Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

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.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NexFlamma (919608) on Saturday July 08 2006, @04:36AM (#15682219)
    (http://realitybynex.blogspot.com/)
    What these kids don't understand is that simply by attending the school they lose the majority of their rights. Since they are minors, the school becomes their de facto guardian while they are there, and thusly, it has power that supercedes their rights.
    • Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2006, @04:39AM (#15682230)
      Then (big leap, I do realise), what's to stop the schools from manditory cavity searches? I mean, after all, they are de facto guardian... And what about the students that are 18 and in school, is the school STILL the de facto guardian? If not, then what right (legally, besides anything their handbook says) would the school have to take the phone?
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jcr (53032) <jcr@nospAM.idiom.com> on Saturday July 08 2006, @04:40AM (#15682233)
      (Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
      Guess again, counselor. You don't "lose" your rights because they're violated.

      -jcr
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday July 08 2006, @06:37AM (#15682502)
        (Last Journal: Saturday February 25 2006, @11:02PM)
        Your statement is factually correct, but in the context of the discussion, it is neither here nor there.

        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... by ferd_farkle (Score:2) Saturday July 08 2006, @08:27AM
        • Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by mysidia (191772) on Saturday July 08 2006, @09:10AM (#15682910)

          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, Interesting)

        by gilroy (155262) on Saturday July 08 2006, @10:27AM (#15683233)
        (http://www.adfinemfidelis.net/mongrel/ | Last Journal: Friday August 23 2002, @11:47PM)
        Blockquoth the poster:

        Guess again, counselor. You don't "lose" your rights because they're violated.

        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 ]
        • Re:Kids these days... by SMS_Design (Score:3) Saturday July 08 2006, @12:27PM
        • Rights, freedoms and responsibilities (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Saturday July 08 2006, @12:34PM (#15683746)

          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.

          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... by bky1701 (Score:1) Saturday July 08 2006, @02:22PM
        • Re:Kids these days... by Frodo Crockett (Score:2) Saturday July 08 2006, @05:36PM
        • Re:Kids these days... by MGomersall (Score:1) Sunday July 09 2006, @04:06AM
        • When does adulthood begin? by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (Score:2) Sunday July 09 2006, @11:24AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Kids these days... by WhatAmIDoingHere (Score:2) Saturday July 08 2006, @08:48AM
      • Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Informative)

        by KarmaMB84 (743001) on Saturday July 08 2006, @09:19AM (#15682937)
        They have every protection under the US Constitution and US Federal law. Students only have SOME of their rights slightly restricted. This is typically while at school or during the time they are supposed to be going/coming to/from school or when they are supposed to be there. The US Constitution makes no claims as to the age when you receive any rights. All citizens born in the US received are protected by the Constitution from birth.

        Why else would any lawyers argue over a minors' Constitutional rights in court all the time?
        [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Umbral Blot (737704) on Saturday July 08 2006, @04:40AM (#15682234)
      (http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/)
      That might be legal, but is it right?
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Kids these days... by Das Modell (Score:1) Saturday July 08 2006, @05:49AM
      • Re:Kids these days... by cibyr (Score:1) Saturday July 08 2006, @06:16AM
      • Re:Kids these days... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ZeroExistenZ (721849) on Saturday July 08 2006, @06:48AM (#15682519)
        I'm starting to feel old...

        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)

          by pikine (771084) on Saturday July 08 2006, @07:29AM (#15682614)
          (Last Journal: Saturday November 03, @09:51AM)
          I worry that kids who grow up without knowing their constitutional rights will not ever learn to exercise them later in their lives. Unfortunately, taking a civil studies class doesn't help because the rights being taught in class hardly relates to the student's real-life experience.

          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, 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... by JakiChan (Score:2) Saturday July 08 2006, @12:31PM
        • Re:Kids these days... by pen (Score:2) Saturday July 08 2006, @04:24PM
        • Re:Kids these days... by 2Paranoid (Score:1) Saturday July 08 2006, @09:02PM
        • Re:Kids these days... by DogBotherer (Score:1) Sunday July 09 2006, @10:40AM
        • Re:Kids these days... by soft_guy (Score:2) Sunday July 09 2006, @02:11PM
        • Re:Kids these days... by JamesGecko (Score:1) Sunday July 09 2006, @09:57PM
      • Re:Kids these days... by UnanimousCoward (Score:3) Saturday July 08 2006, @08:57AM
      • Re:Kids these days... by dandaigle (Score:1) Saturday July 08 2006, @03:09PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Kids these days... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday July 08 2006, @04:42AM
    • Re:Kids these days... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday July 08 2006, @04:47AM
    • Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bogtha (906264) on Saturday July 08 2006, @04:49AM (#15682259)

      What these kids don't understand is that simply by attending the school they lose the majority of their rights.

      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)

        by mariox19 (632969) on Saturday July 08 2006, @08:05AM (#15682698)

        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... by BgJonson79 (Score:1) Saturday July 08 2006, @08:22AM
      • Re:Kids these days... by aussersterne (Score:3) Saturday July 08 2006, @09:45AM
    • Re:Kids these days... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sigma 7 (266129) on Saturday July 08 2006, @04:55AM (#15682273)
      What these kids don't understand is that simply by attending the school they lose the majority of their rights. Since they are minors, the school becomes their de facto guardian while they are there, and thusly, it has power that supercedes their rights.


      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 ]