Blog 9 – PLN Privacy

Photo by Jason Dent on Unsplash

Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) have certainly made learning much more convenient. These days, we rarely rely solely on the classroom itself when we study. For example, when I study computer science, I often turn to YouTube, Reddit, and even AI tools to help me understand concepts and look up information—and some instructors actually encourage us to do so. For me, the value of a PLN is undeniable because it truly makes learning more flexible and easier to sustain.

However, this week’s content has also made me realise that a PLN is not merely a space for learning. Much of what we do there is actually being recorded. Every search, click, browse, and even interaction may be collected, analysed, and even further utilised by the platform.

Is personal data being collected without an explicit educational purpose?

I believe this is highly likely. Many platforms appear to be helping with learning, but the data they collect often goes beyond what is directly related to learning. Beyond assignment records, viewing history, or interaction data, some platforms also track what users click on, how long they stay on a page, and their general usage patterns—even using this data to analyse a person’s general interests and habits.

The problem is that not all of this content can be considered to serve a clear educational purpose. Some data may be highly valuable to the platform, but it isn’t necessarily essential for students’ actual learning. In other words, although students use these tools within a learning environment, the data collected by the platforms is not solely intended to support learning itself.

Therefore, I feel that while PLN may appear to be aiding learning, it is actually constantly collecting data on learners behind the scenes. For example, sometimes I simply go to YouTube to watch a recorded lecture, and afterwards the platform keeps recommending similar content to me and even displays related ads. This makes me feel that it may record not only my learning needs but also my usage habits.

Are third-party analytics compliant with Canadian privacy standards?

From a Canadian perspective, I don’t think this question can be answered simply by looking at whether a platform has a privacy policy. Privacy laws like PIPEDA are designed to restrict organisations from arbitrarily collecting and using personal information; they also emphasise that data collection must serve a legitimate purpose, and users should be informed about how their information will be processed. In reality, however, many third-party analytics systems are quite complex, and it’s difficult for the average student to truly understand what’s happening behind the scenes.

This issue is particularly complex in an educational setting. Often, data is not processed solely by the platform; schools and third-party service providers may also be involved, blurring lines of responsibility. Although many platforms provide terms of service or privacy statements, most students do not actually understand them and often simply click “agree” without reading.

For me, the real issue isn’t whether “it’s written down,” but whether this practice is transparent, necessary, and fair to students. If students have no idea what’s happening and no real choice in the matter, then this so-called “compliance” is highly questionable.

For example, in the EDCI 337 course I took previously, students were required to access materials on external websites or use additional online tools to complete assignments. To keep up with lectures or complete assignments, students basically have no choice but to click through and view the content. Sometimes these sites require a login, or cookies and tracking are enabled by default. From the student’s perspective, we only see the instruction to “go here and review this content,” but we can’t see whether third-party analytics are recording our browsing time, click behaviour, or even tracking our usage habits afterwards.

Do students have meaningful control over their information?

I believe that most students do not actually have meaningful control. Many platforms give the impression that you have a choice about whether to use them, but the reality is often different. If a tool is already integrated into the course, or if the instructor assumes everyone will use it, students don’t really have much room to refuse.

For example, sometimes to complete assignments or access course content, students must log in to a platform or watch videos on external websites. Even if they have concerns about how these platforms collect data, they often have no choice but to click “Agree” first, because they cannot complete the task otherwise.

So, on the surface, it seems as though students are actively consenting, but in reality, their choice is very limited. Most students do not know exactly what data the platform collects, how long it is retained, or whether it will be shared with other systems or third parties. More importantly, even if students do feel uncomfortable, there is often no practical way to opt out.

Therefore, I believe that so-called “meaningful control” should not simply involve students clicking “I agree.” Students should at least know what data the platform collects, how long it will be retained, whether they can refuse consent, and whether they can view or delete this data. Otherwise, this control is more superficial than a genuine choice that truly belongs to the students.

Reference:

Kwok, Tiffany, and Christelle Tessono. GenGenGeneration AI: Safeguarding Youth Privacy in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence. The Dais, Mar. 2025.

The Digital Tattoo Team. “Who Owns Your Data?” Digital Tattoo, The University of British Columbia, 8 Oct. 2019.