February 4, 2025
Sen. Dave Murman, Chairperson
Sen. Margo Juarez
Sen. Jana Hughes, Vice Chairperson
Sen. Dan Lonowski
Sen. Danielle Conrad
Sen. Glen Meyer
Sen. Megan Hunt
Sen. Rita Sanders
I wish to express my appreciation to the members of the Education Committee for this opportunity to address K12 schools’ use of surveillance, monitoring and tracking technology in relation to LB31. My name is Kirk Langer (K-i-r-k L-a-n-g-e-r). I am testifying today in my role as the Chief Technology Officer for the Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) and as the Legislative Liaison for the Nebraska Association of Technology Administrators (NATA) – an organization whose members serve approximately ⅔ of the students in our state. I wish to add that I am also a member of the Network Nebraska Advisory Group; I chair the Technical Panel of the Nebraska Information Technology Committee (NITC), and I am an NITC Commissioner representing K12. These varied perspectives influence my comments today in opposition to LB31.
I think it is important to point out that information security and data privacy are foundational priorities for LPS and NATA districts. We take the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data very seriously and adhere to the principle of least privilege in the provision of access to information. As the “digital age” gives way to the “age of AI” there is no greater threat to personal liberty, civil rights and civil liberties than data security breaches. That is because the logging and retention of data is a byproduct of information systems regardless of whether they serve information security, operational, informational or instructional purposes. While we can’t support LB31 in its current form, we support its ideals of privacy, liberty, transparency, and stewardship through the thoughtful, purposive and transparent use of technology.
First, we oppose LB31 in its current form because it propounds a false narrative that attacks both the intent and impact of technology implemented by K12 schools. It not only suggests schools purchase tools of “mass surveillance” under the “guise of advancing security or efficiency goals,” but that they do so at the expense of meeting instruction and learning needs. The resolve of LB31 to ensure civil rights, advance transparency and safeguard privacy doesn’t have to, nor should it, come at the cost of recognizing both the realities of what is required for schools to fulfill their custodial responsibilities and the purposeful work being done to implement necessary information security controls.
Second, we oppose LB31 in its current form because its language makes it impossible to operationally define the scope of what constitutes mass surveillance, monitoring and tracking technology. On the one hand, it equates exemplar technologies that vary widely between environmental sensors, transactional identification, procedural hall passes, cameras and surveys. While on the other hand, it makes clear the list is not inclusive. The logical extension of this language is the enumeration of all data systems and devices that log data.
Third, we oppose LB31 in its current form because: it mandates a level of reporting that is burdensome and costly due to its scope; it is duplicative of other legislation such as the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and, finally, it denies reporting safeguards afforded under the Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Program of the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
I agree with my NATA colleague from Grand Island Public Schools, Cory Gearhart, whose letter to the committee in opposition stated:
“We believe that collaboration and open dialogue are the most effective means of addressing legitimate concerns regarding student privacy and the appropriate use of technology in schools.”
I conclude my testimony with a slightly edited version of the conclusion from Mr. Gearhart’s letter:
“We respectfully request that the [Education Committee of the] Legislature reconsider LB31 and [we] invite you to engage in a conversation with us about the current practices, technology, and protocols in place at Grand Island Public Schools, [Lincoln Public Schools and other NATA districts] that are designed to address safety, security, liability, and compliance. We welcome the opportunity to share more about the operational realities of school safety, and work with the legislators to discuss practical laws and regulations that would help ensure companies doing business in Nebraska can reduce the administrative burden for schools while increasing student and staff data privacy.”
Kirk Langer
Chief Technology Officer
klanger@lps.org
