Bill to catalog Nebraska school ‘tools of mass surveillance' hits roadblock

Yahoo

10-03-2025

State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln. Jan. 8, 2025 (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — A state lawmaker's attempt to publicly catalog 'tools of mass surveillance' in Nebraska public school districts is on pause, at least for now, as she finds an alternate path forward.
Legislative Bill 31, from State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, would require all of Nebraska's 245 public school districts to publicly inventory and catalog student surveillance, monitoring and tracking technology tools used by or contracted for use in each district. The bill was debated Feb. 21 and Feb. 24 before not returning to the legislative agenda, at Conrad's request.
Conrad has pledged to find a path forward for her bill with some bipartisan support, such as through a different bill or by working with the State Board of Education, the Nebraska Department of Education or specific school districts.
The bill faced stiff opposition from some senators who feared the bill could require schools to disclose sensitive information or impose unfunded burdens to compile the necessary information.
Conrad, a past executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska, described the bill as a 'simple transparency measure' that wouldn't ban the technology she said was coming from 'big tech.'
Instead, she argued that the bill could lead to cost savings over time, possibly leading to increased teacher salaries. Conrad repeatedly marked her bill as a 'true right-left coalition' that she, a pragmatic progressive, had built with students, parents and taxpayers.
Some conservatives, in written comments for the bill, noted they've rarely been on the same side as the Lincoln Democrat but identified the bill as a top priority. Supportive testifiers at the hearing for the bill included Sue Greenwald of Kearney, a prominent conservative advocate for parents' rights bills.
'If they don't have information to know what tools of surveillance or data collection or survey are being utilized by their schools, they cannot insert and understand and be empowered to utilize that control,' Conrad said of families during debate.
State Sen. Dave Murman of Glenvil, chair of the Education Committee, which advanced LB 31 with no opposition, said he has put an extra emphasis on parental rights in his three years as chair. He said Conrad's bill advanced those efforts.
'Parents should, and deserve, to be put in the driver's seat of their child's education,' Murman said. 'Senator Conrad has brought a way to give parents some more information and transparency without putting too much of an additional burden on the work that our great schools have to do.'
State Board of Education members Lisa Schonhoff of Bennington and Kirk Penner of Aurora have also voiced favor for LB 31. Schonhoff thanked Conrad for 'being on the side of parents.'
'This is a nonpartisan, common sense bill,' she wrote in a Feb. 25 post on X, formerly Twitter.
Many senators who ultimately opposed the legislation said they agreed with Conrad's goal that schools should not be collecting data on students and selling it.
However, State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area noted the bill received opposition from major organizations, such as the Nebraska Council of School Administrators, Schools Taking Action for Nebraska Children's Education, Greater Nebraska Schools Association, Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association and the Nebraska State Education Association.
'I believe it's a wolf in sheep's clothing,' von Gillern said. 'It's a Trojan horse to carry things forward that we do not want to advance in our school systems.'
LB 31 would require the State Board of Education to draft a model policy around the targeted technology, requiring school districts to disclose certain information about the tools.
State Sen. Bob Hallstrom of Syracuse offered an amendment to make the surveillance tool inventory voluntary and not require it to be posted online.
He similarly pushed back on a finding in the bill stipulating that schools were using the 'tools of mass surveillance … under the guise of advancing security or efficiency goals.'
'I think it's offensive to suggest that the schools would be doing that under some type of guise,' Hallstrom said. 'They truly do have the best interest in the safety of the students at heart.'
Von Gillern repeatedly asked whether the bill could require public disclosure of sensitive security details that someone plotting a 'nefarious act' could use. He said gathering data for the protection of students and staff is a 'worthwhile venture' but that Conrad's bill, portrayed as advancing that goal, could do 'exactly the opposite.'
State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward said digital cameras, for example, can help when students offer differing stories after incidents. But she voiced similar concerns as von Gillern that disclosing specific technology vendor names and contact information could be dangerous.
Conrad said the plain language of her bill would not require any publication of sensitive information but that she could clarify that intention if needed. Von Gillern said senators also need to consider what isn't in the bill but that many districts had voiced concerns about.
'If we do anything to deteriorate the security of our children in schools then shame on us,' von Gillern said.
State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha said that suggesting Conrad's bill could reduce school safety was a 'ridiculous and absurd extrapolation to arrive at.'
Hunt said if that was the true concern, she said von Gillern and others should maybe 'lift a finger' on gun safe storage or other safety regulations, or increase mental health support.
'All this does is put on the books that this is our expectation in Nebraska,' Hunt said. 'That our kids are not the product, that we're not selling our kids' information, and that we have transparency around the process.'
State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha said it shouldn't be 'too cumbersome' to tell parents whether their children's data is being sold.
State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of the Millard area said she agreed with the aim of the bill and supported it, but she also wanted some guardrails in place, such as possibly exempting physical security information.
Lawmakers signaled they might be moving away from Conrad's goals after voting 27-16 against 'stylistic changes' in an amendment she offered, largely focused on small tweaks in the bill that opponents had pointed out. Kauth and Hughes were the only Republicans to support those changes.
Lawmakers had not yet gotten to a vote on Hallstrom's amendment or LB 31 overall.
Hughes said many school districts have technology vendors sign a student data privacy agreement explicitly saying what will happen with the data. She suggested making such agreements a requirement, to help in the case of data hacks or breaches.
State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha agreed with Conrad about the ease of implementing the bill. He said, 'It's always too much work when you should just do the right thing.'
'This should be simple, unless there's like a million surveillance tools they're using, and student surveys they're using, or they, like, got some double oh seven, I Spy, MI6 type of stuff going on,' he said.
State Sen. Bob Andersen, whose Sarpy County district includes Gretna Public Schools, read a letter from his superintendent questioning a lack of definitions in the bill, such as 'tracking system' or what tools are of 'legitimate use,' could lead to subjectivity in implementing the bill.
Conrad repeatedly pushed back on her colleagues and told them to not use 'straw man' or 'red herring' arguments and not to get 'toiled up in personal battles or misinformation.'
She told her colleagues that, if needed, she would step out of the way.
'Friends, if the problem is perhaps me or you don't like my politics, or you're upset about my work on other bills, I understand that, and I will work if need be to find a substitute sponsor for this legislation because I don't care to get the credit,' Conrad said. 'I care that this important issue moves forward.'
The name and contact information for each private company, vendor or governmental entity providing such technology.
The cost to purchase or maintain each surveillance, monitoring or tracking tool.
A description of each tool, including privacy protection measures and data collection or sharing and usage activities.
Whether a parent can opt their child out of being subjected to the tool.
If and how the collected data will be shared with law enforcement or implicate punitive actions under the state's Student Discipline Act.
How such tools ensure proper accommodation for students with disabilities or individualized education programs.
How biometric or personally identifiable information is stored, shared or sold with the entity providing such tools.
Clearly delineate what remedies are available to students and parents for possible privacy violations related to the tools, including the state's Consumer Protection Act and the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (to possibly sue schools).
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE