# School in California decides to make elementary school students wear RFIDs *Updated*



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

And people wonder where the lack of personal responsibility in today's society is coming from. It's because kids aren't learning to be responsible. Apparently, you don't need to be in class because it's crucial for your future. Nope, you need to be in there because Big Brother is watching you. *sheesh*

http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,39127785,00.htm


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

being in class is important, who cares why they are there, they are there


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

Before everyone asks:



> The RFID chips are worn around the neck in the form of ID badges and can be used to monitor where the children are on school grounds, and carry the child's name, photo, grade and unique school ID number.




And, yes, it's scary.  But do the children have to wear the RFIDs because they aren't responsible or are they irresponsible because people treat them like children and think they need RFIDs?


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> being in class is important, who cares why they are there, they are there




So it doesn't matter that civil liberties are taken away as long as they are in class? It doesn't matter that they are not taught to be responsible for their own actions but that they need to live in fear of being caught? It doesn't matter that we are supposed to live in a country that, supposedly, gaurantees our basic human rights yet we tag our children like animals from the pound?

If they tried to get my kid to wear one of these, I would fight tooth and nail to get them to stop using them.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

why's it scarey?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> If they tried to get my kid to wear one of these, I would fight tooth and nail to get them to stop using them.



Me to.  I would simply refuse to make my kids use them.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> why's it scarey?




See my above post for my reasoning.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> So it doesn't matter that civil liberties are taken away as long as they are in class? It doesn't matter that they are not taught to be responsible for their own actions but that they need to live in fear of being caught? It doesn't matter that we are supposed to live in a country that, supposedly, gaurantees our basic human rights yet we tag our children like animals from the pound?
> 
> If they tried to get my kid to wear one of these, I would fight tooth and nail to get them to stop using them.




the rights of kids in school has been largely non existant for ages.  kids are not allowwed to do a lot of things in school, that they are allowed to do elsewhere.  And what civil liberty is this taking away?  THe right to ditch class?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

Why's it scary?  I don't know, it's some sort of 1984 thing?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

Is school a right or a privellege or a requirement?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Is school a right or a privellege or a requirement?




it is required by law


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Why's it scary?  I don't know, it's some sort of 1984 thing?




much limited and smaller scale though, plus it is a school and not the government


----------



## BigFreekinGoblinoid (Feb 10, 2005)

Barsoomcore for Dicator!


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> it is required by law



I've always heard that people have the right to an education.  Seems to imply it's not a requirement.

I guess it might vary from state to state, though, since it's a state power.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> much limited and smaller scale though, plus it is a school and not the government



It's a slippery slope sort of thing.  They've set precedence now.

Plus, the school is a government facility.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> the rights of kids in school has been largely non existant for ages.  kids are not allowwed to do a lot of things in school, that they are allowed to do elsewhere.  And what civil liberty is this taking away?  THe right to ditch class?




The right to privacy. Any student, regardless of what they are doing, is guaranteed a modicum of privacy. (And whether you want to believe that or not, what we see on the news is not a reflection of the vast majority of schools who do believe the students have some privacy rights.)

With this, the governing body will know exactly where everyone is at all times. They will see students gathering together in a large group and decide "Hmmm... That's suspicious" and decide to find out what's going on. They will see a student by themselves, far away from everyone else and think "Hmmm... He's alone when everyone else is together. He must be up to something."

History has shown us that when groups of individuals get more power over how certain people work, think or act, said power can corrupt and, in most cases, _will_ corrupt.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> The right to privacy. Any student, regardless of what they are doing, is guaranteed a modicum of privacy. (And whether you want to believe that or not, what we see on the news is not a reflection of the vast majority of schools who do believe the students have some privacy rights.)



Minors don't have a lot of rights, actually.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> It's a slippery slope sort of thing.  They've set precedence now.
> 
> Plus, the school is a government facility.




the article didn't seem to say if it was a public or private school...but it does seem like a public one


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Minors don't have a lot of rights, actually.




Minors may not have as many rights as adults but they do have rights. They have every basic right guaranteed by the US Constitution, provided they are an American citizen. Nowhere does it say "Applies to Adults Only."


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 10, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Minors don't have a lot of rights, actually.



 Exactly. You're rights don't really kick in until you're an 'adult'.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Minors may not have as many rights as adults but they do have rights. They have every basic right guaranteed by the US Constitution, provided they are an American citizen. Nowhere does it say "Applies to Adults Only."



 It doesn't say that, no...but its what I've seen in practice over the last many years.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> It doesn't say that, no...but its what I've seen in practice over the last many years.




That doesn't make it right. People may say that to do things like this is "ok" because it's in the child's best interest, but I disagree. 

How can things like this be in the childs best interest? How do they learn to be a productive member of society if their movements are tracked? How do they learn personal responsibility if they're not expected to do what is asked of them but only to do things because theyre afraid they could get caught?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> That doesn't make it right. People may say that to do things like this is "ok" because it's in the child's best interest, but I disagree.
> 
> How can things like this be in the childs best interest? How do they learn to be a productive member of society if their movements are tracked? How do they learn personal responsibility if they're not expected to do what is asked of them but only to do things because theyre afraid they could get caught?




I agree with you that it doesn't make this right. Now, if this was a High School I might agree with it more so...but an elementary school is surprising. 

But people have been doing things in a child's best interest for years, whether it really IS in the child's best interest or not. This is something that will always happen, as people always feel that THEY know what's best despite what others might think.


----------



## Felix (Feb 10, 2005)

Bah. They're doing this because they don't have the guts to expel the kids who skip class too often.

That, or whap them cross the nuckles when they mess about. Who here's for corporal punishment? AYE!


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> That doesn't make it right. People may say that to do things like this is "ok" because it's in the child's best interest, but I disagree.
> 
> How can things like this be in the childs best interest? How do they learn to be a productive member of society if their movements are tracked? How do they learn personal responsibility if they're not expected to do what is asked of them but only to do things because theyre afraid they could get caught?




THings we don't know: what is the drop out rat eof the school?  What percentage of the kids skip class?  I don't think this is an idea they just came up with out of the blue.  MY guess is they have some severe attendance problems that they are trying to solve.  Now, the article provided no real information on the background and the reasons leading up to this so who knows what is really happening there.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Minors may not have as many rights as adults but they do have rights. They have every basic right guaranteed by the US Constitution, provided they are an American citizen. Nowhere does it say "Applies to Adults Only."




well, as I recall my Right to Free Speech did not actually apply in the school...neither did my right to bear arms....and the locker searches had to go against my right to privacy.....

so, ya, no t all rights apply to kids.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> THings we don't know: what is the drop out rat eof the school?  What percentage of the kids skip class?  I don't think this is an idea they just came up with out of the blue.  MY guess is they have some severe attendance problems that they are trying to solve.  Now, the article provided no real information on the background and the reasons leading up to this so who knows what is really happening there.




But do any of these reasons make it right to tag children? I know, they're not tagged behind the ear like animals but, essentially, they are tagged.

I don't think it does.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> well, as I recall my Right to Free Speech did not actually apply in the school...neither did my right to bear arms....and the locker searches had to go against my right to privacy.....
> 
> so, ya, no t all rights apply to kids.




Right to Free Speech does exist in schools. A Muslim girl in, I think, Virginia had to sue for her right to wear her headwear after the school said she couldn't because they considered it "gang related." So, while a less-than-stellar example, it does indicate that there is such a thing as Free Speech to be had in schools.

The Right to Bear Arms is not available; you are correct.

A locker search is something that, as I've stated before, is thought to be in the best interest of children but is not in all cases. AFAIK, they do searches when there is reasonable cause. Just as if the police had reasonable cause to search your home they could, given they followed the proper procedures.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> THings we don't know: what is the drop out rat eof the school?  What percentage of the kids skip class?  I don't think this is an idea they just came up with out of the blue.  MY guess is they have some severe attendance problems that they are trying to solve.  Now, the article provided no real information on the background and the reasons leading up to this so who knows what is really happening there.



 Note that this school is an Elementary school and shouldn't have a dropout rate...


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Note that this school is an Elementary school and shouldn't have a dropout rate...




but they do......


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

BTW, Crothian, thank you, and all who've posted, for being adult and thoughtful in your posts. It's refreshing to see an internet discussion not deteriorate into one big flamewar.


----------



## Fenris (Feb 10, 2005)

The main issue here is not the responsiblity of the children but of the school. The school can (and will) be held liable if they do not adequately provide for the safety and security of the children. This includes preventing abductions, unauthorized adult pick ups, as well as fire and earthquake safety. The school is held responsible so the school is trying something new to aid it. Whether it is right or not will be determined. Nothing in the article mentioned anything about absentism. But on that note, the school is also held accountable for the students attendance. Not only does the school lose money due to truancies, they can be subject to a whole host of punitive sanctions if their attendance numbers aren't high enough. Not to mention the impact excessive absence has on the almighty test score.

All of you who have complained and said you wouldn't let your child be tagged are great. And are all (or will be) very good parents. The problem is, is that not every one is. There are parents that dump their children off at school barely stopping long enough for them to get out. Schools are put in the very awkward dilemia of being responsible completely for a child during (and actually before and after school if the child in on school grounds) the school day, but having very few options to ensure or enforce it. These are unfortunately less safe times than many of us grew up in. This amy be an over-reaction to it but at least they are trying to keep the kids safe.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> but they do......



 Just re-read the article...it doesn't say they have a drop out rate(though I may have missed that, of course).

Though this school goes up to at least 8th Grade(as 7th and 8th graders are the ones being 'tracked'). Still, you cannot technically drop out of school until the age of 16. This kind of thing would make more sense in a High School. Either people are insanely paranoid over there or that's a hell of a dangerous Elementary school.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> but they do......




Do they? I just re-read the article and I don't see it mentioned.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> A locker search is something that, as I've stated before, is thought to be in the best interest of children




and this is why they are tagging them, I bet it is "for the best interest of the children". but again we don't know.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Do they? I just re-read the article and I don't see it mentioned.




the article doesn't mention anything useful, but there are kids who drop out of elementary school.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> and this is why they are tagging them, I bet it is "for the best interest of the children". but again we don't know.




I'm sure they think it's for the best interest of the children but that does not mean it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I'm sure they think it's for the best interest of the children but that does not mean it's the right thing to do.




not our call.  I'm just saying they have to have reasons and until we know what they are and what the situation actually is we are just blowing smoke.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> and this is why they are tagging them, I bet it is "for the best interest of the children". but again we don't know.




You are right in stating that we do not know all the facts. But, do we really need to know all the facts in this case?

I guess, to me, history has shown time and again that, regardless of circumstances, ideas such as this have the tendency to lead to massive abuses of power and the restriction of rights usually afforded to individuals, regardless of age.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> You are right in stating that we do not know all the facts. But, do we really need to know all the facts in this case?
> 
> I guess, to me, history has shown time and again that, regardless of circumstances, ideas such as this have the tendency to lead to massive abuses of power and the restriction of rights usually afforded to individuals, regardless of age.




yes we need to know the facts.  As you said they have a "tendency" for abuse....not that they always lead to abuse.  Besides, this will probably be challenged in the court of law.  If it gets past all the appeals and crap and is help up by the Superium Court, then you be worried about Big Brother.  

Personally, I don't think the worst of situations as soon as I hear them.  I want facts, I want reasons, I want to hear from the people doing this.  Then when I can make an educated analysis of the situation I will, until then I'm not going to be worried about it or get all mad about it.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Right to Free Speech does exist in schools. A Muslim girl in, I think, Virginia had to sue for her right to wear her headwear after the school said she couldn't because they considered it "gang related." So, while a less-than-stellar example, it does indicate that there is such a thing as Free Speech to be had in schools.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms is not available; you are correct.
> 
> A locker search is something that, as I've stated before, is thought to be in the best interest of children but is not in all cases. AFAIK, they do searches when there is reasonable cause. Just as if the police had reasonable cause to search your home they could, given they followed the proper procedures.




The right to bear arms doesn't apply to adults in the school either. It's not a question of children having fewer rights than adults. They fundamentally don't with respect to the federal and state government except for those specifically ennumerated in the law (like voting rights). But there are other considerations that come into play. Nobody has the right to carry weapons into schools other than appropriate authorities because of the practical considerations of security and violence, not because kids have fewer rights.
Whether freedom of speech applies is a little iffy. Principals and school papers lock horns on this from time to time and the courts have been reluctant to press the 1st amendment all the way down to the local government level (of which schools are generally a part).


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Minors may not have as many rights as adults but they do have rights. They have every basic right guaranteed by the US Constitution, provided they are an American citizen. Nowhere does it say "Applies to Adults Only."



What do you think age limits are for?  Why do you think the term 'minor' exists?

I didn't say they don't have rights, I said they don't have many.  Minors don't have a voice in politics, for example.  They're grossly under represented.  They don't have the right to vote.  In a democratic government, that qualifies as a basic right.  Granted the US is a republic, but the same is true.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 10, 2005)

I just don't see how it instantly becomes "tagged like an animal" (other than to give it a more negative image so that folks on the fence will also see it as a bad thing). It's a badge that is worn during school hours, not an implant or clip that is painfully and permanently applied to your child.

Many adults wear badges in their place of work. Those badges serve a variety of purposes (mostly to protect the employer's interests, but also to protect some of the employees' as well). Would you not take a job that required that you wear a badge? Even if jobs (particularly those without badge requirements) were difficult to come by? I don't think I've had a full-time job in the past decade that didn't have some sort of badge that I was required to display, and in the past 5 years they've all been 'smart' badges.

These badges for school kids sound like a hassle, but they aren't mind control. They are a method of tracking children in an environment where the children outnumber the adults 20 (or much more) to 1 and the adults are held responsible for the safety of those children ... in a world where abductions happen on school grounds every day and in a country that has been plagued in recent years with violence in schools; I say whatever non-intrusive means at their disposal should be used to keep our children safe. Just so long as it doesn't cause my child any harm or interfere with his/her primary reason for being there; to be educated.


----------



## Hellefire (Feb 10, 2005)

Why don't they just skip a couple steps and implant the chip into their bodies? And throw in a couple cameras while they're at it? I'm sorry, I can't properly respond to this without getting much more political than that. So I'll just say I disagree, and would move or face jail before I would tag my child.

Aaron Blair
Foren Star


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

To my knowledge, most of the badges people wear to work don't have computer chips in them that keep track of where you are at all times.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> Why don't they just skip a couple steps and implant the chip into their bodies? And throw in a couple cameras while they're at it? I'm sorry, I can't properly respond to this without getting much more political than that. So I'll just say I disagree, and would move or face jail before I would tag my child.
> r




many schools already have security cameras.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

And metal detectors.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 10, 2005)

okay, so the badges show if the kids are in class or not.  it doesn't seem that they have a map of the the campus and can tell where all the kids are at all times, just if they are in class.  I'm still not seeing the bad.  It seems to me that people are just assuming that this is leading to mass mind control or something.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 10, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> To my knowledge, most of the badges people wear to work don't have computer chips in them that keep track of where you are at all times.




They don't need a proper lojack. If you have to use your badge to open doors or operate elevators you are being tracked by the system that controls all of that (timestamped entries in a logfile showing what doors or terminals you've accessed).

And some do have the ability to actually track your location. Mine does. Then again I can count 5 ceiling-mounted cameras from my desk. 

For what it's worth: I'm not in favor of 'big brother' monitoring every step of the members of our society, but I think that technology can be used to better us without sliding down any slippery slopes. A badge that sounds an alarm somewhere when my child is taken off of school grounds against his or her will is protection that makes me feel my child is safer... A location device that can show police where my child is hiding when a gunman is on the loose in the facility might save my child.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Feb 10, 2005)

Maybe I'd just be causing trouble as a parent.

Teacher: "What's wrong with your chip?  It's not working."
Child: "My dad puts all of my school supplies over a high powered magnet."


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> okay, so the badges show if the kids are in class or not.  it doesn't seem that they have a map of the the campus and can tell where all the kids are at all times, just if they are in class.  I'm still not seeing the bad.  It seems to me that people are just assuming that this is leading to mass mind control or something.




My argument is not about "mind control." My argument is a) that children are being taught to fear rather than to simply do the right thing and b) that the ability to abuse the system would not be that difficult.

I would argue that they do, indeed, have a map. How else would they know where a child is located? They pull up a child's info in the database and it says that "Child A is in Room B" or in "Area B".



			
				crothian said:
			
		

> yes we need to know the facts. As you said they have a "tendency" for abuse....not that they always lead to abuse. Besides, this will probably be challenged in the court of law. If it gets past all the appeals and crap and is help up by the Superium Court, then you be worried about Big Brother.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the worst of situations as soon as I hear them. I want facts, I want reasons, I want to hear from the people doing this. Then when I can make an educated analysis of the situation I will, until then I'm not going to be worried about it or get all mad about it.




I usually do the same thing but, in this instance, I am very passionate about privacy and the right thereof. I see too much potential to abuse the system. I absolutely hate the notion that anyone would track the whereabouts of any human being, whether or not they are trying to protect them.

Many cultures throughout history have done this (makring citizens in some fashion for easy tracking and counting) and, while not every culture used it for violent measures, it has never led to anything positive.


----------



## James Heard (Feb 10, 2005)

A device that advances the safety of my child at the expense of her liberty, nope - not buying it. There's only two people that get that power, and that's because we've invested genetic material. Besides, I'm just as worried that this Big Brother "safety" device would just get used by the local school child molester to track and isolate victims. You want to protect your kids? Teach them to be responsible so they don't grow up to be irresponsible adults, don't vanish their freedoms so they grow up "cool" with a society that feels that it's necessary to remove freedoms in the pursuit of security.

And THAT's about as political as I'm going to do for ENWorld.


----------



## reveal (Feb 10, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> They don't need a proper lojack. If you have to use your badge to open doors or operate elevators you are being tracked by the system that controls all of that (timestamped entries in a logfile showing what doors or terminals you've accessed).
> 
> And some do have the ability to actually track your location. Mine does. Then again I can count 5 ceiling-mounted cameras from my desk.
> 
> For what it's worth: I'm not in favor of 'big brother' monitoring every step of the members of our society, but I think that technology can be used to better us without sliding down any slippery slopes. A badge that sounds an alarm somewhere when my child is taken off of school grounds against his or her will is protection that makes me feel my child is safer... A location device that can show police where my child is hiding when a gunman is on the loose in the facility might save my child.




According to the National Center for Education Statistics (a government organization): "In each school year from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 2000, youth ages 5-19 were at least 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than at school."
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/crime03/1.asp 

So why don't we tag kids away from school? They're more likely to be a victim when not at school.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> According to the National Center for Education Statistics (a government organization): "In each school year from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 2000, youth ages 5-19 were at least 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than at school."
> http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/crime03/1.asp
> 
> So why don't we tag kids away from school? They're more likely to be a victim when not at school.




actually, we shouldn't let them leave school....


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> actually, we shouldn't let them leave school....




Touche.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> Many adults wear badges in their place of work. Those badges serve a variety of purposes (mostly to protect the employer's interests, but also to protect some of the employees' as well). Would you not take a job that required that you wear a badge? Even if jobs (particularly those without badge requirements) were difficult to come by? I don't think I've had a full-time job in the past decade that didn't have some sort of badge that I was required to display, and in the past 5 years they've all been 'smart' badges.




But you're a person who chose to be in that place and agreed to the terms provided by the company prior to accepting the position. In the children's case, they are legally obliged to attend school and have not agreed verbally or in writing to accept this measure of security.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> But you're a person who chose to be in that place and agreed to the terms provided by the company prior to accepting the position. In the children's case, they are legally obliged to attend school and have not agreed verbally or in writing to accept this measure of security.




But they haven't agreed in any way to any level of security.  Do children then also get to choose if they have metal dectors, security camera, students patroling the halls, police watching over the parking lots, etc?


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> According to the National Center for Education Statistics (a government organization): "In each school year from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 2000, youth ages 5-19 were at least 70 times more likely to be murdered away from school than at school."
> http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/crime03/1.asp
> 
> So why don't we tag kids away from school? They're more likely to be a victim when not at school.




Because it would be your responsability, not the schools, to tage the child away from school. You, as a parent, most certainly could... and there are lojack/GPS devices on the market specifically for the purpose of giving parents that ability. 

I specifically stated that these *badges* were being used only during the hours that the school system was responsible for your childs safety. And that the limited technology within these badges (these are not military technology GPS tracking devices or james bond style tracking beacons, people) allows overburdened public schools better serve its purpose.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But they haven't agreed in any way to any level of security.  Do children then also get to choose if they have metal dectors, security camera, students patroling the halls, police watching over the parking lots, etc?




I know. My point was that their situation can't be compared to an adult working in a building/location that requires a badge.

IMHO, I feel the students should have a say in regards to these measures as should the parents.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I know. My point was that their situation can't be compared to an adult working in a building/location that requires a badge.
> 
> IMHO, I feel the students should have a say in regards to these measures as should the parents.




I don't think the kids should, since they really aren't old enough to know what is best for them.  The parents on the other hand defiantly should get a big vocal say in the matter.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I know. My point was that their situation can't be compared to an adult working in a building/location that requires a badge.
> 
> IMHO, I feel the students should have a say in regards to these measures as should the parents.



 I never got a say when my school put in cameras EVERYWHERE except for the bathrooms. 

I do agree, though, that the parent's should have a say. Thing about this, though, is that it sounds to me like the schools are just trying to cover thier ass as usual. Schools get sued by parents all the time because they 'aren't watching the kids' etc etc, so they find ways to keep tabs on the kids so they don't get sued.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> Because it would be your responsability, not the schools, to tage the child away from school. You, as a parent, most certainly could... and there are lojack/GPS devices on the market specifically for the purpose of giving parents that ability.
> 
> I specifically stated that these *badges* were being used only during the hours that the school system was responsible for your childs safety. And that the limited technology within these badges (these are not military technology GPS tracking devices or james bond style tracking beacons, people) allows overburdened public schools better serve its purpose.




The question there is what frequency RFID chip is being used. If it's low enough, the distance would be around 1.5 feet to read it. Which wouldn't really help much. So they would have to bump it up to allow reading from a distance. Especially if they are to be able to track students anywhere on school grounds. So while not a GPS, it certainly has the capability of being read from a great distance.

And what's to stop someone from buying a reader and tracking a child on the way home? Do the children leave the badges at school? They're responsible for replacing them so I assumed it is their responsibility to keep them safe at home. What if a child forgets to take his/hers off? It wouldn't be difficult to pick up/make a reader and just go through the frequencies until you find one.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> But you're a person who chose to be in that place and agreed to the terms provided by the company prior to accepting the position. In the children's case, they are legally obliged to attend school and have not agreed verbally or in writing to accept this measure of security.




They shouldn't need to, as others have said: The parents should have some say, not the children. 

As for my situation. I didn't choose it... it was what was available (the tech industry took a dive a few years ago, if you hadn't heard), but in my time here the level of surveilance has only been an issue one time (and in that instance it proved beneficial to me since I was clearly doing what I was supposed to be doing).


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Quick thihg: If anyone thinks I'm being unreasonable and being too paranoid, when it comes to how other adults treat my child, I would rather assume the worst and be wrong than think everything is just fine and be wrong.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> As for my situation. I didn't choose it... it was what was available (the tech industry took a dive a few years ago, if you hadn't heard), but in my time here the level of surveilance has only been an issue one time (and in that instance it proved beneficial to me since I was clearly doing what I was supposed to be doing).




But you did have a choice. It may not have felt like it, but you could have, at any time, said no and walked away. You chose not to.

Children cannot, legally, say no. They have to go school; public, private or otherwise.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 11, 2005)

*facts*

Here's some more info.

1. They didn't pay for it. There is no indication that the school has low attendance at the 7th and 8th grade level. 



> Brittan Elementary got the technology for free from the InCom Corporation, a small Sutter City start-up. The company's founders, Michael Dobson and Doug Ahlers, have strong ties to schools in the area: Dobson is a network administrator for the district, and Ahlers is a graphics and animation teacher at nearby Sutter Union High School.




2. They didn't discuss this with the parents first.

3. The school board hasn't taken any action despite parental complaints.

And yes, it's important that children learn why the go to school. Learning why we do things is important to success later in life.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Especially if they are to be able to track students anywhere on school grounds. So while not a GPS, it certainly has the capability of being read from a great distance.



Read from a great distance, but not triangulated or to an exact location. They would know that student 1 is in somewhere within Area B because the receiver in Area B (areas might be as big as a wing of the school or as small as a classroom depending on the school's budget) is currently powering studen 1's badge... but they would not know that student 1 is hiding under a desk or standing in a group with students 2, 3, and 4.



> And what's to stop someone from buying a reader and tracking a child on the way home? Do the children leave the badges at school? They're responsible for replacing them so I assumed it is their responsibility to keep them safe at home.



I can't answer that as I don't know the details. This is precisely the sort of question I would ask if my child were going to that school. Right along with the cost of the replacement badge. I know when I lose my badges for work I have to pay $25 per badge ($100 total). I would hope these badges are less expensive, since the RDIF chip is under $0.20.



> What if a child forgets to take his/hers off? It wouldn't be difficult to pick up/make a reader and just go through the frequencies until you find one.



In order to give a reliable answer to this I would have to know more than I do about RDIF technology. I would assume that basic encryption (possibly better than basic since we are dealing with children) would be included, so you can't just dial in and locate these things with any reader.

Of course, someone with enough expertise could probably figure it out... but an abductor who knows about the tag would only likely go after a tagged child for specific purposes (a disgruntled/mentally ill parent or kidnappers looking for ransome). An untagged child would be much simpler to get, and the lack of a tag showing the child's last known location would likely be more appealing to the criminal in question.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> But you did have a choice. It may not have felt like it, but you could have, at any time, said no and walked away. You chose not to.



Work or be destitute. Big choice there, huh? Oh... or I could flip burgers for minimum wage. That's plenty of cash to take care of a home, vehicle, and dependants.



> Children cannot, legally, say no. They have to go school; public, private or otherwise.



But they can go to other schools. Unless you live in a pretty rural area there are usually several school systems in a given area. Several of my friends in school lived in another district but went to my school. It might not be the answer... but parents who refuse to allow a technology as simple as RDIF into their children's lives are going to be faced with that, or forking out the cash for private school, or dedicating themselves to homeschooling.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> In order to give a reliable answer to this I would have to know more than I do about RDIF technology. I would assume that basic encryption (possibly better than basic since we are dealing with children) would be included, so you can't just dial in and locate these things with any reader.




You're exactly right that we don't know all about the tech. But, again, I'd rather assume the worst and be wrong.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> Work or be destitute. Big choice there, huh? Oh... or I could flip burgers for minimum wage. That's plenty of cash to take care of a home, vehicle, and dependants.




A choice is a choice whether or not you like the options.



> But they can go to other schools. Unless you live in a pretty rural area there are usually several school systems in a given area. Several of my friends in school lived in another district but went to my school. It might not be the answer... but parents who refuse to allow a technology as simple as RDIF into their children's lives are going to be faced with that, or forking out the cash for private school, or dedicating themselves to homeschooling.




Assuming there are other schools in the area. Some parents can't afford to send their children to another school because the busses won't take them to said new school.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Assuming there are other schools in the area. Some parents can't afford to send their children to another school because the busses won't take them to said new school.



Agreed. Sometimes, to get what you want, you have to accept the additional responsability and costs associated with what you want. A parent who feels that strongly against the practices of a school, after exhausting all means at his or her disposal to make sure that what the school is doing is legal and can't otherwise be stopped, may have to assume those responsabilities and costs if the only other "option" available to them is another school that does not make use of the same practices.

The choice, "whether or not you like your options", is not in how the school runs (so long as it is being run legally and within the guidelines it has been given) but what school your child goes to.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> Agreed. Sometimes, to get what you want, you have to accept the additional responsability and costs associated with what you want. A parent who feels that strongly against the practices of a school, after exhausting all means at his or her disposal to make sure that what the school is doing is legal and can't otherwise be stopped, may have to assume those responsabilities and costs if the only other "option" available to them is another school that does not make use of the same practices.
> 
> The choice, "whether or not you like your options", is not in how the school runs (so long as it is being run legally and within the guidelines it has been given) but what school your child goes to.




I wholeheartedly agree. Hopefully there are enough parents who will voice their opinion to the school, favorably or not, and hopefully the school will go with the wishes of the parents (majority rules).

If this were my son and the school decided to do this whether or not they went with the wishes of the parents, I would move my son to another school.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> Work or be destitute. Big choice there, huh? Oh... or I could flip burgers for minimum wage. That's plenty of cash to take care of a home, vehicle, and dependants.



This entire discussion about the security at your job is a non sequiter that doesn't apply at all to the situation.  I also absolutely refuse to believe that you had only one job option other than flipping burgers anyway.  Even if you were adamant about staying in the local area.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> This entire discussion about the security at your job is a non sequiter that doesn't apply at all to the situation. I also absolutely refuse to believe that you had only one job option other than flipping burgers anyway. Even if you were adamant about staying in the local area.




The discussion about the job was to equate badges at a place of work with badges at a place of education, rather than as homing beacons used to restrict a child's personal freedom. I continued to reply to the discussion of job options as it related to my argument (in my mind) about what a parents actual options were in the topic at hand. Beyond that, you are correct, my job has very little to do with the discussion. I won't respond further on the matter for that reason.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 11, 2005)

Essentially the entire program is a free marketing tool for InCom, and was instituted by two employees of the school district who also happen to be the companies founders.

Can you say "conflict of interest"? 

Strangely enough the teachers at my elementary school in the 70's were able to take attendence without the aid of technology. They were also quite capable of picking out someone who didn't belong on the school grounds without needing to look for a badge.

Perhaps the school should just hire competent teachers.

But what do you expect? It's California. I'd be willing to place a hefty wager that the school system has tried to put most of those kids on Ridlin in the past anyways.

Hopefully the residents of Yuba City will make sure that the current members of the school board are all unemployed after the next election.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 11, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Essentially the entire program is a free marketing tool for InCom, and was instituted by two employees of the school district who also happen to be the companies founders.




Well, pretty much any support I'd have for the idea just got shot down. Of course, if I did have kids they'd probably all be implanted with something similar soon after birth. The idea of abductions alone would make it worth it. The basic idea doesn't bother me that much because (1) it probably stays broken more often than not, based on what RFID manufacturers trying to meet the Wal-Mart deadlines say (2) I'd see badge trading becoming the new school pasttime.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 11, 2005)

You know, this just all seems so stupid.  In seventh grade I think most people are smart enough to just take off the bloody tag before they leave.  Or give it to a friend in their classes or something.  Really.

This isn't going to do much to curtail truancy, if that is this purpose.  It will make it much easier for them to detect it, but not much else.  

How about the important lesson that you take responsibility for your actions?  Sure, it's their right to skip if they want to.  Now there's a direct consequence for that - you get caught, you get in trouble.  Children are generally short-sighted... none of them are even thinking about how this would affect their future.  All sorts of people who dropped out of school often wish later that they could go back and tell themselves not to.  Cases where they get rich in spite of dropping out are the exception, not the rule.

What I've never understood as a punishment is being suspended.  Chances are you didn't want to be in school anyway, and then they send you home?  You should have to go to _more_ school when you get in trouble, and not just some stupid punishment where you sit in a room doing nothing for an hour, or sit and do your homework on a saturday morning.


----------



## shock the monkey (Feb 11, 2005)

While it's only somewhat related to the topic, I think the security and safety concerns are well-founded. All parents have imagined the nightmare scenario in which their child is kidnapped. If I could, I would have a tracking device surgically implanted in my daughter.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 11, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> This isn't going to do much to curtail truancy, if that is this purpose. It will make it much easier for them to detect it, but not much else.




Actually I would think it would increase it. It should take a kid all of two seconds to figure out 'Hey, I can stick this under a desk with some gum and go across the street to the arcade; if they look, they'll think I'm in class'.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 11, 2005)

shock the monkey said:
			
		

> While it's only somewhat related to the topic, I think the security and safety concerns are well-founded.




And how exactly is this program going to prevent a kid from getting ganked?


----------



## Angcuru (Feb 11, 2005)

This idea is going just a weeee bit too far.  Schools are secure enough as it is.  The only violence perpetrated inside of schools is by students against teachers and other students.  Knowing exactly where they are isn't going to do JACK in terms of keeping them safe.  They don't even mention the strain this thing would have on the school's budget.  You think those tags are going to moniter themselves?  Spend this money on new books and improving the school overall.  While I was in high school, two budgets were passed for my district 90% of the first went to teacher salaries, as well as 80% of the second.  Did we see a single new book?  No.  I went through my history classes witha  book that still had the Soviet Union on the world map.  The bathrooms were in horrible shape, NOONE used them for fear of infection or personal injury.  Fully half of the desks were missing at least one of those little footpad thingies, causing them to teeter back and forth.  A year after I graduated, there was both a huge gas leak and a plumbing burst on both floors, causing the school to be shut down for weeks on both occasions.  Were this suggested in my school district and passed, I would have transferred to a nearby Catholic School, and those of you who know me well know how much THAT is saying.

And kids don't have the rights that adults do for a damn good reason:  they aren't paying taxes.  They're getting a FREE education, courtesy of Jon Doe taxpayer.  Also, how often do you meet a grade-school age kid whom you would trust with a potential national leader-deciding vote?  Not often.  If ever. I never have.  Do they exist, yes.   But they are few and far between.  I wouldn't even have wanted MYSELF voting at that age, since in retrospect, I didn't know JACK.  Kids these days think far too much of themselves and have NO clue what the real world is like.  

/vent


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 11, 2005)

What is this - some kind of trial run at a political debate at ENWorld?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 11, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> What is this - some kind of trial run at a political debate at ENWorld?



 Do I get a cookie if I answer that correctly?


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> What is this - some kind of trial run at a political debate at ENWorld?



I think everyone involved did a good job of keeping the politics out of it and, more importantly, kept from letting things get personal.


----------



## MonsterMash (Feb 11, 2005)

It does seem like a weakness that the teachers are not able to know if pupils are in class when they should be and using a RFID tag has the weaknesses and civil liberties that have already been mentioned.  

Actually one thing that no-one has mentioned yet is the fact that cellphones are getting increasing capable of being used to identify the users location. This is especially true of 3rd generation handsets which have cells much closer together and handsets with built in GPS. The phone companies talk about using this to produce targetted content based on the users location. RFID tags are also being trialled by clothing retailers actually embedded into the clothing rather than just on labels in the store, so they can control stock movement and prevent theft, but are the tags disabled properly on purchase? 

Admittedly no one has to have a cellphone, but this is a heads up about what else can happen.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

shock the monkey said:
			
		

> If I could, I would have a tracking device surgically implanted in my daughter.




That's, uh. Wow.  :\


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

If we look at this from a monetary angle, wouldn't it be a better use of taxpayers money to train the teachers to be more cautious and to recognize threats rather than on the tags?


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> Actually one thing that no-one has mentioned yet is the fact that cellphones are getting increasing capable of being used to identify the users location. This is especially true of 3rd generation handsets which have cells much closer together and handsets with built in GPS. The phone companies talk about using this to produce targetted content based on the users location.




You can turn off a cellphone and a lot of teachers require students to do so in the classroom. You can't turn off the RFID chip without disabling it and, apparently, that would cost the parents money to replace.


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 11, 2005)

In my experience, this stuff tends to happen when a vocal minority over-reacts and convinces a school board that "something needs to be done about XYZ."  Fortunately,  there are checks and balances -- if the silent minority does in fact dislike the situation, they will speak with their votes the next time there is a school board election.  So, no, I don't think this is a good situation, but my guess is if it really is as bad as it sounds it won't last long.  

And no, this is not considered normal conversation for EN World.  I believe as long as people keep this free of politics and personal attacks, the mods will probably keep an eye on it but let it go as long as they can.


----------



## Mystery Man (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm with *reveal* on this one. The second they do this in my town, in my school, I start home-schooling my kids, or put them in a private school not funded by the state. I raise my children to be independant, thoughtful and well behaved. I don't need them tagged thanks.

edit: Parents, stay involved with your children's school. Visit as often as you can. Talk with the principal and ask questions. Things like this wouldn't ever need to happen or even be proposed.


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 11, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> I raise my children to be independant, thoughtful and well behaved.




Everyone thinks that of their own kids and that's great.  It's when Parent A doesn't trust how Parent B raises his/her kid, and tries to use the schools to make rules "for the good of" Kid B ... that's when I think things start getting funky (and not in a good way).


----------



## Mystery Man (Feb 11, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Everyone thinks that of their own kids and that's great.




This is true. There are days when I can't believe how lucky my wife and I are but then I believe that you make your own luck sometimes. 



> It's when Parent A doesn't trust how Parent B raises his/her kid, and tries to use the schools to make rules "for the good of" Kid B ... that's when I think things start getting funky (and not in a good way)




Agreed.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

From http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/10/tracking.students.ap/index.html



> InCom has paid the school several thousand dollars for agreeing to the experiment, and *has promised a royalty from each sale if the system takes off*, said the company's co-founder, Michael Dobson, who works as a technology specialist in the town's high school. Brittan's technology aide also works part-time for InCom.




Emphasis added


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 11, 2005)

I just read that article and now I'm furious. Mr. Graham is ignoring parental concerns for no other reason than money. He's flat out ignoring them. On top of that, he's going to punish the children for following their parant's instructions. That's unconscionable.


----------



## Angcuru (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Emphasis added



 Everyone look at that.  This is where parents realize that people on the school board value money over kids, and the populace grabs their torches & pitchforks (or in this day and age, swing their briefcases menacingly) and storm the.....school board building....yeah.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Mr. Graham is ignoring parental concerns for no other reason than money.




As far as money goes... Schools are businesses. Most of the decisions that the administration makes hinge on making money for the school or spending as little as possible for what the school has to have. I don't agree that it should be like that (but then again I think teachers should make twice as much as they do and be much better trained), but it is the way it is for public schools.

I don't see him ignoring concerns so much as explaining why each one lacks validity. It is highly unlikely that the technology in these little chips or the chip readers could pose any sort of medical threat to the children (no more than your television, microwave, or other household electronics are causing). The chips don't provide any sort of exact location (just a notice that the child has entered or left through a doorway) and isn't linked in any way to personal data on the child.

I respect the opinions of those of you who are voicing yourselves against this concept, but I just can't agree (hopefully you respect that too). I don't see any trampling of civil liberties here (no more than say, school uniforms which would present a higher cost to parents). I don't agree with stopping something that could be potentially good because of the possability that it leads down a real or imagined slippery slope to something bad.

If my child's school did this. I would be for it. If they later told me they were going to attach my child's personal information, school records, and so forth to the badge... My opinion would change (but only on the additional stuff), and I'd take action as a parent against the changes.

I don't know about implanting anything medically (it would have to be proven pretty darn safe before I or my child would get any sort of elective surgery of that sort), but I could definately see myself buying a backpack or jacket with a lojack in it for my child or getting one of those "black box" things for my kid's car so that I always know where they are, how fast they are travelling, and whether the vehicle has detected any recent collisions.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

While I respect your opinion, I completely disagree.

Schools should not be all about money. They should be about our children's education. True, it takes money to do that but this is not the way to get that money. Especially since the school did it without consulting the parents first.

These badges do not teach our children anything beyond "you must fear your superiors because you might get caught" not "you must do what is right because it is important to being well-rounded human being."

While I do think it is important to keep track of my son and what he is doing, I will still respect his right to privacy and trust him enough to do what he thinks is right. Hopefully, this will be what I have taught him. If not, then hopefully he will learn from his consequences. Without the ability to do this, learn from your mistakes, one can never become anything more than a mindless drone who goes with society because "everyone else does."


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Schools should not be all about money. They should be about our children's education.



I couldn't agree with you more. In fact this is something I'm quite passionate about. I was simply saying how it is, not how I want it to be. I think the public education system needs massive improvement. I'd venture that most people think so (I know most teachers do), but for one reason or another it hasn't happened yet. Any further comments would border on the political.



> These badges do not teach our children anything beyond "you must fear your superiors because you might get caught"



This is how most schools, that I've attended at least, go about things anyhow. It might not be the same everywhere, or maybe you've just been exceptionally lucky in what schools you attend ... but once again this is not a problem with the badges so much as with the way the school system is run in general (although I concede that if that were not the case the badges would be less likely to be instated).



> Without the ability to do this, learn from your mistakes, one can never become anything more than a mindless drone who goes with society because "everyone else does."



I agree with you to a point. Although I hardly think that monitoring how fast my kid's car goes (and potentially saving him from killing himself or others in an accident) is going to turn my kid into a mindless drone. I came from a very overprotective family and am still a very creative individual.

This, like most of this thread, doesn't mean much. We have our respective opinions and we made up our minds before we even submitted our first posts. Nothing the other side can say is going to sway us. The issue with discussing things like this online, to me, is that it really does just become 'running around in circles' after a bit.


----------



## reveal (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> This, like most of this thread, doesn't mean much. We have our respective opinions and we made up our minds before we even submitted our first posts. Nothing the other side can say is going to sway us. The issue with discussing things like this online, to me, is that it really does just become 'running around in circles' after a bit.




Very true. But you're still wrong.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 11, 2005)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> I don't agree with stopping something that could be potentially good because of the possability that it leads down a real or imagined slippery slope to something bad.




For me one of the primary issues is that the "potential" good is little more than a load of BS. Wearing personal locator devices is not going to help improve attendance and it is not going to improve the safety of the children in anyway. If the school administration _honestly_ believes that it will, they are either lying to themselves or just foolish.

There is also the matter of communication between the school and the parents of the children. The school is obligated to make parents aware of potentially troublesome policies that they wish to implement. The fact that the first the parents heard of the issue was when their kids are wearing the damn things home says entirely too much about the school district in question.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 11, 2005)

Okay, time for the Dictator to weigh in.

If I were in charge:

A school wouldn't be able to MANDATE something like this. They could OFFER it to parents, but they couldn't insist that all parents conform. 

I think it's a patently silly idea (did somebody say a 7th-grader could figure it out? Come on! This isn't going to slow down a third-grader) and I wouldn't want my kids kitted up with this sort of gear, but if the school thinks its so great, they can try to sell me on it and see if I bite.

I also think the business aspects of this deal stink, and I hope Mr. Dobson ends up losing his shirt on such an unethical little sleaze.

But primarily, if I were in charge, I'd be looking for ways to INCREASE people's (both teachers and children. And parent's) individual responsibility and make them feel more in charge and more powerful. Not give them more reasons to avoid taking ownership for their own actions.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Strangely enough the teachers at my elementary school in the 70's were able to take attendence without the aid of technology. They were also quite capable of picking out someone who didn't belong on the school grounds without needing to look for a badge.
> 
> Perhaps the school should just hire competent teachers.




Okay, I now have to open my mouth, to say that it just isn't that simple - or simplistic.

At the moment, I'm doing a lot of substitute teaching.  While it isn't a lot of fun, I can rightfully say that I'm reasonably competent at it.  But I _don't_ know all the kids in the five different schools in which I work.  Kids could swap around in and out of my classes left and right, and I wouldn't know them from Adam or Eve.  And they lie to me _all the time_, saying they should or should not be in my class, or who has what name.

As for the invasion of privacy - HA!  It's a badge that can be taken off!  Give it to a kid that shares the same classes as you, and as far as the system is concerned you're a good little kid.  Meanwhile, you're off smoking in the restroom.  This system might be useful to protect kids who are willing participate, but it won't work as a Big Brother against a kid who doesn't want to be caught.

And before you start laying blame upon the school for not teaching the kids respect for learning - that they should be in class because it is good to be in class and not because Big Brother is watching - I need to remind you that this isn't the school's job.  If the _parents_ don't teach the kids respect for school, the school cannot do it for them.


----------



## Blue_Kryptonite (Feb 11, 2005)

I've re-typed this a dozen or more times... But I still feel strongly. I'm not going to comment on RFID, since I have complete faith it'll work as well as anything else... Intermittently, and frequently screwed up.

But man... Don't make ENWorld into RPGNet. This place is so much... more. I'm getting disturbed by the subtle, creeping change in tone. Let's not go down that road.


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 11, 2005)

It's inherent in the nature of the topic, though ... If I'm right, you must be wrong, and if I perceive that it's a moral/ethical issue, then your wrongness is tied to your lack of morals/ethics.  Et cetera, et cetera.  And whoever recently made the point about not being able to sway others, going around in circles, etc. was spot on.  

Side note: Angcuru -- this thread is giving me major flashbacks to a couple of years ago when you and I first locked horns over what constituted a "political" thread.  And it made me kind of smile.


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 12, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Your wrongness is tied to your lack of morals/ethics.



Yeah, it's kind of troubling the degree to which people assume that DIFFERENT ethics are the same as NO ethics.


----------



## Qlippoth (Feb 12, 2005)

*apologies to John Huston, Humphrey Bogart, et al...*






Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges! Barsoomcore for Dicator!"


----------



## Krieg (Feb 12, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> At the moment, I'm doing a lot of substitute teaching.  While it isn't a lot of fun, I can rightfully say that I'm reasonably competent at it.  But I _don't_ know all the kids in the five different schools in which I work.  Kids could swap around in and out of my classes left and right, and I wouldn't know them from Adam or Eve.  And they lie to me _all the time_, saying they should or should not be in my class, or who has what name.




Yeah but by their very nature substitute teachers are _supposed_ to be clueless patsies who are to be exploited at the whims of the students.

Heck, screwing with your head is probably the only entertainment most of them get.


----------



## Humanophile (Feb 12, 2005)

Provided it was done elegantly, I wouldn't have a problem with the school keeping track of when which students went where.  Hide the RFID in a normal school ID, ideally sell it as a convenience/security measure (for ease of use in the cafeteria/library/only allowing staff/students to open certain doors/etc.)  Allowing it to act as a back-up for normal methods like teacher awareness wouldn't cause me to react nearly as strongly.

But everything about this story feels slimy.  Popping it on the parents by surprise, the fact that any halfway intelligent child can defeat the system, and most importantly the financial tie-ins really go beyond what I feel are acceptable for a school district.  (Even as I admit that the extra funds are probably the reason for this all.)

The badges only work to know when a student passes through a door, and only if the student hasn't ditched the badge.  I don't see much of a security benefit there.  (Spotting non-students is even sillier; the only way a predator would be caught would be if they walked in and sat in on a class, which seems like a good way to stand out anyways.)  If it were worth the cost I wouldn't mind it being used to help better plan traffic-routing through the school and help tag people for a quick chat at the principal's office, but that's about all the practical use I can see to it.


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 12, 2005)

Now, if they can turn it into a pin ala Star Trek: Next Generation (including voice communication, status monitor, and oh let's say intra-school transporter beams), then it's a totally different story!


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 12, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Now, if they can turn it into a pin ala Star Trek: Next Generation (including voice communication, status monitor, and oh let's say intra-school transporter beams), then it's a totally different story!




Sadly, the Army already closed the book on investigating transporter beams (anyone see that NBC report)?


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 12, 2005)

More seriously though, the big thing for me is that this marks a shift in how these school officials want to govern.

If they want to alter the school environment, that's more within their purview. I don't like the idea of metal detectors or cameras in schools, and wouldn't send any children I had to such a school, but at least there the people in charge are just making alterations to the building.

This is them making alterations to the people who have no choice but to attend. Being told you must wear something upon your person for the purposes of having your movements tracked is indeed a violation of one's right to privacy, which is, IMO, one of the most important and fundamental rights. I'd never have any child of mine attend a school like this, especially in light of how the school is very quietly making a profit off of this.

As a last note, anyone who says that kids don't know what's best for themselves has, IMO, forgotten what it's like to be a child. Think back to when you were 14 and in the eighth grade; if someone told you then that you weren't old enough to decide what was best for yourself, what would your reaction have been?


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 12, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I believe as long as people keep this free of politics and personal attacks, the mods will probably keep an eye on it but let it go as long as they can.




Yes indeedy.  Be kind to one another.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 12, 2005)

Angcuru said:
			
		

> This idea is going just a weeee bit too far. Schools are secure enough as it is. The only violence perpetrated inside of schools is by students against teachers and other students. Knowing exactly where they are isn't going to do JACK in terms of keeping them safe.




I agree with the three out of four sentences.

Unfortunately, I can not agree with the second.  I really don't think schools are safe at all.  Honestly, I think it's a bit of a modern miracle that there aren't more incidents involves students getting violent and hurting people.  

I know this says nothing about the security of any schools but the ones I went to (and some others in Syracuse), but one year a news crew decided to see just how many schools they could walk through without being stopped, and how long they could be in there for.  Elementary schools were somewhat okay, but I distinctly remember them being able to walk freely around almost every high school without being stopped for quite a while.  The exception was the city schools, which have checkpoints and metal detectors.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> As a last note, anyone who says that kids don't know what's best for themselves has, IMO, forgotten what it's like to be a child. Think back to when you were 14 and in the eighth grade; if someone told you then that you weren't old enough to decide what was best for yourself, what would your reaction have been?




I would have given them the finger.  And I don't mean the pinky.  

I remember exactly what I was like when I was fourteen.  Oh, fourteen years olds _always_ know what's best for themselves.  The problem is that at that age most of them (myself included, so many years ago) only realize short-term immediate consequences/goals.  They don't think about the long-term, and they don't think about the complex consequences of their actions.  Which is why some other people may be more qualified to decide what's best for them.  

Of course, I don't particularly think this is it.  In fact, I think it's a prime example of why some people aren't qualified.  The worst mistake an adult can make when dealing with a kid is to underestimate them in any way.


----------



## Humanophile (Feb 12, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> As a last note, anyone who says that kids don't know what's best for themselves has, IMO, forgotten what it's like to be a child. Think back to when you were 14 and in the eighth grade; if someone told you then that you weren't old enough to decide what was best for yourself, what would your reaction have been?




Children are young and foolish.  But at the same time, they're not utterly stupid.  Trying to crack down on them harder and harder just turns into an intellectual arms race, one that the children have a habit of coming out ahead in.  My rule of thumb is to treat them with respect in the hopes that it makes imparting my hard-won wisdom easier.  (It's never easy, mind you, but there are degrees of difficulty.)

The thing that I wonder is the people who would gladly have their twelve year old undergo this.  What they butt up against is the upswell if ill will that provides - and that's bound to come to a head the day the child turns eighteen and is no longer legally obligated to put up with their crap.  You want to watch foolish antics, watch a teenager who feels they've been given an escape from their humdrum tedium.


----------



## reveal (Feb 17, 2005)

It seems the company who makes these decided to pull out of the agreement.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050217-4622.html



> California school drops student RFID badges
> 
> For a technology on the cusp of widespread adoption and touted as the solution to a plethora of problems, RFID really gets people up in arms. Last week, we reported on a California public school's intent to have elementary school students wear RFID badges at all times. Brittan Elementary School officials in Sutter, California have been forced to drop the program when the company supplying the technology terminated its agreement with the school.
> 
> ...


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 17, 2005)

Interesting development.  

As the son of a minister, I have heard many, many sermons from many, many slightly different stripes of Christian.  I do recall one sermon where the guy was very concerned about barcodes.  VERY concerned.   And not just barcodes tattooed on people -- barcodes in general.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 17, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> You know, this just all seems so stupid.  In seventh grade I think most people are smart enough to just take off the bloody tag before they leave.  Or give it to a friend in their classes or something.  Really.



Yeah, but we all know that this type of technology includes the "blow up your head" failsafe if you take it off.

Hello!


----------



## Krieg (Feb 17, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I do recall one sermon where the guy was very concerned about barcodes.  VERY concerned.   And not just barcodes tattooed on people -- barcodes in general.




Umm what exactly bothered him about barcodes in general? Not sure I see a connection between the number of the beast and being able to scan my milk though the checkout using a laser.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 18, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Yeah, but we all know that this type of technology includes the "blow up your head" failsafe if you take it off.
> 
> Hello!




And each student is assigned a partner, and all students are given a random weapon.  Only one pair can win.


----------



## d20fool (Feb 18, 2005)

*Your Damn Skippy!*



			
				Aristotle said:
			
		

> I just don't see how it instantly becomes "tagged like an animal" (other than to give it a more negative image so that folks on the fence will also see it as a bad thing). It's a badge that is worn during school hours, not an implant or clip that is painfully and permanently applied to your child.
> 
> Many adults wear badges in their place of work. Those badges serve a variety of purposes (mostly to protect the employer's interests, but also to protect some of the employees' as well). Would you not take a job that required that you wear a badge? Even if jobs (particularly those without badge requirements) were difficult to come by? I don't think I've had a full-time job in the past decade that didn't have some sort of badge that I was required to display, and in the past 5 years they've all been 'smart' badges.
> 
> These badges for school kids sound like a hassle, but they aren't mind control. They are a method of tracking children in an environment where the children outnumber the adults 20 (or much more) to 1 and the adults are held responsible for the safety of those children ... in a world where abductions happen on school grounds every day and in a country that has been plagued in recent years with violence in schools; I say whatever non-intrusive means at their disposal should be used to keep our children safe. Just so long as it doesn't cause my child any harm or interfere with his/her primary reason for being there; to be educated.




Thank you!  I am a teacher at a school that uses ID badges, but not ones this advanced.  We do have bar codes on them for lunch and library checkout, and that is their primary use.  

Having said that, this in not Animal Farm people.  This is an elementary school,  these kids are not "tagged like animals".  That is just ridiculous.  I would welcome technology that would help us locate students quickly.  We have to worry about any number of problems dealing with children, such as children that habitually run away (We had one that stole a bike and took off), get on the wrong bus (one young man lied to a driver and got on the wrong bus, his mother blamed the district, not him), hide out in classrooms and bathrooms after hours (one girl hid in a classroom so she could eat a bag of candy she stole from a teacher), and so on.  We need to know where these little guys are.  They would be very welcome at the high school, where student might just get up in the middle of a class and leave or go that whats-his-name's across the street for a smoke (or worse.)  There are innocent times too, like the kid that goes to his speech therapist without telling his substitute teacher (who doesn't know he usually goes at that time) and they need to find him.  We've had that happen too.

Finally, there is the fear of abduction.  EVERY YEAR I am warned about non-custodial parents that might show up to take a child.  Thanks to our IDs, I can spot an adult that hasn't gone to the office right away, direct him where to go and call the office immediately to let them know we have someone in the building.  Three years ago we had a bomb threat that evacuated our building all day, and we take security seriously.  

You child does not have any rights violated by wearing such a badge.  Further, the benefit is great and adds to your child's security.  Let's stop with the knee-jerk overreactions to what is frankly a good thing.

John "d20fool" McCarty


----------



## d20fool (Feb 18, 2005)

*Man, those overworked teachers need to do more.*



			
				reveal said:
			
		

> If we look at this from a monetary angle, wouldn't it be a better use of taxpayers money to train the teachers to be more cautious and to recognize threats rather than on the tags?




I am not omniprescent.  Student leaves to go to a specialist teacher and doesn't get there, how am I to know?  Student lags behind class to make mischief elsewhere in the building, how am I to know?  I cannot be constantly counting and recounting my class because I do not have god-like abilities, nor can I follow up on students when they leave my room (many of those teachers don't even have phones, we don't have enough money for EVERYONE to have a phone.)  When  a student lags or dallies I punish them, have a "come-to-Jesus" meeting, and scare them into not doing it again.  Did it just this morning in fact.  

As for training for threats, we are college-educated people and respond to apparent threats quickly already.  Non-staff adults on the playground? I call that in. Kid in the wrong spot?  I call  him in.  We have precious little inservice time as it is that needs address our teaching.  If they want to put electronic bells on our kittens, by all means let them do so.   

John "d20fool" McCarty


----------



## d20fool (Feb 18, 2005)

*The badges stay at school*



			
				revealAnd what's to stop someone from buying a reader and tracking a child on the way home? Do the children leave the badges at school? They're responsible for replacing them so I assumed it is their responsibility to keep them safe at home. What if a child forgets to take his/hers off? It wouldn't be difficult to pick up/make a reader and just go through the frequencies until you find one.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> The badges stay at school,  trust me on this one.  I never let the kids take their ID cards home, they have no reason to and they just get lost.
> 
> John "d20fool" McCarty


----------



## d20fool (Feb 18, 2005)

*Do the right thing*



			
				reveal said:
			
		

> My argument is not about "mind control." My argument is a) that children are being taught to fear rather than to simply do the right thing and b) that the ability to abuse the system would not be that difficult.
> 
> I would argue that they do, indeed, have a map. How else would they know where a child is located? They pull up a child's info in the database and it says that "Child A is in Room B" or in "Area B".
> 
> ...




A.) The cards are not a replacement for socialization, which is what we do in elementary.  Nothing in the article indicates they will not be teaching the children responsibility anymore.

B.) By abuse I presume you mean someone using the school's system to locate a kid?  This is a "locked door" argument.  Why lock a door, anyone who really wants to get in will anyway.  You lock it to prevent the opportunity an open door provides.  We don't stop whomever is determined enough to abuse the system, but we do stop the 100 neanderthals who might consider it casually.

As for privacy, apply adult standards to children is the worst form of tyranny.  Should we be protecting the privacy of the child who parents use drugs, abuse them, molest them?  We already have to tread carefully because of privacy laws in these areas, and frankly I don't think we should be.  If you have a child in your house, I think you should be willing to face some scrutiny.  That child has a right to a good life, and parents have little accountability unless a child, who naturally loves their parents, has the courage to come forward and speak out.  We had one girl whose fathe was molesting her, we suspected but could do NOTHING until she finally spoke out against him.  He slipped out of town shortly thereafter and she got a lot better.  That is the exception, not the rule.  Privacy laws can be very harmful to children, honestly.  

John "d20fool" McCarty


----------



## Torm (Feb 19, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Umm what exactly bothered him about barcodes in general? Not sure I see a connection between the number of the beast and being able to scan my milk though the checkout using a laser.



Since this thread is almost political, but more just academic, and that's okay, I'll be vaguely religious, but more just academic, to respond to your puzzlement, and hope that's okay, too. 

The Mark of the Beast is an ancient symbol, expressed as vav-vav-vav in Hebrew (a vav looks like a straight up and down line with a very small line that comes back up at the bottom, kinda like an upside-down 1 without the base line) - which translates numerically as 6-6-6 into our numerals. Now, the important thing to know about the Hebrew alphabet (or, more accurately, the alephbet) is that each character can be used as a letter, a number, or a pictograph. So one could argue that the Mark is actually 666, VVV, or the actual pictograph of vav times 3. (I, personally, tend to think the last is what was _meant_. That would be more like what it would look like if a beast raked one's forehead with three claws - three downward lines of blood with almost reversals of the vector of the rake at the bottom when the claws pulled out. But my opinion is neither here nor there.  )

Since barcodes _also_ exhibit the qualities of looking more or less like up-and-down lines and representing numbers, and more importantly, as was described in Revelations of the Mark, it is very difficult to buy things without them, some religious people speculate that they, or perhaps just one in particular, _are_ the Mark. Needless to say, the idea of having one _attached_ to people in any way gets them alarmed. (I can't say I'm particularly happy with the notion, myself, but mostly for other reasons....)

As an aside, the Mark, according to Revelations, is placed on the hand and/or the head. Since a mouse is held in the hand and a monitor is looked at with the head, this has led some inclined to do so to speculate that the Mark is something to do with the Internet (since there seems to be a trend toward one needing a computer to buy one's necessities), and that perhaps (Bill Gates/Steve Case/insert favorite person important in the computer industry here) is the Anti-Christ.

Of course, people tend to come up with new theories to use the Number/Mark to reveal that identity every so often, anyway - I remember reading in the 80's of someone suggesting that either Ronald Wilson Reagan or Daniel Manuel Ortega might be the Anti-Christ because they each had three names with 6 letters each.  

(Note to everyone: I'm not posting this to argue/debate about any of it, or to hijack the thread. I *just* wanted to explain to Krieg about what he was puzzled about. If anyone knows anything I didn't provide, OTOH.....)


----------



## Torm (Feb 19, 2005)

d20fool said:
			
		

> Should we be protecting the privacy of the child who parents use drugs, abuse them, molest them?  We already have to tread carefully because of privacy laws in these areas, and frankly I don't think we should be.



I agree that you shouldn't have to worry about getting sued to ask a few questions, but you're putting the cart before the horse, methinks: If you know a child that you suspect of being abused in some fashion, there you go. Ask questions, call police or social services, take action. And as I said, I think things need to be changed to make teachers freer to do these things when they do have cause. BUT, there is a very important idea in this country - yes, even as important as that child's welfare - called "Innocent until proven guilty." My point being that you can't just go around taking away the right to privacy and install police-state-like observation for every parent just because some few are doing bad things. Most people _are_ good people, and don't deserve the uncomfortable scrutiny or the implied insult.

In other words, do you mind if I see you naked? I mean, if you don't have anything to hide, there's no problem, right?  

The reason the ID cards with RFID tags are not, in my opinion, a good idea is that they promote the idea that it is okay for the authorities to monitor us that way in the minds of the children. Like a baby elephant held in place with a weak rope who will stand in place for the same rope even after they've grown large enough to break it easily, children raised to think that way may never even notice civil rights _they never knew they had_ slipping away as adults!

That said, I think it is a positive thing that you say that you at least make sure your students don't take their IDs home. _Maybe_ if it is clearly outlined to them that there IS a separation between the time they are the responsibility of the state and the time that is _theirs_, my concern above won't be relevant.


----------



## Raloc (Feb 19, 2005)

d20fool said:
			
		

> Finally, there is the fear of abduction.




Assuming of course, that the person doing the abducting decided to leave the tag/collar/whatever on the child.


----------



## Krieg (Feb 19, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Since barcodes _also_ exhibit the qualities of looking more or less like up-and-down lines and representing numbers, and more importantly, as was described in Revelations of the Mark, it is very difficult to buy things without them, some religious people speculate that they, or perhaps just one in particular, _are_ the Mark. Needless to say, the idea of having one _attached_ to people in any way gets them alarmed. (I can't say I'm particularly happy with the notion, myself, but mostly for other reasons....)




Thanks that's the bit I was looking for.



> _As an aside, the Mark, according to Revelations, is placed on the hand and/or the head. Since a mouse is held in the hand and a monitor is looked at with the head, this has led some inclined to do so to speculate that the Mark is something to do with the Internet (since there seems to be a trend toward one needing a computer to buy one's necessities), and that perhaps (Bill Gates/Steve Case/insert favorite person important in the computer industry here) is the Anti-Christ._




Pshaw, everyone knows the anti-christ is the man in the purple turban....or the man with the stinky smell. I always get Nostradamus & King of The Hill mixed up.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 20, 2005)

> Everyone thinks that of their own kids and that's great.




I've thought a lot about this and I have to disagree with you. Growing up, I've seen a great deal of parental mistrust , and I think it's getting worse. Many parents I met when I was growing up seem to think that their kid is capable of doing unspeakable things. The very few children who are capable of thouse things creates a fearful state in some parents where they feel that they are near powerless to stop their own children from doing harm. 

Add that fear to one other thing, divorce. Imagine you divorced someone and you see your child is exhibiting the same behavor that made you divorce your former spouse, now couple that with the fear of your child doing something unconscionable, and you have a dangrous mix. Growing up, I remember my parents (divorced) telling me that I was just like the other parent. I'm just glad that they divorced over minor diffrences rather than major stuff, or I might have had that problem.

Also, there is a whole industry that makes money off of fear. They advertise fear and creat a fearful state in their clients (who are increasinly schools) so that they buy their products. 

Mistrust+current events+divorce+advertising+*technology capable of invading your privacy*. I think this is a very bad combination.



> We have to worry about any number of problems dealing with children, such as children that habitually run away (We had one that stole a bike and took off), get on the wrong bus (one young man lied to a driver and got on the wrong bus, his mother blamed the district, not him), hide out in classrooms and bathrooms after hours (one girl hid in a classroom so she could eat a bag of candy she stole from a teacher), and so on. We need to know where these little guys are. They would be very welcome at the high school, where student might just get up in the middle of a class and leave or go that whats-his-name's across the street for a smoke (or worse.) There are innocent times too, like the kid that goes to his speech therapist without telling his substitute teacher (who doesn't know he usually goes at that time) and they need to find him. We've had that happen too.




I can't help but wonder, how were these problems handled 20 years ago? 30 years ago? I realize that schools used to use corporal punishment, but I have a problem beliveing that these problems only have one solution: radio tags.

Also, this is like tagging animals because, in fact, it is also used to keep track of livestock.



> By abuse I presume you mean someone using the school's system to locate a kid? This is a "locked door" argument. Why lock a door, anyone who really wants to get in will anyway. You lock it to prevent the opportunity an open door provides. We don't stop whomever is determined enough to abuse the system, but we do stop the 100 neanderthals who might consider it casually.




Let's analyze this locked door argument.

If I leve a $5 bill on the ground in a hall, how many people would pick it up? A lot. Not everyone, for sure, but many people would. Also, many of them wouln't think it was wrong. (I don't think it's wrong.)

Now, let's say I put the $5 bill in an unused, unoccupied room with no door. Now how many people would pick it up? Only those who need to go into an unsued and unoccupied room, people who goe in there by accident, or those looking for something (like trouble). 

Now, I put a door to the room and close. How many people will go into the room and pick-up the $5 bill? Fewer. There's a mental barrior to opening up a door to a room that you don't need to be in. Many of the people who go in there will do so by accendent, but some people will go in there looking for trouble. The number of people looking for trouble in a room with a door (particularly sence a door means they may get caught) goes down from just an open room.

If I put a lock on the door, now people have to be doing more than just looking suspious, they have to do something illegal to get in. (Assuming they don't belong there.) Also, now it's obviously stealing when you pick up that $5 bill, because you had to get through a locked door to get to it. I've seen police not bother with a report if the door isn't locked. The police actually told a freind of mine that it was there fault because they left their car door unlocked.

By this point, we've eliminated a lot of people from taking that $5 bill. In fact, my $5 bill is probably safe in an unoccupied, unused, and locked room. 

Now, here's the point of my argument. Up until this point, the steps have been pretty small and all of them have made my $5 bill noticeably safer. But at this point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in. 

Now is my $5 safer if I put a deadbolt on the door? By how much?

What if I also add a chain?

and another lock?

and I make the door out of steel?

or make it out of Titatium?

My argument isn't that RFID is locking the door. My argument is that it locks the door, adds a deadbolt, a chain, another lock, and making the door out of steel. If people are still braking in and taking that $5 bill, then mabey another approch needs to be taken. One that involves asking the parents.

Note, in the origanal article the parents weren't consulted. I have a feeling the principal knew this was a posable reaction and decided to not involve them.


----------

