted a statement after this article was published. He said the company is reviewing the lawmakers鈥� recommendations 鈥渢o assess how we can further strengthen our work to better protect students.鈥�

鈥淲e want to ensure our technology is effectively supporting student safety without creating unintended risks or harms,鈥� Patterson continued. 鈥淲e have taken steps over the years to ensure effective privacy protections and mitigate bias in our platform, but welcome continued dialogue that will help make sure tools like Gaggle can continue to be used to support students and educators.鈥�

Bark Technologies CEO Brian Bason wrote in a letter to  lawmakers that AI-driven technology could be used to solve the country鈥檚 鈥渢errible history of bias in school discipline鈥� by removing the decisions of individual teachers and administrators.

鈥淲hile any system, including AI-based solutions, inherently have some bias, if implemented correctly AI-based solutions can substantially reduce the bias that students face,鈥� Bason wrote.

As to the question of whether their surveillance exacerbates the school-to-prison pipeline,  the companies鈥� letters acknowledge in certain cases they contact police to conduct welfare checks on students. Securly noted in its letter that in some instances, education leaders 鈥減refer that we contact public safety agencies directly in lieu of a district contact.鈥�

Under the Clinton-era , passed in 2000, public schools and libraries are required to filter and monitor students鈥� internet use to ensure they don鈥檛 access material 鈥渉armful to minors,鈥� such as pornography. Districts have cited the law to justify the adoption of AI-driven surveillance tools that have proliferated in recent years. Student privacy advocates argue the tools go far beyond the federal mandate and have called on the FCC to clarify the law鈥檚 scope. Meanwhile, advocates have questioned whether schools鈥� use of digital surveillance tools to monitor students at home violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In a recent survey by the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, 81 percent of teachers said they used software to track students鈥� computer activity, including to block obscene material or monitor their screens in real time. A majority of parents said they worried about student data getting shared with the police and more than half of students said they decline to share their 鈥渢rue thoughts or ideas because I know what I do online is being monitored.鈥�  

Elizabeth Laird, the group鈥檚 director of equity in civic technology, said it has been calling on student surveillance companies to be more transparent about their business practices but it鈥檚 鈥渄isappointing that it took a letter from Congress to get this information.鈥� She said she hopes the FCC and Education Department adopt lawmakers鈥� recommendations.

鈥淣one of these companies have researched whether their products are biased against certain groups of students,鈥� she said in an email while questioning their justification for holding off on such an inquiry. 鈥淭hey cite privacy as the reason for not doing so while simultaneously monitoring students鈥� messages, documents and sites visited 24 hours a day, seven days a week.鈥� 

蜜桃影视鈥檚 investigation, which used data on Gaggle鈥檚 foothold in Minneapolis Public Schools, failed to identify whether the tool鈥檚 algorithm disproportionately targeted Black students, who are more often subjected to student discipline than their white classmates. However, it highlighted instances in which keywords like 鈥済ay鈥� and 鈥渓esbian鈥� were flagged, potentially subjecting LGBTQ youth to heightened surveillance for discussing their sexual orientation. 

Amelia Vance, an attorney and student privacy expert, said she was intrigued that the companies pushed back on the idea that their tools are used to discipline students since the federal monitoring requirement was meant to keep kids from consuming inappropriate content online and likely face consequences for viewing violent or sexually explicit materials. She agreed the companies should research their algorithms for potential biases and would benefit from additional transparency. 

However, Vance said in an email that FCC clarification 鈥渨ould do little at best and may provide counterproductive guidance at worst.鈥� Many schools, she said, are likely to use the tools regardless of the federal rules. 

鈥淪chools aren鈥檛 required to monitor social media, and many have chosen to do so anyway,鈥� said Vance, the co-founder and president of Public Interest Privacy Consulting. Some school safety advocates are actively lobbying lawmakers to expand student monitoring requirements, she said. 

Asking the FCC to issue guidance 鈥渃ould actually be counterproductive to the goal of limiting monitoring and ensuring more privacy protections for students since it is possible that the FCC could require a higher level of monitoring.鈥�

Read the letters from Gaggle, GoGuardian, Securly and Bark Technologies: 

A group of Democratic lawmakers has demanded that several education technology companies that monitor children online explain their business practices, arguing that around-the-clock digital surveillance demonstrates 鈥渁 clear invasion of student privacy, particularly when students and families are unable to opt out.鈥�

In to last week, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal asked them to explain steps they鈥檙e taking to ensure the tools aren鈥檛 鈥渦nfairly targeting students and perpetuating discriminatory biases,鈥� and comply with federal laws. The letters went to executives at Gaggle, Securly, GoGuardian and Bark Technologies, each of which use artificial intelligence to analyze students鈥� online activities and identify behaviors they believe could be harmful.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

鈥淓ducation technology companies have developed software that are advertised to protect student safety, but may instead be surveilling students inappropriately, compounding racial disparities in school discipline and draining resources from more effective student supports,鈥� the lawmakers wrote in the letters. Though the tools are marketed as student safety solutions 鈥� and grew rapidly as schools shifted to remote learning during the pandemic 鈥� there’s . Some critics, including the lawmakers, argue they may do more harm than good. 鈥淭he use of these tools may break down trust within schools, prevent students from accessing critical health information and discourage students from reaching out to adults for help, potentially increasing the risk of harm for students,鈥� the senators wrote.

The letters cited a recent investigation by 蜜桃影视, which outlined how Gaggle鈥檚 AI-driven surveillance tool and human content moderators subject children to relentless digital surveillance long after classes end for the day, including on weekends, holidays, late at night and over the summer. In Minneapolis, the company notified school security when it identified students who made references to suicide, self-harm and violence. But it also analyzed students鈥� classroom assignments, journal entries, chats with friends and fictional stories.

Each of the companies offer differing levels of remote student surveillance. Gaggle, for example, analyzes emails, chat messages and digital files on students鈥� school-issued Google and Microsoft accounts. Other services include students鈥� social media accounts and web browsing history, among other activities.

The letters were particularly critical of the tools鈥� capacity to track student behaviors 24/7 鈥� including when students are at home 鈥� and their ability to monitor students on their personal devices in some cases.

Schools鈥� use of digital monitoring tools has become commonplace in recent years. More than 80 percent of teachers reported using the tools, according to a recent survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology. Among those who participated in the survey, nearly a third reported that they monitor student activity at all hours of the day and just a quarter said it was limited to school hours.

鈥淏ecause of the lack of transparency, many students and families are unaware that nearly all of their children鈥檚 online behavior is being tracked,鈥� according to the letters. 鈥淲hen students and families are aware, they are often unable to opt out because school-issued devices are given to students with the software already installed, and many students rely on these devices for remote or at-home learning.鈥�

A Securly spokesperson said in an email the company is 鈥渞eviewing the correspondence received鈥� by the lawmakers and is in the process of responding to their requests for information. He said the company is 鈥渄eeply committed to continuously evolving our technology鈥� to help schools protect students online. A Gaggle spokesperson said the company appreciates the lawmakers鈥� interest in learning how the tool 鈥渟erves as an early warning system to help school districts prevent tragedies such as suicide, acts of violence, child pornography and other dangerous situations.鈥� A GoGuardian spokesman said the company cares “deeply about keeping students safe and protecting their privacy.”

Bark officials didn鈥檛 respond to requests for comment.

The Clinton-era , passed in 2000, requires schools to filter and monitor students鈥� internet use to ensure they aren鈥檛 accessing material that is 鈥渉armful to minors,鈥� such as pornography. Student privacy advocates have long argued that a newer generation of AI-driven tools go beyond the law鈥檚 scope and have urged federal officials to clarify its requirements. The law includes a disclaimer noting that it does not 鈥渞equire the tracking of internet use by any identifiable minor or adult user.鈥� It 鈥渞emains an open question鈥� as to whether schools鈥� use of digital tools to monitor students at home violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, according to a by the Future of Privacy Forum.

In their letters, senators highlighted how digital surveillance tools could perpetuate several educational inequities. For example, the tools could have a disproportionate impact on students of color and further uphold longstanding racial disparities in student discipline.

鈥淪chool disciplinary measures have a long history of disproportionately targeting students of color, who face substantially more punitive discipline than their white peers for equivalent offenses,鈥� according to the letters. 鈥淭hese disciplinary records, even when students are cleared, may have life-long harmful consequences for students.鈥�

Meanwhile, the tools may have a larger impact on low-income students who rely on school technology to access the internet than those who can afford personal computers. Elizabeth Laird, the director of equity in civic technology at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said their research 鈥渞evealed a worrisome lack of transparency鈥� around how these educational technology companies track students online and how schools rely on their tools.

鈥淩esponses to this letter will help shine a light on these tools and strategies to mitigate the risks to students, especially those who are most reliant on school-issued devices,鈥� she said in an email.

There are , often their nieces and nephews, grandkids or neighbors. They are the backbone of the American child care system 鈥� largely unseen and drastically under-resourced. Caregivers like Aunt Bee, mostly motivated by love and familial or community duty, are the care and education infrastructure that is keeping our country afloat.

It’s time we see them, lift up their stories and invest in them as a part of our critical childcare infrastructure. This infrastructure must include both the informal care of the Aunt Bees just as it does the licensed care of the Springfield childcare center from which Senator Warren made her remarks.

Family, friend and neighbor child care providers, a category that includes Senator Warren鈥檚 Aunt Bee, are the largest group of child caregivers in this country prior to the pandemic. (For comparison, there are .) .

In-home caregivers are the mainstay of child care for . These caregivers are mostly women () of color (); and those that are paid despite working long, irregular hours. These caregivers go by many names: family child care provider, domestic worker, nanny, au pair, childminder, mommy鈥檚 helper, and so on. But mostly we know them as Abuelita, Granny, Mom-Mom, Nana and of course, Aunt Bee.

With health and safety concerns affecting center and school schedules, we anticipate that reliance on this form of care, along with the licensed version of this care 鈥� referred to as family child care 鈥攚ill persist for the foreseeable future. What support do they receive? It varies.

• A small number of family, friend and neighbor providers can access public child care assistance funding through a 鈥渞egulation-exempt鈥� status;
• Some may have access to minimal health and safety training in their state;
• created a web-resource to help essential healthcare workers identify and compensate relative caregivers;
• allowed families to use state child care assistance for in-home, regulation-exempt child care.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has brought awareness to the critical need to bail out our failing child care system and rebuild a new system that recognizes and supports all the caregivers who love and care for the diverse families in this country.

In an extremely divisive time, child care is a bipartisan issue supported by all parties as an essential service. This issue not only crosses party lines, it crosses the urban and rural divide as well. Child care is essential. Senator Warren joins a bipartisan group of lawmakers who have to address this pressing need.