Why permission scopes deserve attention
When districts approve applications, permissions are often treated as a technical detail. In reality, permission scopes define the true level of access a tool has to student and staff data.
Some scopes introduce significantly higher risk than others.
Access to email content
Permissions that allow apps to read or modify emails are among the highest risk.
Email often contains:
- Personally identifiable information
- Sensitive student or family communications
- Staff discussions and internal planning
Once granted, this access can expose large volumes of sensitive data.
Access to directory-wide information
Some apps request access to the full district directory, including all users and contact information.
This creates risk by:
- Expanding exposure beyond the original user
- Allowing profiling of students or staff
- Increasing the impact of any misuse or breach
Directory access should always be carefully justified.
Access to files, photos, and Drive content
Permissions that allow access to Drive files or photos can include student work, assessments, and personal materials.
These permissions:
- Extend beyond instructional intent
- Persist even when usage declines
- Are often broader than necessary
Over time, this creates silent exposure.
Why scope creep is common
Many tools start with limited permissions and expand over time as features are added. Districts may not be alerted when scopes change, especially if approvals are not revisited regularly.
This is how risk accumulates quietly.
What districts can do
Districts can reduce exposure by:
- Reviewing permission scopes during approval and renewal
- Favoring tools with minimal required access
- Reassessing scopes when features change
- Treating broad access as an exception, not the default
Permission scopes are not just technical settings. They are policy decisions.
