This news story reads like satire:

Tracking devices on grade-schoolers raise privacy fears



I'm stunned.

To be debated: Can electronic monitoring of schoolchildren be justified?

I'm sort of torn about this issue. On one hand, safety is a big concern, but privacy has to be considered as well. I don't think the gain in safety will justify the loss of privacy. After all, couldn't the students (or someone else) just remove the badges?

It would be better if the students were given a choice as to whether they wanted to wear them or not, as some kids probably wouldn't mind it, but it might be a problem to others.

Plus, do the tags have to be that big? I wouldn't want that thing hanging off my neck all day.

To be debated: Can electronic monitoring of schoolchildren be justified?

School attendance is a major determining factor in receiving government funding, so this is probably the overriding reason for monitoring the students.

However, I see increased rather than decreased monitoring of this society as continued erosion of our right to privacy. It serves to condition young people to the idea of being monitored in every activity of their daily lives. Cattle don't have much say about being branded, either.

"What are you doing Dave?"

Just how much creepier can you get? I am so glad that i will homeschool my children and prevent the Feds from raising them like cattle. Not suprised since they are preparing to "test" my children and choose the most appropriate pharma for whatever it is determined they suffer from--which will probably be related to the drug that the pharma company is trying to sell.

There has been a radio spot that gets some air time on the talk show route where a guy tries to order a pizza and the woman receiving the order denies him because of his current medical information. he can have the pizza however if he is willing to sign a waiver--however it may affect his credit rating because his habit of living on the edge places him in the High Risk category of his insurance company and may cause his payments to be raised and his coverage readjusted................

Cameras at the intersections, RF tags on the products you buy--hell they will actually be able to tell if you pick up a product and try to track impulse buys by what you put back down.--My car will soon be specifically keyed to me so that if i speed the ticket will be in the mail before I even get home.
Ze Homelahnd securitas Agency is checking my e mail and the things I buy with my money are not actually mine because of copyright laws and can be taken from me and I could get fined if someone hears I lent it to someone else and that person hasn't paid a users fee..............

Orwell's fear of the future was nowhere as scary as what is coming to pass.

Can electronic monitoring of schoolchildren be justified?
Anything can be justified--and will be.
I wouldn't support it.

Grade school children do not have a right to privacy. They have a right to attend school during the day, safe and unmolested. They do not have a right to be anywhere that they are supposed to be at any given time. When I was in school we needed permission to leave the class, and if they could have tracked us they would have. This is a good thing, and that's coming from someone who is a real privacy advocate. I refuse to see broader implications - kids should be in school. Moreover it is the school's responsibility to keep them there, safe and sound and then give them back to me at the end of the day. If they don't explore more effective ways to do this then shame on them. I support it fully.

Why should grade school children have less of a right to privacy then anyone else? We don't tag employees to make sure they're not slacking off work becuase they have a right to privacy, why should it be any different in this situation?

I'm speechless [insert your sarcastic comment here]. Absolutely speechless. This sounds like something straight out of the pages of a George Orwell novel. Wouldn't it be easier to stamp a barcode on the kids' forehead? Wait, no, I have a better idea. Why don't they make a perimeter, and, using the tracking devices, administer a low voltage electric shock if a child strays too far? This is frightening folks, frightening. Schools are planting tracking devices on children. If I'm not mistaken, that's how they keep track of birds' migration paterns. Children are being treated like animals. This is inexcusable, there is no justification for this. Ahem, ACLU, now would be the time to spring into action.

CP

OK, now I'm speechless. How in the world does an 8-year-old have a right to free movement in school throughout the day? When we had to go to toilet, we were given a giant toilet seat with a key on it, so as to track our, ahem, movements. This is just a modernization of that concept. This isn't an under-the-skin implant, it's a tag around your neck. Most big-city public schools already have the wearable ID card, this just adds a tracking device. Please enlighten me exactly what freedom you want for ten-year-olds that it requires they escape from supervision. The only "right" they have is to learn, follow the rules and come home safe at the end of the day. That's it. Many pre-schools and day-care locations require that parents sign their children in and out, just like a library book. Does this violate the 3-year-olds' right to free association? Assembly? "Privacy"?

Are you comparing a bathroom pass to an electronic monitoring system? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm dead serious.

In my post, the word freedom is conspicuously absent. I'm not one of those people who thinks that 9 year olds should have the same rights as a 21 year old. However, whatever happened to parents making sure their kids get to school? Since when do we need machines to do that for us? An ID card and a tracking device are extremely different. One involves just what it implies, identification, the other involves just what it implies, tracking movement.

The words "violate", "privacy" and "right" are conspicuously absent from my post. I never said any of that. I don't have a good memory and have forgotten what logical fallacy that is, but it's one of them. "Signing a child in/out" again, is different from tracking children. None of your analogies, Carlitoswhey, have pertained to the topic. Wow, this is weird, we're normally on the same side of issues .

CP

Personally I am torn on this issue, however I lean towards the use of this technology more then against it.

One thing I would like to know is: When did children suddenly gain a right to privacy? The argument allowing school locker searches was that children are not legally able to make decisions for themselves when it comes to contracts, medical treatment (other than abortion but that is for another topic) and the like. Children are afforded no rights to do so. Further, parents are held accountable for actions of their children under the age of 18. Children have no rights of privacy and should not until they are of legal age to be truly held accountable for their actions on their own.

When it comes to this issue in particular I have to ask: What is the problem with this technology? What is the Privacy we are protecting? The privacy to smoke in the bathroom? The Privacy to have sexual relations in the basement? The Privacy to slip outside for a drug deal? The privacy to be abducted? All these tags do is tell the school where the child is and if the child is in the building. Where is the harm here?

In my opinion, children have the right to be trusted and to be given a chance at following the rules by themselves. Most of them will, and tagging them could make them feel that aren't trusted or aren't capable of handling themselves.

Children, just like all people, have the right to a reasonable amount of privacy*. Monitoring their movements crosses the line.

*By which I mean that they should have privacy, as they don't under most laws.

As I said earlier, would it not be better to let the children decide, or only make them wear the tags once they've caused trouble and proven that they need to be watched? It would be an incentive to follow the rules.

As soon as you enact a policy that in effect singles out one child over the another by making them wear the tag because of discipline problems, you are effectively making them wear a "Scarlet-T" (for troublemaker) and all sorts of people would be up in arms about it being a humiliation tactic, the law suits would quickly follow.

Personally, I like the idea of using social pressures and discomfort in response to misbehavior. I just don't see it as legally plausible under our current system (Which should be change IMHO).

A bathroom pass visually proves that you have permission to go to the bathroom. Another teacher can see you have it with you out in the hallway, and that proves you're OK to be there. An electronic monitor could be viewed by a teacher at a desk, showing 19 bleeps instead of 20, which the teacher sees and knows that child #20 is out of the class. Teacher knows whether this is OK or not and can act accordingly. Same thing.


Parents still have to make sure their kids get to school - the monitor changes nothing about that. This article says that the tags track kids' locations within the school, not whether they show up in the morning. Although it would seem to shorten the roll call and avoid all of those mis-pronunciations.

Okay, I knew I wasn't getting something. The device is used WITHIN the school. Ah. Okay. Not entirely sure how I missed that in the article . Well. Geez.
<------------------------Looks like an Idiot.


CP

I am torn on this issue too.

But we should think about a situation when an abducted child is detected, or an early notification of a missing child helped save a Child looked into a hot bus. In these situations I can see a reason to have devices on children to locate them in an emergency. There must be no wrath like that of a parent toward an institution that lost or recklessly endangered their child.

I wish the system were for preventing the worst more than helping with things that are easy to do low tech style like taking attendance.

I also wish that the system was much less obvious. It does look bad.

Theoretically, couldn't a would-be kidnapper just remove (or brake) the tag? The teacher would know something was wrong, but by that point the child could be long gone.

That is true. However, the child would first have to be alone where abduction could happen. Having these sorts of tags reduces the abduction risk because the children are far less likely to be off on their own when they should not be.

However, you are correct that in some cases this tag still would not help. But is it not worth using when you consider that it is likely to reduce the chances of abductions, even if it does not eliminate it? What if you add the benefit of know where the child is when they are not where they are supposed to be, outside of abductions.

So far on this issue, I have seen many positives, but the only negative I have seen is the violation of a child's "Right to Privacy". A right I do not believe a child is entitled to.

[quote=Twilight Sky0,Feb 14 2005, 06:04 PM]
[quote=Eeyore,Feb 13 2005, 11:28 PM]I am torn on this issue too.


Theoretically, couldn't a would-be kidnapper just remove (or brake) the tag? The teacher would know something was wrong, but by that point the child could be long gone.

[/quote]

Definitely, I was just theoretically positing a good reason for lojacking kids at school. The dangly tag thing is not foolproof for this reason.

The fact that logistical reasons are offered as the reasons for this Orwellian device bothers me in this story.

Why don't you think children should have a right to privacy? And when you say they shouldn't have a right to it, to what extent do you mean?

It is simple. I do not feel they should have a right to privacy because society holds their parents, or other adults in charge of them, accountable for the childs behavior, not just the child (and frequently not the child at all).

When we decide that we will allow children to enter into contracts without their parents being held responsible, commit property crimes, without their parents being held responsible, get injured doing some silly stunt without the school the stunt was performed in (or on ) being held responsible then, maybe we can consider children having the right of privacy.

Until Children are considered SOLELY responsible for their actions then they have no rights that would impede those charged with their care from protecting them.

What a parent want's to do in their own home is up to them, it is they who will be held liable if their choice to allow privacy to their children results in actions that harm others.

So, are you saying our schools today cannot keep up with our children, without an electronic device? That is ridiculous. If the responsibility of schools and teachers looking after our children has declined so much from when you were in school, giving kids a "tracking device" certainly isn't the answer. It alleviates teachers of their resposibilities. Giving them a tracking device only enables them to continue the poor monitoring of our students that you feel requires this sort of solution. If you think that teachers and schools don't monitor our children's activities enough, hold them to it - don't give them the excuse to keep things as they are because now there is "electronic monitoring". They should hold accountability, just like everyone else in society...

whats wrong with finding easier ways to keep tabs on children, especially if they're too young to assess situations, such as an abduction?

why wouldn't a teacher agree to using this system if it means knowing where the students are, especially if they're responsible for that student at that certain time?

ON THE OTHER HAND.....

Why would parents want teachers knowing the students' every moves?

If the school wants a more secure environment, then why not install security cameras on the school grounds?

just some relatively new perspectives on an aging topic......

To be debated: Can electronic monitoring of schoolchildren be justified?

[/quote]

I wish I could say that I was stunned, but it is for reasons like this that I left America. For me, metal detectors are a breach of privacy. If I have something metal in my pocket, it is not anybody's concern.

Your question for debate is a bit too open-ended. Of course it can be justified. I could justify anything I wanted to. For this issue, all I need to do is place more value on the safety and security of children, than their right to privacy.

e.g. Children don't have a right to privacy!

Simple, straight-forward, and offers absolutely nothing to debate because it is mere opinion. That's all that was asked for, and that's all that has been offered by proponents of this lunacy.

My opinion is that freedom and privacy are much more valuable than security. That's why I left 'The Toilet' and moved to Japan.

To be debated: Can electronic monitoring of schoolchildren be justified?

[/quote]
Grade school children do not have a right to privacy. They have a right to attend school during the day, safe and unmolested. They do not have a right to be anywhere that they are supposed to be at any given time. When I was in school we needed permission to leave the class, and if they could have tracked us they would have. This is a good thing, and that's coming from someone who is a real privacy advocate. I refuse to see broader implications - kids should be in school. Moreover it is the school's responsibility to keep them there, safe and sound and then give them back to me at the end of the day. If they don't explore more effective ways to do this then shame on them. I support it fully.

[/quote]

This type of response is exactly what scares me most about the future of our country. Obviously, you can't be a real privacy advocate if you support something like this. Here are the reasons why it is a bad idea.

1. You treat people (especially children) like cattle, and they start acting like cattle...is that what this country was founded on? To not be able to think for yourself and learn to be trustworthy?

2. This gives the schools another way they can avoid responsibilty for teaching our children. I had to pull my daughter out, because her school gave up on her (she wasn't "learning fast enough for them"...in 1st grade!). So if the machine fails and your child wanders off, the school administration can "blame the machine", instead of having people responsible for watching the hallways, like when we were in school, to prevent students from wandering off.

3. It is not so much as a right to privacy issue as it is a right to human dignity and the increasing Big Brother syndrome that is permeating American society. I don't mind tracking animals (although I don't exactly believe in the microchipping of them) and I don't mind the house arrest tracking of criminals, but the tracking of children in school is going too far. I can't believe that society has declined that far in such a short time (I only graduated from HS 12 years ago) that it is necessary to track children in school, just to make sure that they are in class. That's not right.

Things that are learned at any early age tend to stick. If supervise our children in such a manner, then soon we will have a generation growing up thinking it's okay to monitor people electronically, that it is okay for theose in charge to weild such power. To teach our children thusly is to invite tyranny.

Also, there is the issue of responsibility. The main issue with discipline is that people don't feel responsible for their own life and own actions while in school, because they aren't, which is highly detrimental later on when they need to be responsible. If anything, we need less supervision, not more, but with harsher consequences. To be honest, sending children to their room is not a punishment, it's a tactic used by parents so they don't smack their child across the room in anger.

When someone says that they don't believe in the electric monitoring, their main argument is most likely going to be that the kids need "privacy". What do they need privacy to do? Go smoke in the bathroom??? Gang up on a little kid??? Hang out in the hallways??? Saying they need privacy is allowing them to do things that are not meant for grade school students to do.