Slashdot Log In
School Admins Demand Access to Students' Cellphones
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Jul 08, 2006 04:34 AM
from the why-was-i-calling-paraguay dept.
from the why-was-i-calling-paraguay dept.
Reverberant writes "School administrators in Framingham MA have implemented a policy allowing them to not only confiscate cell phones, but also to search through students' cell phone data as part of their anti drug/violence efforts. Students claim that the policy is an invasion of their privacy."
Related Stories
[+]
Slashback: AMD/ATI, Tokamak Fusion, Laptop Privacy 171 comments
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories including: An inside look at the AMD/ATI merger, school admins backing down on cell phone invasion policies, a new launch date for Scotty's ashes, a second test for China's Tokamak fusion device, Forbe's missed the mark on IBM destruction of evidence, Skype for Mac 1.5 released, and the courts rule that customs can still rifle through your laptop - Read on for details.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Tinker v. Des Moines
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
I gave my cell phone to my teen so that I could contact them when I need to.
It's my rights that I'm concerned with here.
While it is true that schools have in loco parentis powers those powers do NOT supersede my rights, authority, and responsibility as a parent.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need to get in touch with your kid, there is an established procedure for that: Contact the office. It may take a few minutes longer, but it won't end up disturbing the entire class while your kid figures out that it is his phone, digs it out of the bag, and starts chatting in the middle of a test or lecture.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
My mom thought I was being silly... my dad was semi-amused... but neither would finance the lawyer, which unfortunately ended the matter there since I didn't personally have the cash to pursue the matter further.
Looking back, I'm convinced that if hell exists, people die, then are forced to relive high school over and over for all eternity. I feel sorry for today's high school students. Things were bad in the late 80s, but dear god... the crap kids have to endure NOW from AuthoriNazi administrators is just over the top.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, an unwarranted cavity search performed on a minor without the express permission of a legal de jure guardian is tantamount to child molestation.
Schools have few more "rights" than babysitters.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Insightful)
-jcr
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Interesting)
In order to attend school, the student agrees to hold the school & its officials to certain standards of conduct. These standards are different (lower and generally more arbitrary) than you would expect of the Police or a Judge.
The student and their parent agreed to this.
This includes students over the age of 18.
The alternative is homeschooling.
If a teacher or school official violates your rights, it will get resolved within the school system or the court system. Other than that, the most any student can do is say "no, I do not consent to be searched".
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
STUDENTS agree to go to school? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever hear of a little thing called compulsory attendance? It's more like the law agrees FOR them
It's compulsory education not compulsory attendance otherwise children wouldn't be homeschooled and more and more children are being homeschooled. As far as I'm concerned policies like this, this cell phone policy, is one of the reasons parents are removing their children from public schools. Another policy I hate is the manditory drug testing many districts and schools have for participation in extra curricular activities. I especially hate the new "No Child Left Behind" from Bush. It stresses teaching for tests not learning and neglects subjects that are harder to measure progress in like arts, and music. Though I don't have any for a long tyme I've thought that if I ever had any children I'd home school them myself, teach what I could and get tutors for what I couldn't teach.
FalconParent
Re:STUDENTS agree to go to school? (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider the time I spent in music in high school and college to have been very useful to me, though I don't think they've earned me a dime. I could have easily given up a couple of years of calculus and it wouldn't have affected me at all, including pay or play, but I wouldn't want to have not had my music classes.
If you want to talk about useless, let's get rid of sports. It's insane how much money is cranked into sports. I don't have much problem with phys ed, but seeing schools that don't have enough teachers or classrooms, but they have a million-dollar football field really bugs me. Though I suppose to the people involved with those, they're important as well.
Parent
Re:STUDENTS agree to go to school? (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine teaches and coaches wrestling. The wrestiling room is in the former shop class. I asked him what happened to all the equipment like saws and such. He said thanks to NCLB they didn't have the money to fund things like shop class. Federal mandate says that the money is to be used on core curiculum, ie test prep. So all the kids who might have benefitted from a little experience with power tools are now not even qualified to work construction. At least now they qualify to work fast food.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
True but irrelevant. These students aren't "losing" rights by going to school. They don't have those rights to begin with. At least, that is the interpretation the school will take, and it's backed up by both laws and court decisions.
A thing a lot of students don't like to hear is, they simply are not accorded the same status and rights as a majority-age citizen. I know a lot who find that autocratic and unfair, which is (ironically) their right.
On the other hand, it's clear that a child at birth is not actualized enough to make informed and healthy choices. So no matter how much we "liberate" children, there will be a lower end to it. Is 18 the right bound? I don't know. It seems to work more or less for most kids.
Disclaimer: I am a high school teacher so of course I can be expected to side with The Man on this.
Parent
Rights, freedoms and responsibilities (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it is, but I disagree with them. The UK has some pretty serious problems right now, and IMNSHO an awful lot of them stem from politically correct initiatives that affect how children may be treated and the rights they have. On the one hand, no forms of corporal punishment are now allowed in our schools, and parents must be wary of even smacking their children for fear of being accused of child abuse. On the other hand, antisocial behaviour has become one of the biggest problems facing our society. I've seen one of my neighbours confronting kids who were about to key the side of his car, and heard one of them shout at him that he couldn't do anything, because the kid was under 10 and he couldn't commit a crime - and I live in a pretty good neighbourhood compared to many places. Similar stories abound, often with responsible adults (including parents and teachers) winding up in court or otherwise under suspicion, while Joe Angelic seems untouchable even if caught red-handed doing something he shouldn't be.
Now, it doesn't take a genius to spot the connection here. Children don't yet have an adult level of maturity and responsibility; that's why they're still children. Thus it is manifestly unreasonable to treat them the same way as adults and expect the same response. I refuse to support the NSPCC (the biggest child protection charity in the UK) while they maintain that an absolute ban on smacking children is appropriate and use the "you wouldn't smack an adult" argument. We can debate the relative merits of corporal and other forms of punishment, and there are always the "My parents smacked me and it did me no harm" and "Well, I raised a child just fine without ever smacking them" brigades. However, I think even their axiom here is wrong: we do use violence, if necessary, to enforce the law on adults. This is, ultimately, what police forces and the military do. It may be reserved for use as a last resort, but the threat is always there. By excluding this possibility on a far smaller scale, children are actually being given a higher status than adults!
It happens that in this case, I do disagree with the rule. I think it's absurd that older children should have no default right to privacy, which is what this boils down to. You don't suddenly turn 18 and become responsible, and you're not automatically a menace to society at 17 years and 364 days. If there is a good reason for the adults responsible for that child to think they need to see something on the phone, that's one thing, but there must be a good reason.
Ultimately, it all comes down to the rights, freedoms and responsibilities thing, as it usually does in these discussions. The two are, or at least should be, fundamentally tied together. As long as you have adults who are legally responsible for minors, they need to have some degree of authority, and the minors can't reasonably expect the same level of rights and freedoms as if they were adults completely responsible for their own behaviour. On the other hand, as children grow older and behave more responsibly, it is inappropriate to deny them any extension of their rights and freedoms to match. Getting the balance wrong, in either direction, will inevitably lead to problems either where children are undisciplined and irresponsible, or where adults take advantage of them inappropriately.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL either, however, I believe the custodial position must be used in the kid's interests. Analyzing the kid's cell phone data for some vague reason is not in the kid's direct interests, even if it's supposed to help "anti drug/violence efforts," whatever that means -- the only possible use for the information is in effect to harm the kid, so the school has no right to forcefully operate the kid's private property so to access private information that is contained.
The school would have no more right to do this then they would have to put a keylogger on their lab computers, gather students usernames&passwords, and peruse the contents of students' e-mail boxes for their "anti swear-word/hacking" campaign.
Custodianship is not a blank check, and there are rights that custodians do not have -- even the parent would have no right to analyze the data, except for the fact, that the parent probably has legal ownership of the cellphone, and can therefore use the phone as they like and freely examine the data stored on that basis, because they OWN the device; if the kid paid for the phone and the phone service, then not even the parent has a right to operate the phone.
Analyzing the phone requires operating it in a way.
One issue however: if a password isn't required to access the information, then it may not be that private anyway -- a stranger could just as easily access the information, if the owner lost the phone, and this might be part of an effort to return the phone to its rightful owner. Rather than rely on some vague privacy rights to protect them: cell phone owners should erase sensitive data from their phones, or at least password the devices, and keep them locked when not in use.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Informative)
Why else would any lawyers argue over a minors' Constitutional rights in court all the time?
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was a kid, we didn't have cellphones and certainly not in the classroom. If we wanted to "secretly communicate", we wrote little notes, and passed them on. If the teacher intercepted one, well.. I couldn't claim my privacy was being violated. You just could get "negative credits". (a system where teachers could give you these "credits", 10 of these credits ment wednessdayafternoon obligated study.) for distrupting the class. Ha, even carrying cigarettes would be reason to be expelled for 3 days... If they had a suspicion, they would have reason to search your jacket.
Many people send their kids to school, trusting that school to take care of the wellbeing of these kids. And more and more as a pseudo-parent. If the school doesn't get the rights to somehow have an influence on (to not allow them to do just whatever they feel like doing) them. I believe that's a requirement for the all the other students and the student itself. In the case of the cigarettes; if your -caring- parents suspect you have been smoking, they'll search your stuff. Kids would love it if their parents only could search their stuff with a warrant, but things shouldn't work that way. In the time you're at school, they are expected to take over that function in a limited amount. If they screw up in the -caring- parents eye's they will have to argumentate why they just "didn't care about it" towards these parents. The oppinion of the child should matter not, as it's an individual but it's not yet an adult.
Well I sortof agree you shouldn't do the drugsearches by the school by installing a "big brother" system. But on the other hand, these kids can stop using their phones during class or turn them off and that might be the conclusion if that school doesn't get a way to monitor the traffic, because most likely they feel out of control of the things going on in that school and want to get back a hold on the problem. When I went to public school, drugs were found by running drugsdogs through some classes occasionally, I believe that's a bit more effective then snooping your 1000+ students but it doesn't leave much of a good impression.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have been habitually giving up your rights since childhood, you will not hesitate to do so again when you're an adult.
That is how I grew up. I can tell you, if I were stopped and interrogated by a police officer, I would let him search all over me, inspect my identification, all without a second thought. If the police showed up at my door, I would invite them in and let them look at all my personal belongings. That is because I was taught that if you didn't do anything wrong, then you should not be afraid to be searched. But searching without evidence of a crime is wrong.
I never learned about any of these until I saw this video: How to avoid being arrested by cops [google.com]. Anyone should watch this.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Insightful)
But on the other hand, these kids can stop using their phones during class or turn them off and that might be the conclusion if that school doesn't get a way to monitor the traffic, because most likely they feel out of control of the things going on in that school and want to get back a hold on the problem.
Erm, you didn't actually read the article. No one said anything about 'monitoring' cell phones, which, incidentally, would be illegal for anyone to do without a warrant. We're talking about searching cell phones.
And no school or even college allows the operatation of cell phones during class. Not even, in theory, to send text messages. No one has a problem with that. Cell phone use should be restricted to out of class times, and it would be fine to restrict it to breaks only or even before/after school. No one has any constitutional problem with restrictions on cell phones, although for safety reasons students should be allowed to have them outside of the school day, at the very least.
The problem is that this school feels they can search cell phones that happen to be on campus. Not 'used during class', not even 'in use', merely located on campus. And by 'search', we mean 'Go through the memory of', not 'flip open to see if something is sitting inside it', FYI.
The previous excuses for searching lockers and bookbags were 'weapons and drugs'. You rather obviously can't have a weapon or drugs stored inside your cell phone. Even if they are searching for evidence of drugs, the original searches were allowed, with a warrant, under 'safety'...it's the same reason a cop can search you when you're arrested...drugs physically located at schools are dangerous, in theory, so they claimed, so they can search for them.
Well, this really shows what the whole motivation for that thing was about.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
What better way to indoctrinate the adults of tomorrow? They won't miss what they never had.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
You beat me to it, because I think this is the most important point of the whole issue.
Part of the purpose of school, and in raising kids in general, is to socialize them: meaning, to raise them so that they will be able to live in society. I am not for minors having the full-fledged rights of adults; but, we have to remember that how we raise them will affect what kind of adults they turn out to be. For kids, school is, to a great degree, society. The society we create for them in school is the society they will learn to live with.
When kids have to show ID at every turn, live out their day under the surveillance of security cameras, surrender their personal belongings on the whim of any authority figure, so on and so forth, it is far more likely that the great mass of them will grow up to be the kind of adults that will submit to an overbearing authority that allows them few rights.
It's one thing when this kind of policy is instituted in a private school. I still think it's a bad idea; but, the parents sent the kid there and had a choice as to where to send him. But, if we are talking about a government school (though, the euphamism in the US is "public" school), this presents, in my opinion, a serious threat to our future. Public schools in the US hold a near monopoly in education; and though I am not going to accuse the government of a concious conspiracy to indoctrinate the youth of america with anti-liberal ideas, the results, if such policies become widespread, will be no different.
To my mind, adults act as the custodians for the rights of kids: releasing various rights to kids as they become able to handle them responsibly. I'm all for adults being in charge; but any responsible adult realizes the grave responsibility he has towards the kids with which he has been given charge, and weilds that power in the service of raising kids to be responsible adults jealous of their liberty, rather than cowed wretches with no backbone in the face of authority.
Kids deserve respect above all; and this needs to trump the illiberal policies instituted under the cover of promoting "safe schools."
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, some of those kids in high-school are at or above the age of 18. Adults of sound mind do not have a legal guardian.
Also, some cell phones are in the name of the student's parents. In this case, the student just has to keep it in "locked" mode, and tell the school to obtain the unlock code from the owner of the cell phone.
The school claims it "is to improve security and stop the sale of drugs and stolen goods." The cell phone checking does absolutly nothing to prevent (or handle) these incidents since there is no record of numbers that are about to be called. In addition, the school does not have the investigative power to identify these items in question - this is handled by the police and they require a search warrent.
Parent
Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)
You = Your person, your bag and your effects
(No they can't strip search you)
'Your' locker is usually not yours.
Usually, school policy states it is the school's.
This means it is always fair game to be searched.
Your statement that teachers do "not have the investigative power to identify" is meaningless. They do have the power to investigate & they aren't making a legal finding of fact. If it involves suspected drugs or suspected stolen property, they're going to call the police, who will not require a warrant to do anything, since the teacher has already done the search.
My guess is they want to poke through student's cell phones to dig up recent txt messages (I wnt 2 by drgs) and phone numbers. Now they have reasonable suspicion to extend their search(es). Evidence of any other crimes/violations of school policy are probably going to be fair game too.
Moral of the story: If the school can, it will. Don't keep/take evidence of crimes at/to school.
Parent
Earls vs. Board of Education of Tecumseh PSD, 2002 (Score:5, Informative)
You can read more about reasonable suspicion here [govtrack.us]. Disturbingly:
Since it's been established that cell phones are fair game, could this ruling be used in defence of random cell phone checks?
I'd ask what next, but I fear I already know [environmental-studies.de].
Parent
Not only the children, parents lose rights too (Score:5, Insightful)
In many areas of the country the schools have been too invasive into families and worse they are nearly immune to correction. This is just another symptom of failing schools. When on the downward spiral you make damn sure all those who can criticize you fear you in one way or another. An "unusual" mark on a child - automatic suspicion of child abuse. Too thin, child abuse. Too fat, child abuse. DFACs should know!!! Bad grades, must be from a bad home environment; again child abuse!
Want absurd? One guy at work mentioned that a neighbor got a letter from the school's counselor. Seems the kid didn't like what he did or did not get in his lunch his mom sent him to school with. The school actually wrote a letter suggesting that the parents aceed to their child's wishes or give him money to buy a school lunch or snacks!!!
Too many of the schools are run by arrogant self style intellectuals. Another person at work recently moved so his wife could teach in a new school district all to get out from overbearing peers whose views of how children and parents should be handled came close to being unethical. There are many good teachers and administrators but too many are cowed by those who know the system and use it againts "non-conforming teachers", students, and even parents.
Parent
Re:Property rights (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.aclunc.org/students/guide/searches.htm
"Can the principal or a teacher search me?
Yes, but only under certain specific circumstances, because you don't give up your right to privacy when you go to school. Under the law, if a school official wants to search you, there are two requirements. First, before he or she searches you, there must be a "reasonable suspicion," based on facts, that the search will produce evidence that you are violating the law or a school rule. For example, the principal would have to have specific information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a student is carrying a weapon, drugs or cigarettes. Second, the way he or she searches you should be "reasonable" based on your age and what is being searched for.
These restrictions apply to searches of a student's person (i.e., pat down of clothes, emptying pockets) and any personal belongings, including backpacks, lunch bags, or cars (if they are on school grounds)."
Reasonable suspicion = all your base are belong to school
"Remember: if the principal asks if you agree to a search and you say yes, you can turn an illegal search into a legal search."
Parent
Ringtones (Score:4, Funny)
Invasion of privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
-jcr
Obligatory Daria paraphrasing (Score:5, Funny)
Ms. Morris - She already knows.
Jane - Okay then back off or I'll tell the PTA.
Ms. Morris - They know too.
Jane - Congress?
Ms. Morris - You're beaten Lane.
Jane - How about if I call the three local TV stations and tell each one that the other two are running the story?
Ms. Morris - Damn.
Parent
Re:Invasion of privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
You do not give up that right. My opinion is that your rights are protected stronger precisely because it's a government institution, which is squarely under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not contain age limits on the Bill of Rights, if I recall. I'd demand that the school call the police and obtain a search warrant. "So you want to look through my phone, and probably also my e-mail on this computer? Please, call the police and have them get a warrant. And that warrant must have my name on it. If you choose to ignore this request and access my data without a warrant, I'll consider your actions as unauthorized access of my computer systems, which is a federal felony and call the police immediately myself. This device is a Windows Mobile 5.0 computer system where my data is stored on an encrypted volume so that law will apply. Additionally, the school district will be sued by my family's attorney. Do you wish to continue with your line of inquiry now?"
Parent
What a shocker (Score:5, Interesting)
At my public high school in Texas, they do the exact same thing, in addition to a few other things...
You're not allowed to leave campus for lunch, but students do anyway. However, if you get caught by security guards driving on their golf carts patrolling the student parking lot, they will search your car. If they find any "contraband" (pocketknife, lighter, drugs, OTC medicine including cough drops) you get an instant suspension. Here in Texas they love their Zero Tolerance laws.
There is also another degredation of rights where I go to, pertaining to violence. If someone walks up to you and flat out punches you for no reason, you cannot do anything. If you fight back to defend yourself, you will be instantly suspended as well as the perpetrator. A kid last year was jumped by another student who stabbed him with a sharpened lead pencil, and when he fought back, eventually knocking the attacker to the ground and kicking him, he got suspended. He didn't even know his attacker.
So, if you are suprised by this, don't be. It's sadly nothing new.
Re:What a shocker (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd rather be suspended (or expelled) than suffer serious injury: some bullies don't know when to quit. Matter of fact, I used to get the shit kicked out of me quite regularly in grade school, until my ex-Marine uncle taught me some self-defense. Oh sure, I still got the shit kicked out of me but at least I had the satisfaction of causing some damage, and it took more of them. Now, given a choice, I'll avoid a fight on principle. However, sometimes I wasn't given the option, and in those cases I fought back: on principle.
If nothing else, I managed to restore my self-respect, and if you don't think that's important you probably don't have any. Self-respect is especially important to someone that is being bullied. The whole point of being a bully is to build up your own self-respect at the expense of someone else's, a kind of mental vampirism. The psychological damage caused by bullying is significant and long-lasting, and school administrators that deal with bullying by futher victimizing the recipients need to learn what food stamps are all about.
Telling a child that he can't defend himself from a bully is insane, pacifist bullshit more suited to a hippie commune than a school where, I have to say
This is obviously just for the convenience of the administration who would rather not deal with the subtleties of why someone was beaten to a bloody pulp. That's unfortunate, because it is an awareness of just those details that can prevent further violence. So, let's take a kid that's already having a hard time, tell him "when you're attacked, don't even think about throwing a punch", and then when he's lying on the ground bruised and miserable we'll suspend his ass for fighting. That's one sensitive administration you have there: what I would take away from that would be "no, we're not on your side, we don't understand right from wrong, really we're on the side of the bullies that are terrorizing you so don't even think of turning to us for help."
That is probably not the message they think they're sending, but actions speak louder than words.
Parent
It's quite simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
The staff should give the pupils full access to their mobile phones as a gesture of good will, you never can be sure what those pesky teachers get up to in their personal lives.
Wireless Possibilities (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a somewhat odd story, does Framingham have a serious drug-dealer problem or are they trolling for funding and government money?
tell the principal what you think (Score:4, Interesting)
Michael J Welch, Principal
Mailing Address: 115 A Street
Framingham, MA 01701-4195
Phone: (508) 620-4963
FAX: (508) 877-6603
E-mail: mwelch1@framingham.k12.ma.us
The ends justify the means (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess I'm a little surprised how little value freedom has in America these days.
DMCA (Score:4, Funny)
sue them
It has to work both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
I went to Brooklyn Technical High School in New York and it was PLAGUED with scandals. Sexual abuse, underage sex, corrupt principal, teachers stalking kids, etc. You can read about our principal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Technical_Hi gh_School [wikipedia.org]. Just scroll to the bottom for "Lee McCaskill controversy".
Now I'm all for schools trying to keep drugs and weapons out of schools. But when the school administration itself is playing dirty, who can you trust? What if a pervert of a teacher accuses a girl of selling drugs and looks at her cell phone?
If a school wants cell phone access for safety, then students (or at least the PTA) should have the same rights. I want to know that my principal is not spending school money to build a house. I want to know that my math teacher is not buying underage kid porn somewhere. I want to know that my dean is not in anger management classes. And so on. Seems extreme and strange for us to have this information right? Well that's the same way students feel when you take their cell phones and look through them.
Children forced to use encryption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Noone needs a cellphone. Humanity survived before we even invented them. We don't need cars either. We survived without cars. You're missing the point though.
Creating technology is a good thing and why we shouldn't we take advantage of it? It can be useful, fun or just interesting. If people want cellphones for whatever reason, why not? I can think of many reasons why having a cellphone is better than not having one. I don't see why people should have to justify it though. If someone else wants a cellphone they should be allowed to ahve one as long as they aren't breaking any laws, or in this case, school rules (such as turning them off during the classes).
The real question is are school administrators allowed to reading their pupils diaries? What if their diary is stored on their cellphone? Should we give up all our privacy for the 'thinkofthechildren' and 'terrorism' projects?
I say no. It's annoying that we are forced to use encryption to protect ourselves from our own authorities, but if that is what is required, so be it.
Parent
Re:Quick question. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you already know this, but hey, I'll point it out to be sure.
You can do that in 2/3 of the United States.
Bloodshed does not ensue.
Why are you take issue with inanimate objects? Wether it's a gun or a cell phone or a car or a baseball bat, the object does nothing on it's own. He or she that posseses and uses it- makes all the difference in the world.
Parent
Re:Quick question. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sad for you that you live in a country which has stupidly decided to endanger its citizens by denying your right to self-defense, but your attempt to rationalize one violation of rights with an example of another violation of rights (that you seem to think is just fine and dandy) doesn't support your position.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Bad Laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I *do* think that current privacy laws were enacted in bad faith and they are used in bad faith.
And it is that very vagueness that allows their manipulation.
As fars as children, cell phones, and privacy... If the school permits someone to carry a device within school grounds and they want to look at the contents of that device, they can go get a warrant... or they can go fuck themselves.
Parent
Re:I'm a teacher (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't matter. Them breaking the school rules does not give you the right to break the law.
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 [opsi.gov.uk] says:
Parent
Re:I'm a teacher (Score:4, Insightful)
And there was also a time when 'niggers' couldn't sit in the same place in a bus as the whites. What's your goddamn point? That because kids were regularly abused in the past in schools, they should be thankful that trampling their privacy is the worst they get?
School doesn't allow cell phone in the premises? Then the teachers take the phones. There's a whole world of difference between that and messing with the contents.
Parent
Re:There's always something you can do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, when will this happen to police officers, paramedics, state and federal contractors?
Were I a parent or guardian, not only would my charge/ward/child keep their phone locked, they'd have it holstered in a combination-access belt that would be so difficult to remove that the school would give up or be charged with assault. Or, the clothing would be the phone- in which case removing it or attempting to access a data port would lead to nearly disrobing or excessively touching the kid. And, no, I'd NOT allow the school to order my kid to swap garments.
Even worse of an implication is that if schools can rifle through student's phones and they DO find something interesting, what next? Do they have the right to archive that information? Call contacts in the lists? Turn it over to the police? Then what? Do the police have powers to start their own virtual "Friendster/Copster" of students? If Blast-a-chussets starts this slippery slope, then every state could do it or be ordered to. This could be a backdoor attempt by this wicked administration to angle in on youth and catalog them from cradle to grave.
Parent