Hacker News Reader

Comment by hedora | Hacker News Reader

These devices are usually bought on contract, with lots of lock in.

In particular, there are lots of schools getting screwed over financially. Maybe they’ll switch vendors, or use the money for education. Chromebook spending has a strong negative correlation with educational performance.

As a parent, I am supposed to have control over my kids’ personal information, but the schools firehose all the most sensitive kids’ info they have to an unlawful marketing firm that I do not trust. How do I opt out?

View on HN

> Chromebook spending has a strong negative correlation with educational performance.

To be clear, this is only true because it’s been true for all screens.

Are you saying "the impact of Chromebooks, specifically, is unknown" or are you saying "the impact of Chromebooks is known to be better than the overall average" here?

The first (there are no studies comparing laptop brand to educational performance)

Education contracts do not allow Google to use customer data for advertising.

But they still store the data.

Same goes for any third party service using Google Cloud. Google technically stores the data. They still can’t use it though.

“Can’t”

Correct, "can't". Are you suggesting they secretly violate the contract and use the data anyway?

Would anyone be shocked if they did? Tech firms seem to be immune from the law.

Remind me in 10 years when the story breaks.

Hey ChatGPT, set a reminder for 2036 to tell me whether Google was found not to secretly violate TOS of School Chromebooks and use the data harvested from them to create value for it's shareholders.

they do not. I don't work there anymore and don't have any particular goodwill towards the employer that laid me off last year but I can guarantee that any data related to the education sector is under extremely strict controls.

surely you can take two minutes out of your day and do basic websearches for privacy class actions and settlements

https://www.classaction.org/news/microsoft-collects-massive-...

https://www.k12dive.com/news/week-in-review-april-6-2026/816...

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/journalists-sue-goo...

https://www.courthousenews.com/google-settles-class-action-o...

None of those have anything to do with Google for Education contracts, and I hope you realize that.

I really do not understand how anyone can give Google the benefit of the doubt in 2026. They literally make the law. They only adhere to the law when it makes financial sense.

Yes

After PRISM and Room 641A, anything is possible.

Right but stuff like PRISM is the government getting data. In this scenario “the government shouldn’t trust Google with data because it might end up in the hands of the government” doesn’t really make a lot of sense.

Legally they cannot, no. And sure, they could violate contracts and break data protection laws. But they’d be trading an enormous hit on their reputation, who knows how many hundreds of millions in educational contracts for, what, some basic demographic data on kids? Data they’ll almost certainly be able to get via other means once the kid becomes an adult?

I don’t like Google’s involvement in education. I don’t like Google much at all. But we should still be able to examine this stuff rationally without devolving into conspiracy theories that don’t make logical sense.

"reputation"

Honestly reputation isn't the main concern if you're in leadership there, although it is absolutely a concern. The main concern is having to do another consent decree with either the EU or the US government. Those are a complete pain in the ass.

What is the point this comment is trying to make? We can say this for every SaaS company on the planet.

No, because not every SaaS company is Google.

Until they turn 16 or 18.

How do you propose they offer the contracted services like MDM, GSuite (email, Drive, etc) without storing any of the data?

That isn't what the OP was alleging. Of course they store data -- encrypted both in transit and at rest, and you can even activate client side encryption (https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/security/about-...) -- but that doesn't mean they exfiltrate, use or share your data for their own purposes.

They don't, they never have, and they won't (unless there is a blatant, illegal policy violation and lapse of controls internally). This is very similar to the controls and policies in place governing FedRAMP contracts or the control of PCI/financial or HIPAA/healthcare data.

Do you really think the engineering teams pour over those contracts when implementing new features?

Every single time? I sincerely doubt it.

Whatever logical business firewalls Google has between orgs for this kind of purpose seems pretty frail and thin from what I have seen reported.

This absolutely happens, there's a set of teams whose job it is to make sure it happens every time a system is going to be handling customer data. It's not left to the engineers to remember to do so.

They don't even need to know how to read the contract. But its not like engineers can ship whatever they want at a company the size of google.

So my question is, what have you seen reported and what makes you doubt it?

Tell me you've never worked at Google without telling me you've never worked at Google.

There are a lot of complaints you can legitimately levy, but "Google doesn't have enough of a compliance org to ensure eng behaves." is not one of them.

Yes, absolutely. Every microservice where I work is architecturally scrutinized by multiple groups over things like PCI, GDPR and SOX, with major features requiring review. And then third party auditors get to review stuff occasionally. PII is radioactive and PCI data is hard siloed.

If you work at a company that deals with education or HIPAA stuff, there's going to be even more of that.

Presumably Google aren't morons or criminals.

> How do I opt out?

Through your government. Maybe you could form a union strong enough but unlikely as you have more to lose than them, but both is a good idea.

> or use the money for education

Totally agree. Would love far fewer computers in schools.

Surely those contracts specify whatever the schools need.

Homeschool, vote for free school choice, vote for getting the subsidized funds to where you actually send your kids. Solves most problems related to bad school policies.

> vote for getting the subsidized funds to where you actually send your kids

…which is what happens today with public schools. Your case only makes sense if you’re sending your kid to private school and would like public funds to help pay for it.

School vouchers allow richer families to go to private school while preventing lower income folks from doing so, exacerbating problems with educational achievement.

School vouchers are the only fair way to do schooling. Rich people paying for more expensive things isn’t bad. They just shouldn’t be forced to pay for the more expensive thing that they use as well as the less expensive thing they don’t use

Don't worry, they can afford it. They're rich right?

I mean they may not use their local library or parks either, but they ain't getting a refund for that.

I would like a refund on all public services I don't use. My house didn't burn down yesterday -- where's my fire department refund check?

I'm happy to offer to one. However check with your insurance company as they will have to pay put a much high rate for services should your house burn. This case who subscribe yearly to fire protection get a much better deal than those who don't.

If you opt out and want your house to burn that is only fine so long as you ensure the fire doesn't spread, if there is signs it might spread out have to pay inflated rates for fire service to protect the other houses that you can't burn down with yours.

Surely that depends entirely on your definition of the word “fair”. Is it fair that a lower income child is deprived of an opportunity to improve their life through education because their parents can’t afford it?

Ultimately the debate here is “should richer people have to contribute back to society to help the lives of the poorer people”? Of course you can say no to that. But the majority of society doesn’t agree.

At least in America aren’t school taxes extremely local? I’m not sure what you are suggesting actually happens, or at least you are exaggerating quite a bit.

Poor people typically don’t live in the same neighborhoods as wealthy people in America. Wealthy neighborhood public schools tend to have lavish facilities from the tax base, so it’s more like “wealthy guy X doesn’t want to pay for the very fancy facilities he isn’t even using”, not “wealthy guy X doesn’t want to pay to send his poor neighbor’s kid to school at all”.

Where I live all the districts in the metro area pool the money and divide it so the poor student is worth just as much as the rich student in a different district. (Assuming you don't go to a private school)

There are still schools rated much worse than others.

Yes school taxes are local (county and/or city or regional school district) but schools are typically still subsidized by the state too. The fact that schools are rated differently has nothing to do with who goes there, but how it's managed (which definitely has an effect on who goes there when given a choice). That's why I come to the conclusion that free choice of school (private, charter, public or homeschool) is the only sane way to go. Don't force me to send my kids to a bad school when there's a viable option available that I think is better for my kids. My kids, my choice.

One of the best things about America is how highschools mix children from all backgrounds.

In my country your life is already decided at age 12- go to the wrong school and it's over.

Most countries have your lifepath decided at birth by the wealth of your parents.

“School choice” is just marketing language to disguise “funneling general tax dollars into private schools so wealthy people don’t have to pay for the privilege.”

Wealthy people don't want more students going to their children's schools. School choice is about funneling public funds to evangelical (aka extremist) Christian churches.

No. It's about pushing decisions out to the edges and empowering parents (and students) to help run the school system. To frame it this way is to deny the powerful evolution brought about by real choice.

Let’s see numbers proving this “powerful evolution.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com