Ian Linkletter

@linkletter.org

Emerging Technology & Open Education Librarian. My work focuses on protecting students from the harms of ed tech surveillance. I defend freedom of expression, access to information, algorithmic transparency, open privacy knowledge, and fair dealing rights.

This is a well-produced segment. I encourage you to watch so you can hear the noise for yourself. The professor of environmental health science that they interviewed called it an “unprecedented new noise source.”

Neighbors say noise from Michigan data center is 24/7 and upending their lives

One Michigan community has been experiencing the reality of a data center next door for a couple of years now, and they say the sound has changed their lives.

wxyz.com

Months after the data breach, Instructure has still not provided customers with information about what was stolen. They said they would release information this week, but "recently learned that the third-party platform we've selected to deliver your data may have been subject to a security threat."

Latest Update: 7/14/2026

To our Instructure Community,

I'm writing to let you know we're pausing data delivery out of an abundance of caution. I know you've been counting on this, and I want to be direct about why we're making this decision.

We recently learned that the third-party platform we've selected to deliver your data may have been subject to a security threat. Security is paramount, and before we upload your data, we want to take the time to assess the platform's safety or find an alternative. Rest assured, your data remains secure, and we will proceed only when we are confident the third-party platform is safe.

I understand this is disappointing. But ensuring delivery happens securely is the only acceptable choice. We've worked hard to build this process with your input in mind, and protecting your data comes before any timeline.

We're taking the time now to rework our approach with security at the center of every decision. We'll reach out as soon as we have meaningful updates to share about our revised approach and the webinars we had planned.

If you've already designated a security contact with us, you're all set—we'll reach out to them as we move through this process. That requirement will remain in place once delivery resumes.

We appreciate your patience and your trust in us as we work through this carefully.

Steve Daly
CEO, Instructure

Today we beat Stephen Miller’s lawsuit mill in court! For 3 years I’ve been a defendant in a case filed by America First Legal on behalf of Gateway Pundit & a random antivaxxer we’d never heard of until she sued us. The plaintiffs claimed we “censored” them. It was a lie. They just lost.

Case 3:23-cv-00571-TAD-KDM
Document 219
5979
Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 23 PagelD #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JILL HINES ET AL
VERSUS
ALEX STAMOS ET AL
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00571
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D.
MCCLUSKY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Renewed Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter and Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. No. 191] filed by Defendants, Alex Stamos,
Renée DiResta, the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, the
Leland Stanford Junior University, Kate Starbird, Graphika, Camille François, the
Atlantic Council, and Graham Brookie (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs, Jill Hines ("Hines") and Jim Hoft ("Hoft") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an Opposition
[Doc. No. 207]. Defendants then filed a Reply [Doc. No. 209].
For the reasons set forth, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This case is before the Court on limited remand to determine jurisdiction.
Hines v. Stamos, 111 F.4th 551 (5th Cir. 2024); see also [Doc. No. 112]. On May 2,

Instructure: "We have been informed that no Instructure customers will be extorted as a result of this incident, publicly or otherwise." @dexdigi.bsky.social: "What does it mean when the customer for an educational technology app isn't the student, isn't the user, it's the institution?"

Dexter Thomas@dexdigi.bsky.social · 3mo ago

schools are acting like the Canvas hack is 'fixed'. it's not. here's my interview with @linkletter.org on the decade+ of decisions that led to this, what 'shred logs' are (and are not), and what we can do now youtu.be/Tu9QbSIFwQc

“That is shocking. And no, I don’t mean the size and implications of this massive data breach…I mean that this is the story: “the LMS is down. We can’t do school.” This take down of LMS’s in light of he Canvas breach is even better than the one I posted earlier today. Read and take to heart.

That Damned LMS Dependency

For the second time in less than a year, a major disruption to the learning management system Canvas has prompted cries (and headlines) that “we can’t do school!” In the fall of 2025, an Amazon Web S...

2ndbreakfast.audreywatters.com

New, by me: U.S. lawmakers want answers from the chief executive of Instructure, which makes the Canvas software for schools, about the company's data breach and the defacement/extortion shitshow that followed. Millions of students' data stolen in the breach. Instructure paid the hackers' ransom.

US lawmakers demand answers from Instructure after Canvas data breaches | TechCrunch

U.S. House lawmakers want to know how hackers broke into education tech giant Instructure twice, and stole reams of data from students who use the company's flagship student data software Canvas.

techcrunch.com

You may recall "any lawful purpose" being the US government's phrase demanding Anthropic allow the use of Claude for domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. Turns out this phrase has been in Instructure's ToS for *years*. It's the AI language that's new. How can public bodies sign this?

Ian Linkletter@linkletter.org · 3mo ago

What is Instructure doing with user data? On April 17, 2026, this "Usage Data" section had language added saying Instructure can use this data for "any lawful purpose". It prohibits customers from using their data to train AI, while allowing themselves to do so. web.archive.org/web/20260513...

Screenshot of Instructure ToS. Usage Data. Customer agrees that statistical and analytical data related to Instructure’s provision of the Service or Customer’s use and interactions with the Service (e.g., browsing history, inputs, outputs, feedback), and de-identified Customer data (collectively, “Usage Data”) is owned by Instructure, and may be used by Instructure for any lawful purpose not otherwise excluded by this Agreement. Such Usage Data will only be used in its aggregated form and shall not include any information that identifies or can be reasonably used to identify an individual person. Without Instructure’s prior written consent, Customer may not: (a) use Usage Data to train, develop, fine-tune, improve, or otherwise enhance artificial intelligence, including any underlying models or algorithms, whether proprietary to Customer or a third party; (b) disclose, sell, or otherwise provide Usage Data to any third party; or (c) reverse engineer or attempt to derive the underlying methodology of any Usage Data. Customer’s use of the Service in the ordinary course, including viewing dashboards, reports, and analytics made available within the Service, does not constitute a violation of this provision.