May, 25 2022, 12:55pm EDT

Governments Harm Children's Rights in Online Learning
146 Authorized Products May Have Surveilled Children and Harvested Personal Data
WASHINGTON
Governments of 49 of the world's most populous countries harmed children's rights by endorsing online learning products during Covid-19 school closures without adequately protecting children's privacy, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The report was released simultaneously with publications by media organizations around the world that had early access to the Human Rights Watch findings and engaged in an independent collaborative investigation.
"'How Dare They Peep into My Private Life?': Children's Rights Violations by Governments that Endorsed Online Learning during the Covid-19 Pandemic," is grounded in technical and policy analysis conducted by Human Rights Watch on 164 education technology (EdTech) products endorsed by 49 countries. It includes an examination of 290 companies found to have collected, processed, or received children's data since March 2021, and calls on governments to adopt modern child data protection laws to protect children online.
"Children should be safe in school, whether that's in person or online," said Hye Jung Han, children's rights and technology researcher and advocate at Human Rights Watch. "By failing to ensure that their recommended online learning products protected children and their data, governments flung open the door for companies to surveil children online, outside school hours, and deep into their private lives."
Of the 164 EdTech products reviewed, 146 (89 percent) appeared to engage in data practices that risked or infringed on children's rights. These products monitored or had the capacity to monitor children, in most cases secretly and without the consent of children or their parents, in many cases harvesting personal data such as who they are, where they are, what they do in the classroom, who their family and friends are, and what kind of device their families could afford for them to use.
Most online learning platforms examined installed tracking technologies that trailed children outside of their virtual classrooms and across the internet, over time. Some invisibly tagged and fingerprinted children in ways that were impossible to avoid or erase - even if children, their parents, and teachers had been aware and had the desire to do so - without destroying the device.
Most online learning platforms sent or granted access to children's data to advertising technology (AdTech) companies. In doing so, some EdTech products targeted children with behavioral advertising. By using children's data - extracted from educational settings - to target them with personalized content and advertisements that follow them across the internet, these companies not only distorted children's online experiences, but also risked influencing their opinions and beliefs at a time in their lives when they are at high risk of manipulative interference. Many more EdTech products sent children's data to AdTech companies that specialize in behavioral advertising or whose algorithms determine what children see online.
With the exception of Morocco, all governments reviewed in this report endorsed at least one EdTech product that risked or undermined children's rights. Most EdTech products were offered to governments at no direct financial cost. By endorsing and enabling the wide adoption of EdTech products, governments offloaded the true costs of providing online education onto children, who were unknowingly forced to pay for their learning with their rights to privacy and access to information, and potentially their freedom of thought.
Few governments checked whether the EdTech they rapidly endorsed or procured for schools were safe for children to use. As a result, children whose families could afford to access the internet, or who made hard sacrifices to do so, were exposed to the privacy practices of the EdTech products they were told or required to use during Covid-19 school closures.
Many governments put at risk or violated children's rights directly. Of the 42 governments that provided online education to children by building and offering their own EdTech products for use during the pandemic, 39 governments made products that handled children's personal data in ways that risked or infringed on their rights. Some governments made it compulsory for students and teachers to use their EdTech product, subjecting them to the risks of misuse or exploitation of their data, and making it impossible for children to protect themselves by opting for alternatives to access their education.
Children, parents, and teachers were largely kept in the dark about these data surveillance practices. Human Rights Watch found that the data surveillance took place in virtual classrooms and educational settings where children could not reasonably object to such surveillance. Most EdTech companies did not allow students to decline to be tracked; most of this monitoring happened secretly, without the child's knowledge or consent. In most instances, it was impossible for children to opt out of such surveillance and data collection without opting out of compulsory education and giving up on formal learning during the pandemic.
Human Rights Watch conducted its technical analysis of the products between March and August 2021, and subsequently verified its findings as detailed in the report. Each analysis essentially took a snapshot of the prevalence and frequency of tracking technologies embedded in each product on a given date in that window. That prevalence and frequency may fluctuate over time based on multiple factors, meaning that an analysis conducted on later dates might observe variations in the behavior of the products.
It is not possible for Human Rights Watch to reach definitive conclusions as to the companies' motivations in engaging in these actions, beyond reporting on what it observed in the data and the companies' and governments' own statements. Human Rights Watch shared its findings with the 95 EdTech companies, 196 AdTech companies, and 49 governments covered in this report, giving them the opportunity to respond and provide comments and clarifications. In all, 48 EdTech companies, 78 AdTech companies, and 10 governments responded as of May 24, 12 p.m. EDT. Several EdTech companies denied collecting children's data. Some companies denied that their products were intended for children's use. AdTech companies denied knowledge that the data was being sent to them, indicating that in any case it was their clients' responsibility not to send them children's data. These and other comments are reflected and addressed in the report, as relevant.
As more children spend increasing amounts of their childhood online, their reliance on the connected world and digital services that enable their education will likely continue long after the end of the pandemic. Governments should pass and enforce modern child data protection laws that provide safeguards around the collection, processing, and use of children's data. Companies should immediately stop collecting, processing, and sharing children's data in ways that risk or infringe on their rights.
Human Rights Watch has launched a global campaign, #StudentsNotProducts, which brings together parents, teachers, children, and allies to support this call and demand protections for children online.
"Children shouldn't be compelled to give up their privacy and other rights in order to learn," Han said. "Governments should urgently adopt and enforce modern child data protection laws to stop the surveillance of children by actors who don't have children's best interests at heart."
International Media Consortium
EdTech Exposed is an independent collaborative investigation that had early access to Human Rights Watch's report, data, and technical evidence on apparent violations of children's rights by governments that endorsed education technologies during the Covid-19 pandemic. The consortium provided weeks of independent reporting by more than 25 investigative journalists from 13 media organizations in 16 countries. It was coordinated by The Signals Network, an international nonprofit organization that supports whistleblowers and helps coordinate international media investigations that speak out against corporate misconduct and human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch provided financial support to Signals to establish the consortium, but the consortium is independent from and operates independently from Human Rights Watch.
The media organizations involved include ABC (Australia), Chosun Ilbo (Republic of Korea), El Mundo (Spain), Folha de Sao Paulo (Brazil), The Globe and Mail (Canada), Kyodo News (Japan), McClatchy/Miami Herald/Sacramento Bee/Fort Worth Star-Telegram (USA), Mediapart (France), Narasi TV (Indonesia), OCCRP (Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria, SouthAfrica, and Zambia), The Daily Telegraph (UK), The Wire (India), and The Washington Post (USA).
In the coming weeks, Human Rights Watch will release its data and technical evidence, to invite experts, journalists, policymakers, and readers to recreate, test, and engage with its findings and research methods.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Republicans in Congress Ripped for 'Entirely Preventable' 2026 Healthcare Crisis
"Working families simply can't afford to pay more money for worse care. We need to extend ACA tax credits to lower costs."
Dec 31, 2025
With millions of Americans facing health insurance premium hikes and Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring at midnight, critics, including congressional Democrats, called out Republicans on Capitol Hill for kicking off 2026 with a nationwide healthcare crisis.
"When the clock strikes midnight, the fallout of the GOP's premium hikes will ripple throughout the nation," Protect Our Care chair Leslie Dach said in a Wednesday statement. "This new year brings a healthcare catastrophe unlike anything this nation has ever seen. Hardworking Americans will be sent into crippling medical debt, emptying out their savings just to see a doctor. Others will be forced to live without the life-saving coverage they need. Untold tens of thousands will die from preventable causes."
"And hundreds of hospitals, nursing homes, and maternity wards will shutter or be at risk of disappearing out of thin air," Dach warned. "When the American people go to the ballot box in November, they won't forget who's responsible for all of this chaos and carnage. They won't forget who's responsible for their skimpier coverage, sky-high premiums, and vanishing hospitals."
Republican lawmakers declined to extend ACA subsidies in their so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which is also expected to slash an estimated $1 trillion in Medicaid spending over the next decade, leading to health clinic closures, while giving more tax breaks to the ultrawealthy. Even the longest federal government shutdown in history—which a handful of moderate Senate Democrats ultimately ended without any real concessions—couldn't convince the GOP to extend the expiring tax credits.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has faced calls to step down over his handling of both shutdowns this year, stressed in a Wednesday statement that the healthcare crisis beginning Thursday "was entirely preventable—caused by Republican obstruction and total inaction."
"Millions of Americans will lose their healthcare, and millions more will see their costs spike by thousands of dollars," he continued. "Millions of hardworking families, small business owners and employees, older Americans, and farmers and ranchers will face impossible choices."
Specifically, about 22 million people who receive subsidies face higher premiums next year, and experts warn nearly 5 million people could become uninsured if the tax credits aren't extended. That's on top of the at least 10 million people expected to lose Medicaid coverage over the next decade, thanks to the OBBBA that President Donald Trump signed into law this summer.
Noting that the expiring subsidies are set to leave millions of Americans without health insurance, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) declared on social media Wednesday, "Republicans don't give a damn."
The Chicago Tribune on Wednesday shared the story of Eleanor Walsh, of St. John, Indiana. She and her husband, who are both self-employed, paid around $9,100 for health insurance this year. In 2026, it will increase to $23,400. To save money, they are going with another plan, which has a $10,130 deductible for each of them, she told the newspaper.
"We're going through every expense we have," said Walsh, whose family has over $10,000 in medical debt from her husband's recent open-heart surgery. "It's going to be a rough year."
In Alta, Wyoming, Stacy Newton and her husband similarly run small businesses and buy health insurance through the ACA marketplace. She was diagnosed with chronic leukemia last year. The cheapest option to cover the couple and their teenage kids next year includes a $3,573 monthly premium, or nearly $43,000 for the year, with a $21,200 deductible.
"It's terrifying... We're not rich, we're not poor. We're a standard, middle-class family, and somehow now I can't afford health insurance," Newton told the Washington Post. "If my leukemia acts up, I'm up a creek... I just don't have a solution yet."
"I just officially canceled my ACA marketplace insurance for 2026," she told the paper earlier this week. "How on Earth is this going to unfold for millions of people in America?"
While Americans are forced to make coverage decisions before open enrollment ends in mid-January, without any promise of the subsidies returning, Schumer signaled that Democrats are still fighting for a fix in Washington, DC.
"Senate Republicans had multiple chances to work with Democrats to stop premiums from skyrocketing—and every time, they blocked action," he said. "While Republicans chose to do nothing and ignore the pain families will feel starting tomorrow, Senate Democrats are fighting to lower costs, protect coverage, and make life more affordable—not harder—for American families."
Four Republicans in the House of Representatives have signed on to a discharge petition to force a January vote on Democratic legislation to extend the credits for three years. Roll Call reported Tuesday that "with the knowledge that a procedural vote on a similar bill was rejected in the Senate, a bipartisan group of senators is working on a compromise to extend the credits."
However, as the outlet also pointed out, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has called Democrats' three-year extension of the tax credits a "waste of money."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—one of the lawmakers who has used the current healthcare debate to renew demands for Medicare for All—took aim at Thune on social media Monday.
Other lawmakers have kept up the battle for universal healthcare this week. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said Tuesday that "everyone in America—no matter what their ZIP code is—should have access to the quality healthcare they need, when they need it. That's why I'm fighting to put us on the path to Medicare for All."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (Mich.)—highlighted Sunday that "millions of Americans remain at jobs they hate for one reason: the health insurance they receive."
"That's absurd," he said. "Universal healthcare will give Americans the freedom to choose the work they want without worrying about healthcare coverage. Another reason for Medicare for All."
Absent any real progress on the ACA, let alone Medicare for All, in DC, "at least a dozen states are working to shield people from soaring health insurance costs following Congress' failure to extend Obamacare subsidies for tens of millions of Americans," Politico reported Monday.
Elected officials are taking action in states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Mexico, the last of which is the only one so far to cover all expiring subsidies, according to the outlet.
"We can carry the cost for a little bit, but at some point, we will need Congress to act," said the speaker of New Mexico House of Representatives, Javier Martínez (D-11). "No state can withstand to plug in every single budget hole that the Trump administration leaves behind."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Vetoes Colorado Clean Water Bill—Then Tells State's Officials to 'Rot in Hell'
The bill vetoed by Trump would have provided funds to finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a 130-mile pipeline designed to deliver clean, filtered water to 50,000 residents in the eastern part of the state.
Dec 31, 2025
President Donald Trump issued the first veto of his second term this week when he rejected a bill with bipartisan support aimed at ensuring access to clean drinking water in rural Colorado.
As reported by Colorado Public Radio on Tuesday, the bill in question would have provided funds to finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit, a 130-mile pipeline designed to deliver clean, filtered water to 50,000 residents in the eastern part of the state.
In a statement announcing his video of the bill, Trump cited concerns about the size of the US deficit, even though the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that finishing the conduit will cost less than $500,000.
"My administration is committed to preventing American taxpayers from funding expensive and unreliable policies," said Trump, whose signature legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is projected to increase the US deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next decade. "Ending the massive cost of taxpayer handouts and restoring fiscal sanity is vital to economic growth and the fiscal health of the nation."
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), a longtime Trump ally who sponsored the legislation, blasted the president for vetoing "a completely non-controversial, bipartisan bill that passed both the House and Senate unanimously."
Boebert also hinted that Trump's reasons for passing the bill could be political retribution over her effort to force the release of files related to the criminal prosecution of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who for years was a friend of the president.
"I sincerely hope this veto has nothing to do with political retaliation for calling out corruption and demanding accountability," Boebert said. "Americans deserve leadership that puts people over politics."
It's not clear what Trump's motives were for vetoing the bill, though he has been feuding with elected officials in Colorado over the continued imprisonment of Tina Peters, the former county clerk of Mesa County, Colorado who was convicted in 2024 of seven charges related to her allowing unlawful access to voting machines in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
Trump has demanded that Colorado release Peters, and he even went so far as to give her a presidential pardon, even though she was convicted on state charges rather than federal charges where such a pardon would carry real legal weight.
In a New Year's Eve Truth Social post, Trump once again made false claims about Peters' case.
"God Bless Tina Peters, who is now, for two years out of nine, sitting in a Colorado Maximum Security Prison, at the age of 73, and sick, for the 'crime' of trying to stop the massive voter fraud that goes on in her State," Trump wrote.
In reality, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Colorado during the 2020 election.
Trump finished off his post by lashing out at Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, a Republican whose office successfully put Peters in prison for a nine-year sentence.
"To the Scumbag Governor, and the disgusting 'Republican' (RINO!) DA, who did this to her (nothing happens to the Dems and their phony Mail In Ballot System that makes it impossible for a Republican to win an otherwise very winnable State!), I wish them only the worst," Trump wrote. "May they rot in Hell. FREE TINA PETERS!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
ICE Plots $100 Million 'Wartime Recruitment' Drive Aimed at Hiring Gun Enthusiasts
The propaganda blitz will be aimed at "people who have attended UFC fights, listened to patriotic podcasts, or shown an interest in guns and tactical gear," according to the Washington Post.
Dec 31, 2025
The Trump administration is planning a massive propaganda campaign aimed at recruiting thousands of new federal immigration enforcement officers to carry out its mass deportation agenda.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that it had obtained internal documents revealing that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is planning to spend $100 million over the next year on what the agency describes as a "wartime recruitment" drive.
The propaganda blitz will be targeted at highly specific demographics, including "people who have attended UFC fights, listened to patriotic podcasts, or shown an interest in guns and tactical gear," according to the Post.
The ICE drive would also use an ad-targeting technique called "geofencing" to send recruitment ads to users' phone browsers if they are in the vicinity of certain locations, such as military bases, NASCAR races, college campuses, and gun shows.
The ads being designed for the recruitment drive will be based around current appeals that depict joining ICE as part of a "sacred duty" to "defend the homeland" from "foreign invaders," the Post reported.
This rhetoric is similar to the language used in a recent ICE job post flagged by University of Wisconsin–Madison sociologist Jess Calarco. The listing asked prospective recruits if they are “ready to defend the homeland” by joining “an elite team dedicated to... securing our nation’s safety.”
Calarco noted that the job post "reads like a video game ad," which she said "is almost certainly by design."
Sarah Saldaña, a director of ICE under the Obama administration, told the Post that it is worrying to see the Trump administration casting such a wide net for people who lack any experience in law enforcement and who may be eager for what the Post described as "all-out combat."
The recruitment blitz comes amid new indications that the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign is falling far short of its goals.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent on Wednesday wrote that immigration arrests this year have fallen far short of the goal of 3,000 people per day set by top Trump aide Stephen Miller, and it seems highly unlikely that Miller will realize his dream of deporting 1 million people per year.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, told Sargent that "it's clear that they have not achieved the shock-and-awe campaign of mass deportations that they wanted, and they are still running into quite a lot of obstacles."
Reichlin-Melnick also predicted that "there will still be millions of people here who are undocumented" after Trump leaves office in 2028, as the administration "will not be able to deport even the majority of undocumented immigrants in four years."
The Trump administration earlier in the year announced plans to entice new ICE recruits by offering them $50,000 sign-up bonuses and assistance with repaying student loans in a bid to double the agency's head count.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


