UK Schools Consider Searching Pupils' Smartphones 283
An anonymous reader writes "What right to privacy do school pupils have on their mobile phones? UK education officials are considering ways to clamp down on cyber-bullying and classroom disruption by allowing teachers to search and delete content from student handsets if it is deemed unsuitable. However, questions remain whether such a move would give teachers too much power and infringe on student rights."
Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
The seeds of yet another encroachment on human rights by the UK
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The seeds of yet another encroachment on human rights by the UK
Kids are not adults.
I remember when I was about 9 one of my mates drew some caricatures of the teachers in a notebook and passed them around. The teacher noticed us all giggling at it and demanded to see the notebook.
Was that an "encroachment on human rights?"
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
That was when you were 9. Times have changed.
Scenario 1:
Johnny and Mark gets into a fight after school.
1970 - Crowd gathers. Johnny wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best mates for life.
2010 - Police called, arrests Johnny and Marko. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Mark started it. Both children go to anger management programs for 3 months. School board hold meeting to implement bullying prevention programs
Scenario 2:
Robbie won't Keep still in class, disrupts other students.
1970 - Robbie sent to office and given 6 of the best by the headmasterl, Returns to class, sits stil and does not disrupt class again.
2010 - Robbie given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. Robbie's parents get fortnightly disability payments and school gets extra funding from state because Robbie has a disability.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying that everything going on today is an improvement but... you have a much-overromanticized version of history.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
That was when you were 9. Times have changed.
Scenario 1:
Johnny and Mark gets into a fight after school.
1970 - Crowd gathers. Johnny wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best mates for life.
2010 - Police called, arrests Johnny and Marko. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Mark started it. Both children go to anger management programs for 3 months. School board hold meeting to implement bullying prevention programs
That's great. You've been watching The Bells of St Mary's where the bullied kid learns how to box and beats his opponent in a David and Goliath struggle and it all worked out beautifully. Congratulations.
Now here's how it really happened in 1970. Mark picks a fight with Johnny who doesn't want to fight. Mark insists and instead of the good guy winning, Mark kicks the crap out of Johnny anyway. Johnny is left bleeding, bruised, dazed, stunned, crying and traumatised. Johnny goes on to have problems in later life because he was bullied in school.
It wasn't all a bed of roses. God forbid if nostalgia for a non-existent golden age ever forms the basis of policy.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
All in all neither of you are correct because both of you make predictions based on outcomes that could go either way or neither but recommend or endorse solutions for your one outcome alone.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you've got it all wrong...
A kindly Japanese man sees Johnny and takes him under his wing. Johnny thinks he's going to be taught how to fight but instead gets taught how to wax cars and paint fences. Eventually Johnny realizes these are all awesome fighting moves. Mark tries to sweep Johnny's leg. Johnny uses a cool pose that, if done correctly, no can defend... unless you take a step backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet - no mobile phones, period. Parents with compelling needs can go find another school to cater to them.
There is no "need" for cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Johnny and Mark gets into a fight after school.
2010 - Police called, arrests Johnny and Marko. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Mark started it. Both children go to anger management programs for 3 months. School board hold meeting to implement bullying prevention programs
You forgot the lawsuits.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The seeds of yet another encroachment on human rights by the UK
Kids are not adults.
It's a good thing they are called "Human Rights", not "Adult Rights" then, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
When your kids are in school, the school gains the parental responsibility, thus they are able to set certain policies that you might assume only a parent has the ability to do to their kids.
Minors and Adults are not equal, and I believe that was the point. It is for good reason that most cultures understand these differences; it is quite naive to pretend there isn't.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe in your system of morality. Kindly keep it to yourself, if the only alternative you find is to force it upon others.
Re: (Score:2)
respect his rights not to be force fed
Yes, actually. It's called "being sent to your room without supper".
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, actually. It's called "being sent to your room without supper".
1. If you punish someone for doing (or not doing) something, then what they did or didn't do doesn't seem like much of a right to me.
2. And when your precious little one decides not to go to his room, do you respect his rights not to be forced to go to his room? Or do you respect his rights not to be sent to his room the same respectful way you respect his rights not to have to eat oatmeal for supper? In other words, not at all?
"respect his rights not to be force fed" (Score:2)
"or are you going to teach the little twerp to do what he's told for his own good?"
Thanks for that post. Now I've got Pink Floyd's "The Wall" fighting with Buffalo Bill from "Silence of the Lambs" for space on the constant loop in my head.
"It puts the lotion on itself or it gets the hose again YOU! YES YOU! STAND STILL WHILE YOU'RE HIT!"
I really, really hope you're not a parent.
Re: (Score:2)
"Kids are not adults." (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely not. Kids are minors, and therefore enjoy greater protection from the law, not less. They still retain basic human rights and many civil liberties. You cannot force a child to work commercially for you for free. You cannot compel a child to testify against themselves. The police may not search children without a warrant. The only reason schools enjoy greater control over their students is by arguing "in loco parentis," that they are literally acting as the child's parent while the mother and father are absent. Even under this doctrine, there are limits. You cannot compel a child to salute the flag or recite the pledge of allegiance. The school may not interfere with a child's practice of religion.
This is all how it should be.
My problem is with the implication of your post. Kids are not adults, so they have no human rights or civil liberties, so we can do what we want to them. The Great State of Texas has been a prime example of this, Kids get investigated as children with no human rights, and then tried as adults with no protections from the law.
And honestly, speaking as a teacher, demanding to see the notebook was a rookie mistake. The problem with you and your friends was that you weren't focused on the lesson. Your teacher should have put you back on task, but instead chose to make this a personal issue between you. Your teacher sacrificed the strong position of "You're not learning the lesson" for the weak position of "You're hurting my feelings."
Look at it this way. Do you remember what you were supposed to be learning that day?
Re: (Score:2)
Grow up. Or one. Whichever.
Imagine what you perceive to be your rights. Imagine they are ascribed to each individual you see around you. Start from that point, and then post further.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about?
I am only describing the reality the saw when I was a kid 20 years ago.
"you have kids and own a business" (Score:2)
Not all states have the family business exemption, as this Hartford pizzeria [hartfordadvocate.com] found out. If you're "managing" your kid's acting career, you can't touch a dime [wikipedia.org] of their money under the Coogan Act. Even in states with family business exemptions, if CPS thinks it's a better deal for you than the kid, you'll end up paying more in lawyers than you saved by not hiring a grown-up.
I sympathize. I had my hopes cruelly dashed too when I found out my "adopt a thousand orphans/open a string of car washes" dream wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a better example. A teacher stops a student in the hallway and demands they hand over their backpack. Is this an encroachment on human rights? Some would say yes, some would say no. I'm not here to debate which it is, but at least now we've got a more accurate analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that smartphones by definition nowadays tend to be more of an access point to all their stuff at home. The best example is a teacher decides that a student may be doing something his parents are fine with but the teacher doesn't like so that teacher comes to the kids house, forces the kid to log into everything, and goes through everything from facebook to the kid's private files for something to expel or suspend the kid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Schools are not allowed to search your backpack (or locker in most countries) unless public safety is in danger (suspected gun/knife, etc), in which case the POLICE are called in to perform the search.
Re: (Score:2)
No one said they were adults. But the hardly makes them slaves of whoever happens to be overseeing them at any given moment. They are kids, not prisoners.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
kids are however humans still.
Shh! Don't tell anyone. Then we'll have to stop treating them like slaves and idiots (until they suddenly and magically become people at the age of 18 of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
18? If only. In the US you need to wait until you're 21. :(
Excepting military service though.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you were one of those kids that didn't raise their hand with questions? I always asked questions and usually got really good answers. Students are encouraged to interact in US Schools --- it is usually a product of poor parenting when kids are not benefiting from this and other features of school.
Also, part of the sit down, shut up, and listen point you attempted to belittle is the reality of it --- the part where in many situations a person stands to BENEFIT from attention, or would be at a DE
Re: (Score:2)
It's been 10 years since high school, but I recently taught a couple courses at one and the same general opportunities are still there -- I feel the difference in the last decade is usually a higher level of neglect in parenting, producing 'students' that don't see value in the time they spend and are not prepared by their parents on how to learn. By and large the teachers are still teaching as best they can to those who are willing to learn.
The obvious point you attempted to exaggerate into the nothingnes
You don't have to bring your cell phone to schoo; (Score:3)
If you bring it to school then the school can impose rules on how you use it. Don't bring it to school if you don't like it. You might as well complain about having to get vaccinated or having to wear pants or leaving your bong at home.
Re: (Score:2)
You might as well complain about having to get vaccinated or having to wear pants or leaving your bong at home.
Thank God they didn't have these crazy rules back in my day: I'd have never finished college.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between imposing rules on how it's used (e.g. not permitting it to be on during the class), and forcibly gaining access to private content stored on said phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever will the British do? (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, such a proposal will, almost certainly, provide teachers with a supply of kiddie porn, thus abetting the paedophile menace, perhaps the only thing that your average Daily Mail reader fears and loathes more than immigrants on the dole...
How will they decide this one?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they could just ban cell phones like they did when I was in school in the 90s.
Re: (Score:3)
We do? Which cities? What city do I live in that you know this?
Wait, where's this gun at? Have you ever been here, or are you going on what you see in the movies?
Re: (Score:3)
I can't say I agree with either of your points, and that carries some weight - being a native and all. I've lived in the city, suburbs, and country, too - on both coasts and a little bit further in.
That said, even if there was a twitch-ridden gun pointed at me all the time - I take comfort in the fact that I can/do have my own twitchy gun pointing right back at it.
MAD is a pretty strong deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Which cities?
2. At least we can have a gun to point back if the need would ever arise. Note: I do not mean some redneck anti-government civil war fantasy, just that one person could protect himself from another.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine a greater infringement of civil liberties than living like the Americans, with a gun pointed at them every second of their lives.
I can't imagine that either, and I'm an American.
(note: there is currently no one pointing a gun at me, nor a cop looking at me, nor a camera recording me)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
Stop watching 24.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The UK has 1 camera for every 14 citizens
That was a figure made up by one of the rabid red-top tabloids - possibly the Daily Mail, I can't quite remember - where they sent one of their "journalists" out to count up all the cameras they could see in about a quarter mile of the main street of a particularly unsavoury part of London, and multiplied by the total length of the road network in the UK. By that metric, the farm track to my house would have three cameras on it - and every road no matter how small would have a camera about every fifty feet
Re: (Score:3)
You yanks can't tell me there's no CCTV in the local 7-11, the gas station,
Re: (Score:3)
I think you would be surprised. For example the police are now requiring shops to have CCTV both inside and outside on the street if they want a license to sell alcohol. I installed a couple of these systems for local convenience shops - 32 cameras inside and out with good views up and down the street. Not big shops either. The same requirements are put on most establishments applying for some kind of discretionary license these days.
All the buses where I live have CCTV now too.
Most transport firms now rout
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has 1 camera for every 14 citizens and we don't have anywhere near that many here.
Don't believe everything you read; that number has long been discredited. It's more like one for every 33 people [dailymail.co.uk] (do the sums yourself). And of course most of it isn't state surveillance; most of the cameras are privately owned and run.
easy and necessary fix. (Score:4, Insightful)
No phones. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean more attached than we were? No one had mobile phones when I was in school. We had walkie-talkies though and I can guarantee you that these were not allowed during class time. If we had an emergency and needed to use a phone, we would go to an office to use one. Humans managed to evolve for thousands of years without phones.
Granted there are some cases where the mobile phone will be even more helpful in emergencies (beaten up and bleeding in the toilet stall and no way to contact a teach
Re: (Score:3)
What children need to learn in school firstly is to sit down, shut up, listen, and focus.
While that seems to be the norm, I hope it's not the ideal. I'd prefer that children learned in school to learn, ask good questions, and so on. Often that involves sitting down, listening, and focusing, but I don't think those should be the primary educational goals.
They ARE, but they shouldn't be.
Re: (Score:2)
So the teachers will, at least, teach them good backup procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
Some places give their kids a chance to be responsible. Having grown up in the states, I find that many parents fight hard to keep their children from responsibility until the last possible minute.
Fuck, my school would confiscate CDs, console games, and various other things they had no business taking. Dumb as shit and I still can't find a reason for it.
La la la la, waiting for five minutes to pass so I can participate in the conversation again.. thanks, SLASHDOT, for a five minute delay and HTML that break
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
They tried that bull on me. They gave my stuff back. Apparently they didn't expect a student to be able to read, understand, and apply policy.
"Take it for the day if you must, but you are NOT taking my property from me, unless you plan on compensating me for it."
Re: (Score:2)
They never did have to return it to you, only to your parents. The toys just like yourself were property of your parents.
I am not saying this is right or wrong, only the way it is.
Re: (Score:2)
It is lawful. Schools are completely different, legally, than other public services. Students are in their care and they typically assume more responsiblity for students. Look it up. This point has been made and elaborated on slashdot many times.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck, my school would confiscate CDs, console games, and various other things they had no business taking. Dumb as shit and I still can't find a reason for it.
Modern schools are prisons, not educational facilities. There is no other need for them in the age of Google.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why you felt it was necessary to bring entertainment to school, or why you felt you needed to be entertained. I also don't understand why you felt it wrong to take your entertainment away in a place where you are supposed to be getting an education. Would you rather they let you keep the toys and kick you and the toys out instead? Better yet, after a history of getting kicked out, would you feel it wrong if CPS was called since you repeatedly break rules and stand as obvious evidence t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but then you just take the phone and give it back at the end of the day, or require a parent to come in to collect it. Or at least that's how it used to be done in the schools I went to. No privacy problems since the school doesn't go through the contents of the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a clever application of policy. :D
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If something unexpected happens, you call the school and they notify the student. This is appropriate for all cases -- i use US History, pre 1999, as an example where this method worked and life moved on.
The problem with the 'if the unexpected' argument is that there is too much abuse and overall distraction in the mix and the overall cost to benefit is that it costs more (loss in quality of education) and does very little to better the lives of people (grandma is dead whether heard over a cellphone or lan
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. The fact is that the added tech is more of a distraction than an aide. You claim (or pretend) to be an exception to the rule, but an exception is not necessary when you, too, can benefit from a little less 'me' time. You might even get more from spending 5 minutes figuring out what the girl in front of you likes to read than digging up more factoids on the net.
Furthermore, what you might view as 'idle' time is what some people learn to use effectively as 'processing' time. This is where I (an
Boss key (Score:2)
Games used to have a "boss key" so you could bring up a spreadsheet or something whenever your boss walked by so it looked like you were working.
I see no reason smartphones couldn't have a program that had similar functionality for when a teacher walked by.
Forgot my password (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about the country that throw you in jail if you "forget" your encryption key. Trust me, this is not a problem for them.
apologists (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there'll be plenty of apologists here who will say
1. "I'm old and I don't like that young people have better times ahead of them so I am happy to hear about them being clamped down in some way."
2. the legal apologist who says if the law allows/denies it, it must be ok/not ok. who cares that we're discussing, at least obliquely, the effects of this scenario that it creates.
3. "when I was a kid" douchebags.
4. the wannabe tyrant who props up his insecurities by always siding with big brother tyrants.
How about just throwing out the kids who are disruptive in class? this way no property has to be ruined, no lawsuits filed, and the kids who want to be there to learn (or at least graduate) can do so. if it's the kind of thing where the kid's sitting there quietly with headphones on, leave him alone.. he's not bothering anyone else. the only reason teachers throw these kinds of 'offenders' out is because of their insecure feelings of being 'dissed.' Really, it's not necessary because the kid will fail the class...or pass it because he already knew the material. Remind him that paying attention is important and he'll need to take off the 'phones to do that. if he says 'no' just say 'remember there's a test next week, I hope you'll be prepared.' and leave it at that. if the kid keeps forgetting to turn off his cell phone ringer, then throw him out of the class until he starts remembering. none of this requires a panopticonic policy. of course such policies have a benefit for the emotional security challenged people out there who are more often than not in-charge.
The 'cyber bullying 'excuse for this new 'power' is just another form of 'for the children.' searching/confiscating phones and deleting files on them is not going to stop bullying.. in fact, all this will do is enable yet another way for faculty to bully students.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! We don't like logic 'round these parts! We be to busy thinkin' of the chillun!
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with the tone of your post, teachers are being paid to do a job, and their students' performances effect a teacher's career.
Many students will go through periods of non-cooperation for very valid reasons, but the economic ramifications of allowing them to doss are potentially significant.
Maybe educational reform would allow students who have zero interest in public school eduction to engage in learning more suitable to their needs, but no one is currently incentivised to allow slackness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the students are not responsible for the teacher's well-being, nor should they be. the teacher is being paid under the assumption he knows how to teach. part of that is keeping their interest. if the teacher can't do this, he has failed. if a few kids are non-intrusively not paying attention, whether it's related to phone use or not, he's ok. those kids will pass or fail. if the whole class is failing, that's the teacher's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
if the teacher can't do this, he has failed. if a few kids are non-intrusively not paying attention, whether it's related to phone use or not, he's ok. if the whole class is failing, that's the teacher's fault.
So what you are saying is that the teacher must not just be interesting, but he must be the most interesting thing to those students in their entire life. They are allowed to bring in whatever outside distractions they want, as long as they are "non-intrusive".
I think it is fair to rig the game so the teacher wins most of the rounds. I don't think anyone wins if the entire class is allowed to sit playing Nintendo DS for the entire day because they are more interested in their game than in learning anythin
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid our douchebags didn't connect to the internet to update their status every time you used one.
Re: (Score:3)
How about just throwing out the kids who are disruptive in class? this way no property has to be ruined, no lawsuits filed, and the kids who want to be there to learn (or at least graduate) can do so. if it's the kind of thing where the kid's sitting there quietly with headphones on, leave him alone.. he's not bothering anyone else.
Tell me a good reason any student "needs" a cell phone in school...This has nothing to do with old-school "douchebag" mentality, it has to do with providing a logical reason, and there is none. You simply cannot give me one.
Don't even try the "my dog is dying of cancer and I NEED to be able to receive a call!" bullshit, because that's what a main school phone line and an intercom to page you are for. There's not a damn thing in this world that you would "NEED" to address 3 minutes sooner by having a direc
Re: (Score:2)
If the teacher's doing his job, the kid is playing with his phone or whatever because he knows the material and is bored. if he's one of two or three who hasn't mastered it, then the class average is safe.. if lots of kids, attentive or not, are having trouble passing, then that suggests a bad teacher who should not have the right to take his fear of losing employment out on the students. keeping the kid in class when he's being disruptive will drop the average for the class. letting a non attentive but non
Re: (Score:2)
You're making a huge assumption here. Why would the kid playing with his cell phone necessarily be bored? In my experience, kids who play with their phones in class are equally likely to be high achievers as low achievers.
Not really the point here. I have another question for you. Forget school for a moment, since when does a human being "need" to be entertained every 17 seconds of every waking minute of every day? Even more to the point, since when does a student in a structured environment "need" it?
And you really wonder why we have a Ritalin Nation and a pilled-up society...
These devices are distractions, for students that have them(dude, check this out) and those that don't (hey, lemme check that out). Boggles me tha
Re: (Score:3)
Explain to me how on earth confiscating property will help them learn. Confiscating their cell phone, mp3 player, etc. doesn't help the student to learn, it just removes whatever distraction they were using. Once that's gone they'll either find something else to distract them or they'll start bothering other students because they're bored. I would much prefer that a student sits in class and listens to their ipod or reads a boo
Re: (Score:2)
also, taking their property creates a defiant relationship between the teacher and student.. what good does that do? anger over the conflict does not put one in a learning mood, especially when the teacher is the target of the anger. really, the colleges (at least the ones that don't treat students like junior high schoolers) have this right. do what you want, but disrupt the class and you're out. it's your grade.
Re: (Score:2)
1. kids who don't want to learn can't be forced to. if the kid's being disruptive AND not paying attention, he should be thrown out for the period.
2. so? we should make a rule against something for the sole reason that many would do it?
3. then the behavior is disruptive. "your phones are too loud.. turn them down or get out" I"m talking about nondisruptive behavior.
4. like the headphones example, it's not about the device or its capabilities. it's about whether the student's behavior is disruptive to other
Re: (Score:2)
So while you're talking about apologists in their various forms, you're turning a blind eye and are allowing (and in my eyes, therefore condoning) bullying in school.
false dilemma. no i did not condone anything in my post. yes I know what the article is about. in fact, I argued that overreaching faculty in itself is a form of bullying. adding more to the pot doesn't teach anything but that it's acceptable once you have enough authority. some of the worst bullying comes not from the other students, but from the faculty who set the stage for the crap that happens in the hallways/schoolyards later. humiliate a kid in class a few times, and watch how the other students
No cell phones in the New York City public schools (Score:2)
Pin? Terrorist? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it would be under the RIP Act. [wikipedia.org]
I know where to hide them (Score:2)
"Headmaster, Headmaster . . . Nelson, minor, has twitter up his shitter!"
Shamelessly stolen from Viz.
Questions remain? (Score:2)
That's like saying "questions remain whether Hitler was a bad guy" or "questions remain whether giving the police the authority to search houses without a warrant would give the police too much power".
There's isn't any question here. Of course allowing teachers to search and delete whatever they want from a student's cell phone is an abuse of power. Just like allowing teachers to search and erase conte
There is no question. (Score:2)
This is absolutely a violation of the rights of the students. It is not a question, it is absolute.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel the phone is not a right, but the information they keep on it is. And so they ought to ban the phones. Everyone over 25 went to school this way and it works.
Assume no privacy in public (Score:2)
I had a disk I took to class searched once. I didn't mind. You know why? There was nothing counter to school policy on the disk.
In general, I make sure I have nothing offensive on my person whenever I go out. What if the phone just slipped out of the student's pocket? To identify the owner of the phone, someone would have to search it anyway. My point is keep private things in private. If I go to a police station while waving a knife around and get arrested, I'm not going to claim that they violated
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the old "if you have nothing to hide..." argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Well someone had to argue the other side, the debate is boring if everyone is on the same team. :P
Schools can search lockers... (Score:2)
Someone mentioned in loco parentis, the idea that the school can do a lot of things because they are the de facto parents of the kid while at school. So, I would not be very surprised at all to see more of this in the future. Schools will confiscate phones (or tablets) under the guise of finding who cheated on the test, or who is dealing drugs, or sexting. Much like the cops searching your phone (without a warrant) when you are arrested, schools in the UK and the US will probably start doing this much more
here be dragons (Score:3)
I won't touch the debate on students' rights or cell phone policies, but it seems odd that teachers would be allowed to delete items. It puts them in a very precarious position, in a couple of ways.
Basically, if something is offensive enough to be deleted, it should be instead preserved as evidence for disciplinary action. Once the evidence is deleted it's going to be very difficult to sanction the child at all and I can just imagine parents' exasperation when informed. How can they yell at their kid about something when the only "proof" was supposedly deleted?
And if a picture or text message wasn't merely offensive but was evidence of an illegal act, the teacher will have committed destruction of evidence. And what if the teacher finds pictures of 12 year old students not fully clothed? Viewing stuff like that in class is likely to be a termination offence. Displaying it to other children could conceivably lead to a criminal conviction.
Also, it seems naive to pretend that students won't adapt by just syncing/backing up their phones more often or downloading the offensive content again. And what if the offensive content was a web page? They can just bring it up again any time they want.
The probem is the parentis... (Score:2)
cellphone =~ backpack (Score:2)
If it's OK to sift through a kid's backpack or notebook, then the same circumstances should allow a teacher to go through the kid's cellphone.
Yes, today's cell phones (and laptops) can hold a lot more data than the (paper) notebooks of the '80s, but I find it hard to justify giving the electronic equivalents more protection than their low-tech predecessors. At some point, you have to draw a line (in both directions).
Why? (Score:2)
I'm sorry but ... WHY THE FUCK DO THEY NEED PHONES AT SCHOOL?
Ban the devices. No one needs them, the school certainly has a phone for emergency phone calls if need be.
Theres no reason a kid needs to have a phone in class.
Re: (Score:2)
Until somebody shoves a camera under the cubicle wall and takes a picture of your son or daughter with their pants down. Then when the other students say "but I don't have a picture, do you have a picture?" and the teacher is powerless to do anything, the photo will be recirculated for years.
Crimes take place in schools which would never be tolerated in the outside world.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of fucked up "school" has cubicles? That's a great way to foster teamwork...
Re: (Score:3)
If, when I and my children lived in the UK, a teacher had tried to do this I would have sued s/his ass off.
What's a "shis"?
Now I would insert the barrel of my SIG 210 up their left nostril and politely ask them NOT to do it again.
Overreact much? Funny, I thought the barrel of the SIG P210 was far larger than any nostril, well, except maybe this guy's: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article112380.ece [thesun.co.uk]
What do those people think they are?
Educators of children? Hopefully they're doing a better job than those that educated you, judging from your entertaining comment history. A connoisseur of transsexuals, are you? Italy has "some of the most passable/beautiful TS outside asia". Awesome. Maybe you could publish a field guide to the world's s
Re:Unacceptable (Score:4, Insightful)
If, when I and my children lived in the UK, a teacher had tried to do this I would have sued s/his ass off.
Under what law?
Re: (Score:3)
If, when I and my children lived in the UK, a teacher had tried to do this I would have sued s/his ass off.
Under what law?
Article 8, ECHR:
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think you are using deadly force willy-nilly?
You're the sort that gives CCP holders a bad reputation.