A look at the problems caused by spyware on student devices, marketed as a way to prevent shootings, without any independent research to support the claims
Todd Feathers / VICE : Tweets: @josephfcox , @inhabitglobal , @zenalbatross , and @vice Tweets: Joseph Cox / @josephfcox : We tested out some software used to monitor kids laptops at school and... it's not the best https://www.vice.com/... pic.twitter.com/wu0m66JsyW Inhabit / @inhabitglobal : This tech will attune high schoolers to a world where everything is surveilled, everyone is a potential threat, and anything you do could be perceived by an algorithm as evidence that you are a potential school shooter, criminal or terrorist. https://twitter.com/... @zenalbatross : 'yes it's true, we deployed spyware to invasively and non-consensually monitor thousands of children... but on the other hand, it's also garbage and censors access to legit news sites' 🙃 https://twitter.com/... @vice : “We have students so concerned about their privacy that they're resorting to covering their [laptop] cameras and microphones with tape.” https://bit.ly/2rSapp6
Context & Ripple Effects
This VICE investigation lands mid-arc in a debate that Education Week had already flagged months earlier, when US schools were hastily adopting social media monitoring programs with little regard for effectiveness or privacy. The new wrinkle here is the sales pitch itself: vendors justify always-on spyware on student devices as school-shooting prevention while offering no independent research to back the claim.
What makes the piece consequential is how durable the pattern proved. Monitoring usage exploded through pandemic-era remote learning — GoGuardian's lockdown-driven surge drew scrutiny for adding psychological strain, and Wired reported that school-issued laptops carried monitoring software that disproportionately hit low-income students and students of color. By 2022, Wired's assessment was blunt: ML-powered surveillance will never eliminate school-shooting risk, no matter how expansive it gets.
First-order effects
- Students on school-issued devices are monitored continuously by software whose core safety claim is unevidenced, while districts pay for tools they cannot verify actually prevent violence.
Second-order effects
- The backlash template already exists: schools and organizations abandoned Proctorio's exam-monitoring software amid a barrage of student privacy complaints (the Proctorio walkouts), and the same pressure now has a stronger hook — vendors selling prevention without proof.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, student surveillance becomes a normalized default baked into every school device regardless of demonstrated efficacy, shifting the burden onto regulators and parents to demand evidence after adoption rather than before.
The trend: US schools are institutionalizing always-on student surveillance sold on unproven safety claims, with adoption running years ahead of any independent evidence of effectiveness.