* A report by the St. Louis Fox TV affiliate has created some controversy…
A new Illinois law aimed at stopping cyber-bullying, gives schools access to kids social media accounts. Some say the law goes too far.
Previously Illinois schools could take action against students if online bullying occurred, such as something posted on Twitter or Facebook during the school day.
However, with the new law that Illinois legislators approved, school districts and universities in Illinois can demand a student’s social media password. The new law states if a school has a reasonable cause to believe that a student’s account on a social network contains evidence that a student has violated a schools disciplinary rule of policy. Even if it’s posted after school hours.
This week some school districts sent home letters to notify parents and students about the new rules. ” To get into a social networking site and it could be at a school or at home. That we would be able to get that password and get onto their account,” said Leigh Lewis Triad Community Unity School District Superintendent.
* That piece prompted a story in the Christian Science Monitor entitled: “Big Brother: Can your school require your Facebook password?”…
The conversations around data privacy and internet safety just got hotter.
A new Illinois state law can now compel students to hand over their social media login credentials to their school if school and state officials believe it can help prevent hostile online behavior – raising privacy concerns among parents and students alike. […]
On the other hand, as Illinois mom Sara Bozarth told local Fox affiliate KTVI: “It’s one thing for me to take my child’s social media account and open it up, or for the teacher to look or even a child to pull up their social media account, but to have to hand over your password and personal information is not acceptable to me.”
* Some in the right-wing blogosphere have picked it up…
Students in Illinois are required to give teachers their social media passwords or face criminal charges under a new state law that is intended to tackle cyberbullying. However, some say this rule violates personal privacy.
* OK, to the bill. Cyber-bullying is defined…
“Cyber-bullying” means bullying through the use of technology or any electronic communication, including without limitation any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic system, photoelectronic system, or photooptical system, including without limitation electronic mail, Internet communications, instant messages, or facsimile communications. “Cyber-bullying” includes the creation of a webpage or weblog in which the creator assumes the identity of another person or the knowing impersonation of another person as the author of posted content or messages if the creation or impersonation creates any of the effects enumerated in the definition of bullying in this Section. “Cyber-bullying” also includes the distribution by electronic means of a communication to more than one person or the posting of material on an electronic medium that may be accessed by one or more persons if the distribution or posting creates any of the effects enumerated in the definition of bullying in this Section.
* The legislation expands the scope of the state’s existing anti-bullying statute to include cyber-bullying…
No student shall be subjected to bullying… through the transmission of information from a computer that is accessed at a nonschool-related location, activity, function, or program or from the use of technology or an electronic device that is not owned, eased, or used by a school district or school if the bullying causes a substantial disruption to the educational process or orderly operation of a school.
This item applies only in cases in which a school administrator or teacher receives a report that bullying through this means has occurred and does not require a district or school to staff or monitor any nonschool-related activity, function, or program. [Emphasis added]
* The existing statute required that “Each school district and non-public, non-sectarian elementary or secondary school shall create and maintain a policy on bullying, which policy must be filed with the State Board of Education.” The new law adds this…
The policy or implementing procedure shall include a process to investigate whether a reported act of bullying is within the permissible scope of the district’s or school’s jurisdiction and shall require that the district or school provide the victim with information regarding services that are available within the district and community, such as counseling, support services, and other programs.
So, it’s left up to the schools to determine the policy. Triad wants passwords. No other district is identified in any story as asking for passwords. But even if they do copy that policy, it doesn’t mean they can legally get those passwords.
And it most certainly doesn’t mean that state law “requires” parents and students to fork over those passwords.
*** UPDATE 1 *** As a commenter notes below, the above stories cited the wrong state statute. A law which took effect over a year ago allows the password order…
An elementary or secondary school must provide notification to the student and his or her parent or guardian that the elementary or secondary school may request or require a student to provide a password or other related account information in order to gain access to the student’s account or profile on a social networking website if the elementary or secondary school has reasonable cause to believe that the student’s account on a social networking website contains evidence that the student has violated a school disciplinary rule or policy.
There are no state penalties listed for parents, however.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From Ed Yohnka at the ACLU of Illinois…
Thank you so much for shining a bright light on the hysteria around the cyber-bullying legislation passed last year. As you note, a report about a single school district demanding the usernames and passwords of students’ social media accounts created a firestorm across the blogosphere, raising fears that the new law permitted a dragnet collection of such data. Obviously this is not true. Indeed, during the course of the discussion on the measure, no one ever suggested that such a mass collection of data from students was permissible. This view has been reaffirmed by the primary sponsor of the measure.
The ACLU of Illinois opposed this measure out of concern that it created an expectation that school administrators now would become investigators not of activity that takes place within the school walls and during school hours, but also investigation of activities that take place outside of school hours, activities that have no connection to school.
We note your update, referencing the previous law that appears to require that a school notify parents and students that school may seek password information in some circumstances. We would note that the law suggests that the passwords would be sought only where there is some evidence (”reasonable cause”) of a disciplinary violation — and does not carry a penalty if the parent refuses.
But the headline here is that, despite some reporting, no law in Illinois permits the broad collection of students’ private passwords.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 9:53 am:
One more case of good intentions run AMOK by trying to legislate morality.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 9:59 am:
I’ve started discussions in my school district about it… and my position is, I don’t care what the law says. The 5th Amendment matters more and I can’t fathom how demanding passwords outside the judicial system or a court order (which by the way would be very easy to get to get all the info from FB or whomever) can possibly comport to the 5th Amendment even IF a report had occurred.
Additionally, IF a report had occurred, there are two sources of the same cyberbullying communication… the aggressor and the victim. I can’t imagine a set of circumstances that would exist in which pressuring the aggressor to surrender their 5th Amendment rights is warranted or even necessary.
- Anon - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:04 am:
The story cites the wrong bill. PA 98-129 addresses this issue.
- Demoralized - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:08 am:
==I can’t imagine a set of circumstances that would exist in which pressuring the aggressor to surrender their 5th Amendment rights is warranted or even necessary.==
Really? I would want it done Constitutionally but if I’m investigating an aggressor I would certainly want to look at their activities online. That comment was just silly.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:11 am:
“Students in Illinois are required to give teachers their social media passwords or face criminal charges under a new state law that is intended to tackle cyberbullying. However, some say this rule violates personal privacy.”
Constantly amazed by the writing of the paranoid.
To the Post,
In Oswego 308, there have been issues of these types of harassment and bullying. In-house discipline has been the order of the day, this law is more about clearing up what exactly the undercurrent of blocked pages are saying, but what is “new” to kids 9, 10, up to 18 is that all the “friends” and “followers” that you have in a private Facebook or Twitter, it all ain’t private.
The surprise that other’s see your private stuff without handing over passwords really shows that these young adults are lacking the fact that the Internet is never private. Ever.
- train111 - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:17 am:
Nice to see how this goes from a law that is not mandatory and each district has the right to choose how it wants to enforce or not enforce their policies, to the last blogosphere post where STUDENTS ARE REQUIRED.
Looks like every step of the way a particular individual and group casts the last report into their light and interprets it so as to agree with their point of view, and then by the end you have something that is completely different than what you had in the beginning.
Reminds me of a kids game called telephone.
- Stephanie - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:22 am:
None of the laws requires nor allows schools to request nor require that students turn over their passwords to schools. I can’t even think of a reason a password would be necessary. An alleged victim of cyberbullying should be able to print or capture a screenshot of the evidence to turn over to school officials. If it’s secondhand information, the friend who brings it to the attention of the victim should be able to produce the same evidence. A password doesn’t add value. NBC Chicago has posted this erroneous information on their FB page three times since last night. It’s ridiculous.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:27 am:
I get the part about trying to prevent bullying. But reading the law’s definition, it could be interpreted extremely broadly and there will need to be a body of case law built up around it before we really know what it means.
To the specific point of needing the passwords, no you don’t. Not only are there a minimum of two parties (aggressor, victim) to each exchange, there is also the caretaker of the exchange medium (Facebook twitter, etc.) and any other members / friends of any group the two individual parties may be associated with. Social media shares things; that is its’ design. You have to go out of your way to make sure things are not shared. As =Oswego Willy= said, it’s all potentially public.
- Stephanie - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:40 am:
With Rich’s update, I see that there is a law that allows schools to request or require passwords. That still doesn’t make sense, though, since any evidence needed could be acquired by the victim and printed…or have a screenshot taken. The law is an overreach.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:42 am:
The primary / secondary school MUST publish their policy. The policy MAY request / require the password.
The school can ask, but you apparently don’t have to provide the password under these statutes.
- Been There - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:46 am:
===To the specific point of needing the passwords, no you don’t===
Stephanie and RNUG there are ways that social media can be used to bully without it being out there publically. Social media can be used to private message others kids in the school. They could pass along disturbing pictures without the kid ever seeing them. Only to be taunted about them while in school. Having everyone talking and laughing at you without the person actually seeing the posts, message or pictures is just as bad. Messages cannot be seen without a password.
That being said I am totally against handing over passwords to the schools. If they believe it is that bad they should call the police and let that process take over.
- Downstate Illinois - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 10:50 am:
Schools aren’t law enforcement. If a crime has occurred, the police should investigate (and thus legitimately go to a judge to get a court order for the password if the parents don’t give it up.)
The schools don’t need the password. The student can open up his Facebook page and show the administration, or the parents could do so. Giving up the password goes far beyond what schools should be doing.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 11:10 am:
-Been There-
I’ve administered message boards for 10 plus years. A family member has moderated a popular Facebook group (thousands of members)for several years. So we have a bit of social medium experience. Some people might accuse us of being a bit heavy handed because we don’t hesitate to delete posts and ban members that violate the message board / group rules. Kinda like Rich sometimes puts the hammer down here …
Yes. There are ways to do that … but even there it usually doesn’t stay private. It just takes one person to have their settings wrong or to resend something outside the group. If it is in electronic form, you should assume it will end up shared.
I totally agree that the law enforcement process is the way to go if you need actual access to the communications. But I would hope that the school district had an escalation process starting with student / parental involvement before moving to the LE world.
- Arizona Bob - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 11:16 am:
Interesting. Apparently Springfield thinks that the public school system in Illinois has so succeeded in its core function of educating the students that it can devote time and resources to monitoring their social lives of students OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL.
This is truly insanity, almost as bad as “zero tolerance” rules.
It’s also ironic how the GA doesn’t seek to have schools’ powers extend into the community to monitor and “control” drug dealing, gang affiliation, and extortion by students.
Apparently Springfield sees “mean girls” putting nasty gossip on a facebook page as a much bigger threat.
Schools can’t provide psychological care, but they still hire psychologists. Schools can’t provide medical care, yet they hire numerous nurses and require both nursing and educational certification.
Will they now hire “bullying experts” at assistant principle rates to be “cyber police” to persecute any kids that argue and diss on line off school grounds?
I’m not suggesting they deal with bullying the same way I had to when I was a kid. The bullies came up to you and demanded your milk money, you punched one in the nose as hard as you could, then they beat the crap out of you. After doing this a few times, they moved on to softer targets.
The only alternative was forming your own “gang” of victims and give the bullies a taste of their own medicine if they crossed the line.
Thank God we didn’t have guns and knives in those days.
The reach of school discipline is reaching insane levels today. Kids will always have conflict. Perhaps the better way of dealing with this is having the students learn to deal with these conflicts and prevent them from doing damage.
Social bullies only have power over you if you give it to them.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 11:29 am:
Demoralized-
As I said, the same information that is proof of cyberbullying is on the victim machine/account and if not, civil court orders are easy to obtain. Others have mentioned similar.
I will repeat, as someone who investigates computer crime for a living and on a school board, I can’t fathom a set of circumstances where forcing a student to ignore their 5th Amendment rights and require them to give up a password is remotely even necessary to investigate. There are plenty of avenues and many were already mentioned.
- Kyle Hillman - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 11:30 am:
And the UPDATED bill doesn’t say what the story said it does either. It was a bill passed to PREVENT universities from requiring social media accounts of applicants.
Section 15 requires elementary schools to put in their handbooks or send notification to the student and parents if they have a policy of requesting passwords.
It does NOT give schools new permission however, just the requirement to give notice.
- Been There - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 11:38 am:
===but even there it usually doesn’t stay private===
I agree it usually doesn’t but what I assume is the schools may have heard rumors of something going on through private messages and want to take a look. We both agree that there are other processes and it is wrong to ask for passwords. Anyway most of these kids are probably smart enough to have multiple accounts and use phony names to bully the other kid through them. Then they would give up the password to their real accounts which won’t have anything on it anyway.
- Demoralized - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 11:39 am:
@John:
I said in my comment it should be done Constitutionally. I never said they should be forced outside of the legal process. You seemed to indicate there would never be a reason to do so. I simply disagreed with that.
- Onoh - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 11:39 am:
When we adopted full-scale technology adults ultimately learned the pros and cons. KIDS are not as in tuned. Just as the average KID(S) (even adults) is not in tuned to their unalienable rights - which I agree such action would infringe upon.
The larger concern I see is an adult cornering and coercing a KID (outside the presence of his/her parent) for private information from their personal tech device most likely purchased by the ‘parent’. If the KID senses the investigator is wrong, misguided or has bad motives can he/she refuse until his guardian arrives?
Let’s continue to teach and reiterate to our children the detriment of utilizing such technology in certain ways before giving in and purchasing tech devices for their personal use or otherwise. And let’s stop over using the law. Schools have the responsibility of teaching our kids. Leave serious bullying crimes to law enforcement if/when applicable. And remember, kids will be kids.
- JS Mill - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 11:53 am:
As a school teacher, building administrator, and now superintendent for more than two decades I have experienced a dramatic shift of “policing” and healthcare responsibilities from parents and police to the schools. I am totally opposed to school personnel asking for a students social media password and other activities like random drug testing. Unfortunately, I am responsible for ensuring that some of the things I am personally opposed to are implemented or carried out.
Only a few years ago the concept of asking a student for the personal password would have been unthinkable. If it did not happen at school or was not planned at school (nexus) then it was not subject to school discipline. Several things are part of the shift.
-Activity of honor codes that extended beyond the school day and school year for athletes and students in activities are part of the first wave of change. Now a student that violates that code could be subject to suspension or permanent ban from the activities.
-Court decisions began to shape the schools responsibility for students “door-to-door.” Before that if something happened on the walk home it was up to parents or police to deal with but that is no longer.
-But the courts have issued a number of recent rulings pertaining to social media and cyber bullying. It puts significant responsibility for discipline on the shoulders of the school. We are not equipped to investigate online activity beyond what people bring to us. Requiring a student to surrender a password to a school official is absurd. But that is the nature of our knee jerk legislature.
-Much of this is due to failures of parents to teach their children about proper socialization both in person and online. Too often parents personally intervene when the children should learn socialization through their own conflict resolution, not having it done for them. In the latter case, the kids learn nothing other than someone else will try to solve their problems.
-Bullying exists, it always has, it is incredibly harmful. Not all kids know how to handle it, it took me a long time to learn how to deal with it as a kid. Schools have a duty and a moral obligation to address it when it happens in school. But, the media hype has convinced far to many parents that every negative interaction between kids is bullying. It is actually much less frequent and it rarely happens in the presence of an adult witness.
-Schools are not perfect. We need to dedicate ourselves to continual improvement everyday. We will never be perfect but that does not mean we should be complacent.
-Because schools and school personnel act in loco parentis the constitutional protections for students, particularly when safety and welfare are involved, are different. We act on reasonable suspicion not probable cause. Students do not surrender their constitutional rights at the door but the courts have ruled numerous times that their constitutional protections are lower. The “Bong Hits for Jesus” is one a the more recent cases that demonstrates the different protection for students in school.
The Triad response is just dumb. The letter is even more so. Most schools will act with common sense but the media will always find the outlier and present it as the standard.
- Wordslinger - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 12:03 pm:
What’s the beef?
Schools can’t make you give up your password, and there’s no penalty for blowing them off when they ask.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 12:05 pm:
===and there’s no penalty for blowing them off===
There’s no state penalty, but there could be school penalties.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 12:12 pm:
Demoralized-
Then there was a miscommunication and we seem to largely agree
- Demoralized - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 12:13 pm:
==there’s no penalty for blowing them off when they ask==
I could see a school trying to suspend or expel a student that didn’t comply with a request. Remember the stories of dopey school districts refusing to give kids lunch because they hadn’t paid their school lunch tab? If you get a district that has a total lack of common sense all kinds of crazy things can happen.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 12:13 pm:
== There’s no state penalty, but there could be school penalties. ==
If you’re on the right, repeat, right side of an issue, then you meet with the school and they usually back down pretty quickly. Had one run-in like that with an asst. principal when my kid finally reacted to the bullying he had been receiving; when I brought up all the prior incidents, all of a sudden the whole demeanor of the asst. principal changed …
- Wordslinger - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 12:14 pm:
Rich, thanks, the back and forth confused me.
Schools already enforce “code of conduct” violations that happen outside of school. Get caught at a kegger and you can face consequences.
A few years back, some football players at York were suspended for a game when pictures turned up on Facebook of them at a gathering holding red Solo cups. No evidence of booze, the cups were enough.
- Wensicia - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 12:22 pm:
My school district gets cooperation from various social networks when tracking abuse. I haven’t heard of any student or staff forced to give up password information. Investigations are handled with the assistance of law enforcement when required.
Penalties earned through the improper use of school technology are a separate matter; every parent and student signs a statement acknowledging correct use of school equipment and the consequences of incorrect/inappropriate use.
- crazybleedingheart - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 12:58 pm:
When the school is a public school and the school disciplines for failing to turn over incriminating information, it sounds to me like the state compelling one to testify against oneself.
Many (most?) states protect passwords via the 5th amendment interpretation of the 4th (police can’t make you tell them your cell password to search your phone without a warrant).
- Federalist - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 1:38 pm:
A warrant should be required to do this.
- JS Mill - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 3:07 pm:
@- crazybleedingheart - The courts have not applied the Constitutional protections to students in the same manner as they have to adults. Prevailing interest in the safety and well being or disruption of the educational process are often cited.
- State Rep Mike Fortner - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 3:15 pm:
Public Act 98-129 which is referenced in Rich’s update #1 was a follow up to the Facebook privacy act passed in the prior year that affected employers. The point of the act is in item a: “It is unlawful for a post-secondary school to request
or require a student or his or her parent or guardian to provide a password or other related account information in order to gain access to the student’s account or profile on a social networking website or to demand access in any manner to a student’s account or profile on a social networking website.”
The purpose was to protect password privacy since there were no prior regulations governing this. Everything else that follows in the act provides for specific exceptions governing use of the school’s electronic equipment and reasonable cause that the website has evidence that the student has violated a disciplinary policy of the school.
It is ironic that an act that improved privacy for social media passwords is now cited as a way to reduce the privacy of those very same passwords.
- State Rep Mike Fortner - Friday, Jan 23, 15 @ 3:21 pm:
Continuing, since I bumped the post button —
The introduced bill actually applied equally to all schools, but it was amended to only affect post-secondary with the original language. Other schools (elementary and secondary) were given the reduced requirement of notification.
- Backwards - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:30 pm:
That ACLU response is pathetic.
What is the difference between a dragnet of collecting passwords, or singling out one kid or another to get his or her passwords? It’s illegal, and as many have noted a violation of the T&C of most social media sites.
The ACLU proves itself once again to be obsolete in the protection of Civil Liberties.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:32 pm:
=== difference between a dragnet of collecting passwords, or singling out===
One is, by definition, a massive sweep. The other is targeted based upon a complaint.
- Backwards - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:41 pm:
Pretty sure the Fourth Amendment is worded to that it protects individual rights, not just rights violated in a massive sweep.
The school can request your password information based on violation of school policy, not necessarily any type of complaint.
Here is the wording
‘the elementary or secondary school may
request or require a student to provide a password or other related account information in order to gain access to the student’s account or profile on a social networking website if the elementary or secondary school has reasonable cause to believe that the student’s account on a social networking website contains evidence that the student has violated a school disciplinary rule or policy’
So a student comes in wearing wrong height socks (this really has happened) and the vio0ation of disciplinary rules allows that passwords can then be provided to the school.
- Www.Pdcstjohn.Com - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 8:10 pm:
Hey there, You’ve got carried out a wonderful job medicare ’solutions. I am going to unquestionably reddit them plus my own look at advocate to be able to friends and neighbors. Almost certainly they are taken advantage of this website.