Technology may evolve, but inequity remains

Being part of a privileged society, we often lack awareness of the technological advantages we enjoy. In Western society, technology is largely taken for granted. I’ll admit that before this class, I hadn’t given much thought to the digital divide. I was aware of disparities between rural and urban internet access, but I hadn’t fully considered the wider societal impacts of this inequality.

I grew up in rural Saskatchewan, where internet access was extremely limited. I remember being stuck on dial-up and using a clunky old computer running Windows 98. Even today, high-speed internet is unavailable in my home community. According to Statistics Canada, 22.8% of rural communities still lack access to broadband internet. When I visit the farm, I rely on mobile data. I know it’s a “first-world problem,” but it underscores deeper issues around technological inequality.

Canada is the second-largest country in the world, yet 90% of our population lives within 160 km of the American border. The rest live in rural or remote areas, where infrastructure is both more difficult and more expensive to implement. That’s where inequality begins. That’s where inequality begins. Although the government has invested in improving and expanding infrastructure, the sheer size of the country makes these efforts insufficient. For example, SaskTel is installing fiber-optic internet in some smaller towns, but not all. 15% of communities with low population densities will still be dependent on expensive satellite internet for patchy high-speed access or expensive mobile data plans.

Technology is expensive. Those who have a lower socioeconomic status or a fixed income in Canada affects their use of technology, let alone cover the cost of Internet or a data plan. During COVID, these inequalities became more visible. Some students needed to borrow laptops, while others couldn’t access online classes at all. Even within the same province, different school divisions prioritized technology differently. Some emphasize educational tech, while others can’t justify the cost due to connectivity issues. Why invest heavily in ill-performing technology when other issues, such as bussing, are more important?

Technology inequality isn’t just a matter of location or money. Technology has created barriers for older generations. Many essential services such as banking, healthcare access, government forms, now rely on digital platforms, and older generations are being left behind. For example, my 80 year old father struggles to use a basic flip phone, let alone a computer or online banking information. He’s essentially a Luddite. My mother stayed relatively up-to-date until she retired. After retirement, however, her skills began to decline from lack of use. We see this gap among educators as well. Some confidently incorporate technology into their classrooms, while others avoid it. This inconsistency leads to unequal student experiences, depending on which classroom they’re in.

One of the most equity-enhancing aspects of technology is accessibility. Assistive technologies (ex. screen readers, voice-to-text tools, and talking boards, etc.) have transformed learning environments for students with disabilities. These tools benefit students by enabling access to curriculum, communication, and social relationships. However, this comes at a cost. This technology can be expensive, requires consistent advocacy, and usually requires training for both the teacher and the student. Despite progress, people with disabilities often still face barriers when using digital technologies, whether due to universal design flaws, not exactly matching needs, budget constraints or limited support.

Surveillance through technology also complicates digital equity. While smart devices and AI programs are convenient, they also collect vast amounts of personal data, with or without our full understanding or consent. This affects everyone, but not equally. Marginalized communities are more likely to be subjected to digital surveillance, while those with more resources or education (i.e. privileged) can better protect themselves using tools like VPNs, privacy settings, or encrypted platforms.

Even trusted institutions are vulnerable. Regina Public SD, for example, was the target of a ransomware attack, and hackers gained access to sensitive school data to hold hostage. This incident revealed how insecure some of our systems can be, and how easily our data can be hacked without sufficient protection. My division has since created new and more strict policies to ensure online security and privacy. 

These breaches don’t just raise privacy questions, but equity questions. Who has the tools and knowledge to opt out of this digital exposure? Who understands the risks? Who faces consequences when protections fail? Without strong safeguards and digital literacy education, we risk leaving the most vulnerable people to face the consequences of these threats.

The equity concerns of surveillance go beyond corporations. Government surveillance can be equally harmful. For example, the Trump administration’s tightening of border security policy where visitors’ technology and social media are being searched for Anti-Trump rhetoric. Due to the lack of rights one has  when entering a country, they are unable to refuse to submit their cell phone for inspection if a border officer demands it. Already, several foreign visitors traveling in the US have been detained and had their immigration status checked. A French citizen, for example, was deported back to France after comments criticizing Trump were found on his social media. Government’s technology security policies, particularly in shifting political winds, can disenfranchise different groups of people of their rights and/or safety.      

Despite these challenges, technology can promote equity through intentional use. Remote learning platforms can allow students in remote locations to access education. Digital translation tools help alleviate language gaps for newcomers. Virtual mental health services, as problematic as they are, offer access when in-person support is unavailable. However, Katia made the comment that technology without purpose is ineffective. She referenced the laptop project in Nepal. That comment really resonated with me. Society tends to assume that more technology equals progress. I don’t believe this is always true. Our intentions behind the inclusion of technology in our society, and education, must have well reasoned intentions. At the same time, we should continue advocating for equitable access to technology for all.