> I don't understand, this sounds like an issue with the account, not with the Chromebook.
While it does sound like an issue with the account, the unusual part is that Chromebook hands over the control of a device you own to someone else, just because you logged in to some account. Call me old fashioned, but an OS or device that does this is a vulgar anti-consumer design.
I get it that consumers should accept it as a feature of the product. But this was an unacceptable proposition a decade ago. There is a gradual erosion of consumer rights and we aren't fighting back enough. Another factor is that even tech savvy users are caught by surprise. This means that this drawback is not sufficiently highlighted in the product description. The platform may not have become this popular if it was.
The "control of the device" hasn't been handed over to anyone. If you log into another account, or go into guest mode, GoGuardian will not be present. In fact, you couldn't find out if GoGuardian was
installed on another account you aren't logged into, because every account has all user data encrypted. The school won't be able to see anything about non cps.edu accounts - they don't know if they exist, what the email addresses were, etc.
There is no concept of installing or running programs outside of a login on ChromeOS. There is also only one form of device ownership, and that is device enrollment (which is not what is being described by OP), and the set of policies that are applied to enrolled device. Logging into an account cannot apply device policies.
cps.edu is who's enforcing that while you use a cps.edu account, you have to use their software (only while logged into that account or browser). BYOD devices are still yours and you can remove the account with a press of a button.
While it does sound like an issue with the account, the unusual part is that Chromebook hands over the control of a device you own to someone else, just because you logged in to some account. Call me old fashioned, but an OS or device that does this is a vulgar anti-consumer design.
I get it that consumers should accept it as a feature of the product. But this was an unacceptable proposition a decade ago. There is a gradual erosion of consumer rights and we aren't fighting back enough. Another factor is that even tech savvy users are caught by surprise. This means that this drawback is not sufficiently highlighted in the product description. The platform may not have become this popular if it was.