

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

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.
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America."
US President Donald Trump left no doubt on Saturday that a—or perhaps the—primary driver of his decision to illegally attack Venezuela, abduct its president, and pledge to indefinitely run its government was his desire to control and exploit the country's oil reserves, which are believed to be the largest in the world.
Over the course of Trump's lengthy press conference following Saturday's assault, the word "oil" was mentioned dozens of times as the president vowed to unleash powerful fossil fuel giants on the South American nation and begin "taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground"—with a healthy cut of it going to the US "in the form of reimbursement" for the supposed "damages caused us" by Venezuela.
"We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country," Trump said. "We're going to get the oil flowing the way it should be."
Currently, Chevron is the only US-based oil giant operating in Venezuela, whose oil industry and broader economy have been badly hampered by US sanctions. In a statement on Saturday, a Chevron spokesperson said the company is "prepared to work constructively with the US government during this period, leveraging our experience and presence to strengthen US energy security."
Other oil behemoths, some of which helped bankroll Trump's presidential campaign, are likely licking their chops—even if they've been mostly quiet in the wake of the US attack, which was widely condemned as unlawful and potentially catastrophic for the region. Amnesty International said Saturday that "the stated US intention to run Venezuela and control its oil resources" likely "constitutes a violation of international law."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos."
Thomas O'Donnell, an energy and geopolitical strategist, told Reuters that "the company that probably will be very interested in going back [to Venezuela] is Conoco," noting that an international arbitration tribunal has ordered Caracas to pay the company around $10 billion for alleged "unlawful expropriation" of oil investments.
The Houston Chronicle reported that "Exxon, America’s largest oil company, which has for years grown its presence in South America, would be among the most likely US oil companies to tap Venezuela’s deep oil reserves. The company, along with fellow Houston giant ConocoPhillips, had a number of failed contract attempts with Venezuela under Maduro and former President Hugo Chavez."
Elizabeth Bast, executive director of the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement Saturday that the Trump administration's escalation in Venezuela "follows a historic playbook: undermine leftist governments, create instability, and clear the path for extractive companies to profit."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos and carve up one of the world's most oil-rich territories," said Bast. "The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that the president's own words make plain that his attack on Venezuela and attempt to impose his will there are "about trying to grab Venezuela's oil for Trump's billionaire buddies."
In a statement, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) echoed that sentiment, calling Trump's assault on Venezuela "rank imperialism."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world."
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," said Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro, said in a televised address Saturday that "we will never again be a colony of any empire," defying the Trump administration's plan to indefinitely control Venezuela's government and exploit its vast oil reserves.
“We are determined to be free,” declared Rodríguez, who demanded that the US release Maduro from custody and said he is still Venezuela's president.
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," she added.
Rodríguez's defiant remarks came after US President Donald Trump claimed he is "designating various people" to run Venezuela's government, suggested American troops could be deployed, and threatened a "second wave" of attacks on the country if its political officials don't bow to the Trump administration's demands.
Trump also threatened "all political and military figures in Venezuela," warning that "what happened to Maduro can happen to them." Maduro is currently detained in Brooklyn and facing fresh US charges.
Rodríguez's public remarks contradicted the US president's claim that she privately pledged compliance with the Trump administration's attempts to control Venezuela's political system and oil infrastructure. The interim president delivered her remarks alongside top Venezuelan officials, including legislative and judicial leaders, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, a projection of unity in the face of US aggression.
"Doesn’t feel like a nation that is ready to let Donald Trump and Marco Rubio 'run it,'" said US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who condemned the Trump administration for "starting an illegal war with Venezuela that Americans didn’t ask for and has nothing to do with our security."
"The 'Trump corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine—applied in recent hours with violent force over the skies of Caracas—is the single greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the Americas confront today," said Progressive International.
US President Donald Trump and top administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, characterized Saturday's assault on Venezuela and abduction of the country's president as a warning shot in the direction of Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, and other Latin American nations.
During a Saturday press conference, Trump openly invoked the Monroe Doctrine—an assertion of US dominance of the Western Hemisphere—and said his campaign of aggression against Venezuela represented the "Donroe Doctrine" in action.
In his unwieldy remarks, Trump called out Colombian President Gustavo Petro by name, accusing him without evidence of "making cocaine and sending it to the United States."
"So he does have to watch his ass," the US president said of Petro, who condemned the Trump administration's Saturday attack on Venezuela as "aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America."
Petro responded defiantly to the possibility of the US targeting him, writing on social media that he is "not worried at all."
In a Fox News appearance earlier Saturday, Trump also took aim at the United States' southern neighbor, declaring ominously that "something's going to have to be done with Mexico," which also denounced the attack on Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro.
"She is very frightened of the cartels," Trump said of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. "So we have to do something."
"This armed attack on Venezuela is not an isolated event. It is the next step in the United States' campaign of regime change that stretches from Caracas to Havana."
Rubio, for his part, focused on Cuba—a country whose government he has long sought to topple.
"If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I'd be concerned, at least a little bit," Rubio, who was born in Miami to Cuban immigrant parents, said during Saturday's press conference.
That the Trump administration wasted no time threatening other nations as it pledged to control Venezuela indefinitely sparked grave warnings, with the leadership of Progressive International cautioning that "this armed attack on Venezuela is not an isolated event."
"It is the next step in the United States' campaign of regime change that stretches from Caracas to Havana—and an attack on the very principle of sovereign equality and the prospects for the Zone of Peace once established by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States," the coalition said in a statement. "This renewed declaration of impunity from Washington is a threat to all nations around the world."
"Trump has clearly articulated the imperial logic of this intervention—to seize control over Venezuela's natural resources and reassert US domination over the hemisphere," said Progressive International. "The 'Trump corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine—applied in recent hours with violent force over the skies of Caracas—is the single greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the Americas confront today."