OK, I’m pretty well known for not trusting a damn thing D65 does, but given the age of the students that have district devices, blocking sites that require PII from students on the district network and devices seems like it’s well on the right side of the allowable line. IOW, this doesn’t offend me.
OK, I’m pretty well known for not trusting a damn thing D65 does, but given the age of the students that have district devices, blocking sites that require PII from students on the district network and devices seems like it’s well on the right side of the allowable line. IOW, this doesn’t offend me.
ETA: as a for instance, my kid is a sophomore at ETHS (thank god they’re out of D65 now), and their ETHS email address is only reachable by other ETHS email addresses…and that seems perfectly fair to me.
Yeah, I agree - I think it's fine. Ultimately, I decided to publish this because there were rumors that this was done intentionally to BR but I think that's likely not the case here and I hope that was reflected in my reporting. I love a good first amendment fight but this is not it.
OK, I’m pretty well known for not trusting a damn thing D65 does, but given the age of the students that have district devices, blocking sites that require PII from students on the district network and devices seems like it’s well on the right side of the allowable line. IOW, this doesn’t offend me.
ETA: as a for instance, my kid is a sophomore at ETHS (thank god they’re out of D65 now), and their ETHS email address is only reachable by other ETHS email addresses…and that seems perfectly fair to me.
Yeah, I agree - I think it's fine. Ultimately, I decided to publish this because there were rumors that this was done intentionally to BR but I think that's likely not the case here and I hope that was reflected in my reporting. I love a good first amendment fight but this is not it.
No, I think you made it clear that you’re also on the “the stated reasons are fair and make sense” train…which is where I think most people will be.