Face Recognition Is Now Being Used In Schools (theintercept.com) 206
Presto Vivace shares a report from The Intercept: Officials at the Lockport, New York, school district have purchased face recognition technology as part of a purported effort to prevent school shootings. Starting in September, all 10 of Lockport District's school buildings, just north of Buffalo, will be outfitted with a surveillance system that can identify faces and objects. The software, known as Aegis, was developed by SN Technologies Corp., a Canadian biometrics firm that specifically advertises to schools. It can be used to alert officials to whenever sex offenders, suspended students, fired employees, suspected gang members, or anyone else placed on a school's "blacklist" enters the premises. Aegis also sends alerts any time one of the "top 10" most popular guns used in school shootings appears in view of a camera. The district is spending most of its recent $4 million state "Smart School" grant on these and other enhancements to its security systems, including bullet-proof greeter windows and a mass notification system, according to the Niagra Gazette. Slashdot reader Presto Vivace adds: "This is why municipal elections are so important. Just because this stuff is on the market, does not mean your local school system has to buy it."
The report notes that "all the major school shootings in the last five years in the U.S. have been carried out by current students or alumnae of the school in question." These students wouldn't have their face entered into the face recognition system's blacklist. Furthermore, "Most shooters don't brandish their guns before opening fire; and by the time they do, an object-detection algorithm that could specify the exact type of weapon they're firing would not be of much use," reports The Intercept. "... the technology would give a school, at best, only a few extra seconds in response time to a shooting."
The report notes that "all the major school shootings in the last five years in the U.S. have been carried out by current students or alumnae of the school in question." These students wouldn't have their face entered into the face recognition system's blacklist. Furthermore, "Most shooters don't brandish their guns before opening fire; and by the time they do, an object-detection algorithm that could specify the exact type of weapon they're firing would not be of much use," reports The Intercept. "... the technology would give a school, at best, only a few extra seconds in response time to a shooting."
Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
So we have to compete with China in creepiness? [slashdot.org]
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
More than that, the bastard at Parkland had raised *every possible red flag* and had been reported to the responsible authorities multiple times by multimple people - and they still did nothing. Now, you see an alumnus on a camera, and you are going to rush in with the SWAT team in a few tens of seconds? When you have no idea why he is there or what he plans?
Re: (Score:2)
So we have to compete with China in creepiness? [slashdot.org]
Of course since the average american and person in capitalist society is unaware how extreme wealth inequality is. So all the rulers are at full blown war against their publics. That's why the spying is there, to make sure you have the "correct" free market, corporation worshipping thoughts and not notice the end of the rule of law, endless copyright laws which equals total domination of government by the rich.
See it in this speach by former national security adivisor of the United states:
Elites fear poli [youtube.com]
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather they spent $4m on teacher salaries, improved equipment for the students, and school supplies...or things like bullying and assault and quality food for the children to eat.
But nah...one politician is in bed with another and their buddy sells these systems so free government money 'for schools' is just lining their pockets as usual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But this isn't about total surveillance, it's about monitoring a public institution. You don't think there are cameras with facial recognition software in use at other government buildings like courthouses, police stations, the DMV, etc? How about in the private workplace?
Schools and classrooms should have video surveillance. It protects people from false allegations and it provides proof that events did happen.
This sort of technology would be great for things like automatic roll calls, clocking worker
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:5, Insightful)
... or we could just make guns harder to buy. And stop encouraging copycats by not making mass shooters and their deeds part of the 24 hour news cycle. Also offer psych treatment for free and have employment policies that don't destroy families.
You know, the way most civilised countries handle it. But, nooooo, we need our guns and our crappy private insurance system... because freedom.
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:5, Informative)
But in the mean time, people need to stop pretending that ignoring and gutting the intent of it doesn't lay the groundwork for even more gutting and ignoring of the other, more popular rights.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Does "a well regulated militia" mean every drunk, having mental or anger issues person? Maybe it would be good to actually follow the intentions not literally take a word, the intention is liberty and self governance.
How face recognition AI following (first) kids at schools then every person everywhere, in the name of safety, because we need every crazy have a gun but still we need some decent safety - how is it liberty?
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
The "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" is such that the 2nd Amendment only ENSURES that right, not grant it. And since you asked, it is well established case law that "Well Regulated Militia" means every able bodied adult, capable of wielding a weapon, but isn't limited to those people.
And for the record, we allow stupid, drunk, angry persons to vote, and I actually count that as a greater threat than my guns, simply because they are capable of making repeated bad decisions, over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The intent was that the militia, composed automatically of all able bodied men, of which personal gun ownership was a requirement,
No. The INTENT is stated in the sentence itself: "the right of the PEOPLE". It does not say "the right of anyone who might be in the militia". The clause talking about the militia is not a defining clause, it is descriptive. It gives ONE REASON why the right should not be infringed, and it still means that it is a right. I.e., it is not granted by the Constitution, it is affirmed, and thus "only applies to likely militia members" is absurd on its face.
The proper way to deal with the 2nd is amend or abolish,
You do realize that the concept behind the Bill of Right
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pretty sad day when people put owning guns over the lives of human beings.
That's not what I've said in any way, shape, or form.
Chill out, it's a fucking toy 80% of the time.
If you can take that attitude about other people's rights, they can take that attitude with yours. Don't tell people to "chill out" when they are talking about rights, because they'll tell you the same thing when you complain about violations of yours.
A little regulation won't hurt anybody.
You are the textbook example of something I just referred to a minute or so ago in another post. WE ALREADY HAVE REGULATION. It is already illegal to kill someone else, in the context of school shootings.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a pretty sad day when people put owning guns over the lives of human beings" - I've owned guns for over 45 years, and they've never once been pointed at another human being. So, why am I under attack?
" A little regulation won't hurt anybody" - Do you have a clue how much regulation there is??? I'm all for a little regulation, but not a continued erosion that does nothing to actually solve the problem of keeping weapons out of the hands of those who are mentally ill.
"...it's probably for your TV or
Re: (Score:2)
The "militia" in the time of the founders consisted of all able-bodied men. You were automatically in the militia. And expected to bring your own gun when the called up. Thus, the individual right was inherently a requirement for the formation of the militia. Also, if you read the history behind it, defense against tyranny was absolutely a consideration.
You're not going to achieve reform by lying about things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
So, which part of "the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed" implies that it's not an individual Right?
Note, by the by, that the First Amendment doesn't use the word "Persons", either. In fact, taken literally, the First could be abrogated by Executive Order - the First specifically says that Congress can't mess with Free Speech, and sets no such limits on either the President or the Judiciary.
Likewise, the Fourth doesn't use the word "persons", so it shouldn't actually be taken to be an individual Right, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Would you say that the First Amendment rights are limited to the Press? If not, why are you reading the 2nd in a restrictive way and not the first.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Both use the phrase "right of the people".
Either the rights belong to the people, of they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the second person to quote the 1st Amendment without noting what it actually says - but it wouldn't be a gun debate without a false equivalency.
People refers to a gathering of persons, which is going to be people by definition - it'
Re: (Score:2)
"The intent was ..."
Repeating lies doesn't make them true. Please stop.
Re: (Score:2)
You first, clown shoes. The venn diagram of gun nuts and people who have actually read the 2nd Amendment is a couple of circles with a mile between them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or we could actually do something when these people are identified beforehand. The Florida shooter from a few weeks ago was known to make comments about killing other students and their parents and was reported to the police and/or FBI over 20 times before it actually happened, and yet he still had easy access to a gun. If we actually enforced the laws we currently have then maybe it wouldn't have happened.
Side note: curiously, the student spokesperson of the latest anti-gun movement, Hogg, is the son of a
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
... or we could just make guns harder to buy. And stop encouraging copycats by not making mass shooters and their deeds part of the 24 hour news cycle. Also offer psych treatment for free and have employment policies that don't destroy families.
You know, the way most civilised countries handle it. But, nooooo, we need our guns and our crappy private insurance system... because freedom.
Sadly, making guns harder to buy wont help. That's treating the symptom, not the cause.
What needs to happen is for guns and violence to stop being glorified in American culture. This means admitting the NRA is wrong and the 2nd Amendment does not mean "lasseiz-fair guns for all". It means people changing their attitudes and treating guns as dangerous objects that must be handled with care and precision instead of toys and problem solvers. Gun control will come as a consequence of this change, not a cause
Re: (Score:3)
Eh? Statements seem to be a wee bit contradictory.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? Statements seem to be a wee bit contradictory.
Not only that, but it's false equivalence. It completely ignores all the cultural and historical differences between them and the US. It also ignores the politicians in the US always feeling the need to Do Something. Even after they've done something which worked just fine...and thus why no one trusts them.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty examples of it NOT working. The countries often referenced as 'examples' also have majorly difference social structures, government, and so on while plenty of countries that prohibit guns entirely still have either gun or other weapon-based crime...and lots of it.
Hell, the UK is currently trying to convince people that knives are too dangerous and to turn them in because there's too much knife crime. Examples like that are why the NRA is so uncompromising in their stance. Unlike many oth
Re: (Score:2)
In other countries, you can be thrown in jail for saying stuff or even filming outside a courthouse. The reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the rights granted in the first.
We aren't other countries, we're the bastion of liberty for the rest of the world. And yes, that liberty is messy at times. It is better than a gilded cage of tyranny we rejected 250 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we also have a shit ton of laws out there that have no bearing on reality.
Keep in mind, I am a Libertarian and am for Liberty. There are a number of laws on the books that do not solve the problems they supposedly are on the books to do.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect the rights granted in the first.
Neither the First nor Second Amendments grant rights. They exist to try to prevent the government from restricting the people in exercising the rights that already exist.
Both speak in terms of the government not restricting something and do not define that something as a right. For example: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is assumed; the active part of that sentence is that government shall not infringe upon that righ
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. Thank you for clarifying. They don't "Grant" rights, they are protections to rights that pre-exist. I worded my response poorly.
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
The NRA used to support responsible gun ownership, and I am sure occasionally it is still taught in some NRA settings, but it is far from a priority today.
They went to the Supreme court to stop a national law to prevent the mentally ill from being reported to a national registry to prevent them from buying guns.
They prevented laws that would stop bump stocks from being sold.
They spent 8 years convincing people that Obama wanted to take away guns and ammo, despite the only gun law changes proposed or passed by Obama were to allow carry in national parks and on Amtrak. This hurt gun owners, as people stocked up on ammo making it very difficult for sports shooters to purchase.
They primarily are now a political organization, they raise money for republicans, they promote only republicans to their members. They help set the republican agenda to align with the gun manufactures, in return for exclusively supporting republicans to their members. It doesn't matter that 90%+ of democratic lawmakers have the same goals for gun law changes as the majority of gun owners, safety related changes, and better background checks. The NRA doesn't care because they are a Republican organization.
Re: (Score:2)
They went to the Supreme court to stop a national law to prevent the mentally ill from being reported to a national registry to prevent them from buying guns.
You're ok with people being put on a federal government list that they cannot get off of, have little control over being put on, with criteria that are subjective and change on a regular, if not daily, basis? That would be a list that is open to the public (anyone selling a gun to anyone else needs access) and brands that person as sick. This is ok with you? It's not a violation of due process or the right to privacy? Remember, you don't have to actively seek to buy a gun to be on that list, or for someone
Re: (Score:2)
.. or we could just make guns harder to buy.
I can see why you would be under the impression that making guns harder to buy would prevent school shootings. The logic, in a perfect world, is obvious. The world is not perfect and it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that such restrictions would assist in this situation.
There is a reason that the Second Amendment exists. It would appear that you fully discount the reason that it exists. That is fine. Each person is allowed to have their opinion. Do you truly feel comfortable forcing your opinion on o
Re: (Score:2)
No violation of 2nd Amendment rights.
So a person who is 14 years old has rights, unless he is a student in a K12 school. Interesting concept. Will that pass constitutional muster?
It would also prohibit a "K12 student" who finds a gun left unattended at home from doing anything to resolve that problem. He can't pick it up to put it in the gun safe where it should be, because that would be "in control of" something he legally cannot be. He's got to leave it alone, where maybe his 8 year old brother can find it and do something stupid with it.
This should prevent most of the school shootings, at least the ones done by students.
I
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
There are known costs of acclimating children to surveillance, and there is the very real possibility that the data will be used against them in the future vs a very small chance that a shooter will ever be in their school.
Re:Race to the bottom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, your proposal is simply a gilded cage, and you're okay with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Gun control laws don't hurt either. Venezuela and Nicaragua both passed blanket gun bans, and their violence levels are a fraction (as in 1/1000) of what they were before the bans. NYC has a blanket gun ban, and is the safest place in the US, even in rural areas.
Bullshit
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Happens when you don't make it nationwide like in Australia.
Also, for school shootings it isn't so much that it is possible to acquire guns legally or illegally that is the problem.
Neither gun stores nor criminals are likely to sell guns to school children. (Yep, even your gang members have morals, they just differs from what the law says.)
The issue is a gun culture that makes it acceptable to store guns in a way that every curious child knows how to get hold of dads guns.
Where I live any gun owner would ne
Re: (Score:2)
Neither gun stores nor criminals are likely to sell guns to school children. (Yep, even your gang members have morals, they just differs from what the law says.)
Most of the school shooters are at least mid to late teens; sure they won't sell to little kids (usually) but older teens have no trouble on the black market when they look like they could easily be 18.
The issue is a gun culture that makes it acceptable to store guns in a way that every curious child knows how to get hold of dads guns.
There's no scenario under which that's preventable for kids old enough to go shoot up their school short of off-site storage, though better storage would help with accidental deaths for little kids.
Violence as a deterrent doesn't work that well if the aggressor doesn't expect to get out of it alive to begin with.
And that's part of why more gun control won't be effective against school shooters. They're so determined they'r
Re: (Score:2)
Happens when you don't make it nationwide like in Australia.
Australia is totally surrounded by oceans making smuggling something like firearms evtremely difficult. The US has land borders that people, including smugglers, regularly simply walk or drive across. The existing drug and human smuggling cartels would simply add another item to the menu: firearms. Actual military-grade, select-fire/full-automatic rifles, sub-machine guns, and more. If people in the US are unable to obtain a legal firearm that complies with laws and regulations they'll buy from the black market that has no restrictions at all.
There is also the problem of the hundreds of millions of guns...many never registered...that are already in civilian hands. It would be impossible to confiscate enough to make it unlikely a criminal could not obtain one.
Because guns exist, its not possible to reduce the numbers en masse over the years if it was tried? Many would argue that as guns got scarce and the price soared, the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to buy them or find them?
Another thing is that guns favors the aggressor.
Guns are an equalizer. They allow a 120 pound (~55 kg) woman a chance to defend herself against a much larger and stronger (usually male) assailant and do it at a distance out of the assailant's reach. Same for older people. Guns save lives as well as take them. It happens almost daily in the US.
The US has had widespread civilian gun ownership since it's founding. The recent violence is a societal problem, not a "tool" problem. Simply look at the UK. Now they're talking about knife bans and one judge in the UK even suggesting people deliberately dull their kitchen knives(!). That's stupid in the extreme.
Of course, enacting bans makes politicos appear to the low-info types to be doing something without having to address the societal problems at the root of the violence that is largely due to their own government policies and laws to begin with.
Are you suggesting education for the people? Forced psyche exams at the DMV? Having the politicians change the laws?
Any solution that relies on shooting the shooter means that you tolerate one or several innocents shot before the aggressor is dealt with.
The frequency of that having occurred in the many thousands of times criminals have been shot in self defense by civilians in the US is statistically zero, where the number of lives saved is far above statistically zero.
But, let's not allow facts to get in the way of agendas.
Strat
Because of guns, more people are alive?
--
"Shoot the barrel boy!" - H. Simpson
Re: (Score:2)
Because of guns, more people are alive?
Yes. Now if only people would expand their thinking outside of the previous 5 second news clip maybe they would understand that better.
Oh fine, here's an analogy ... erm meme, call it a meme since that's how people thing today: Nuclear weapons can kill millions. Enough countries have them that they point them at each other ... and then go work things out by other means. No one would every use one because they know they'd get one shot back at them...and the idiot who eventually does despite that is going
Re: (Score:2)
Because guns exist, its not possible to reduce the numbers en masse over the years if it was tried?
You miss the point. You might be able to reduce the numbers of guns en-masse if you enacted a draconian, unconstitutional ban on guns in the US. Maybe.
What you would not significantly reduce is the number of guns used by criminals. You don't realize that the people who would turn in their gun when they are banned are the non-criminals. The people who aren't going to shoot up a school anyway. The ones who will CONTINUE to ignore the law are the ones who already ignore the law -- criminals.
You will create
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply look at the UK. Now they're talking about knife bans and one judge in the UK even suggesting people deliberately dull their kitchen knives(!). That's stupid in the extreme.
and who is "they"? A retired judge and an activist organisation. Yeah the UK is totally going to hell in a handbasket because out of the 60 million inhabitants you managed to find a few who publicly said something stupid. Good job no one ever says anything stupid in your country.
You're an ex-pat, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela is a cess-pitt, anyone with the means to has fled the county. People are starving.
Anyone citing Venezuela as an example of anything but a prime example of the failure of communism is an idiot.
Incredible Pranking Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
any time one of the "top 10" most popular guns
That is going to be a lot of fun for the kids. Better than eating tide pods. "Trigger the cams!"
The coolest kids will be the ones who figure out the most clever ways of triggering the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incredible Pranking Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Band-Aid solution... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Want to fix school shootings? Put a waiting period on all gun purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off."
How many school shootings would that have stopped? Not many, especially since many states already have waiting periods.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with the idea of some kind of regulation of gun ownership (I'm European, after all) I don't think a waiting period will stop school shootings. How many school shootings happened in which the shooter bought the gun on his way to school?
Re: (Score:2)
Put a waiting period on all gun purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off."
We have that in California, and we still have shootings. They just happen later. We're going to have to care for people's needs if we want to stop them. (Or we can try to ban guns, create a bunch of other problems, and turn the shootings into arson.)
Re: (Score:2)
I keep seeing this term "free ____," as though it is real. There is no such thing as "free" as in "cost." Addressing the issue of cost, in fact, is probably the most important part of any argument like, "____ should be available for free." Part of the cost argument has to address the issue of incentive for people to become professionals in a given field, such as mental health professionals (i.e., if mental healthcare is "free," that means "a cost to the taxpayers," which really means "at the whim of the gov
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes. Plenty of money that can be cut from:
(1) the military
(2) state law enforcement budgets if states enact rational drug and mental health policies
Re: (Score:2)
Want to fix school shootings? Put a waiting period on all gun purchases to allow the mentally ill to "cool off."
What makes you think a waiting period would have stopped ANY of the school shootings? Are you under the impression that these kids are going out to buy guns just before they start shooting? Do kids even get a background check when acquiring guns?
Look, I can respect that you want to do something to stop school shootings. Knee-jerk, emotional reactions feel good, but will those reactions solve the problem or do they just make you feel better?
*facepalms* (Score:2)
Why must we relish every bad idea that comes along? Why?
Re: (Score:2)
So we can ketchup with our worst fears.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Now excuse me while I make my career driving for an app so I can get bitcoin sent to my phone, which is tracking my location and sending that data to FB so I can get ads based on my psychometric profiles based on my fun quiz I just took!.
Re:*facepalms* (Score:5, Interesting)
We could do something about school shootings, or we could sell guns AND surveillance systems AND clear backpacks.
We could do something about obesity, or we could sell Twinkies AND mobility scooters AND healthcare.
For every problem, a profit. Solving the problems means removing the profit, and that's Communist. You're not a Communist, are you, son?
this is another example of why we don't have (Score:3, Informative)
Re:this is another example of why we don't have (Score:4, Informative)
just as you say (Score:2)
Re:this is another example of why we don't have (Score:5, Insightful)
>"If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us."
You are 100% wrong. The last school murdering, in Texas was done with a revolver, a shotgun, and [not deployed] bombs.
1) Was it an "assault revolver"? No. Revolvers typically hold ONLY 6 rounds and have been around for hundreds of years. They have ZERO magazines.
2) Was it an "assault shotgun"? No. Again, been around forever, typically hold only 2 to 5 rounds, and have ZERO magazines.
3) Bombs are not guns. By the way, "assault cars" and vans are not guns. Knives are not guns. Gasoline, axes, bowes, pressure cookers, etc are all not guns.
The problem is not simple. It isn't guns in the hands of good people, which is often the only thing that keeps things in check AND it is the only real thing that additional gun control affects the most. The problems are:
1) Untreated mental health problems
2) Way too much media coverage and sensationalism that causes copy-cating.
3) Unarmed trained guards and unarmed trained staff that can't do anything about murder sprees until it is too late. There is often to the point of almost always zero armed resistance. And there is zero deterrence, due to the same reason.
4) Insecure facilities with too many uncontrolled entrances and lack of defenses.
5) Underenforced EXISTING laws. It is already illegal to sell guns of any type or capacity to the mentally ill or felons. It is already illegal to buy or possess guns of any type or capacity by the mentally ill or felons.
6) This one is controversial and not proven yet, but possibly putting way too many children/teens on psychotropic drugs and without enough careful monitoring of their use.
7) Lack of child supervision, teaching morality (in whatever form that takes), involvement in their lives, and true caring by their parent(s). Lack of holding children responsible for what they do (with real consequences) and preparing them to be adults.
There are probably some others, but I think those are the main factors. Despite the sensationalism, school murders are still very, very rare when you look at all the data. Kids are far, far, far more likely to die of dozens of other things than a "mass shooting". And there is no way to have a free society without some amount of risk.
Re: this is another example of why we don't have (Score:4, Insightful)
You forgot
8) A society awash with guns and too many people who value them above others' lives.
Funny how it's only the US which specializes in gun massacres. Must be more of that American exceptionalism.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You forgot
8) A society awash with guns and too many people who value them above others' lives.
Funny how it's only the US which specializes in gun massacres. Must be more of that American exceptionalism.
This. The problem is the love affair and lack of responsibility with the gun. Someone doesn't even need to buy or own their own gun to go on a rampage, they could just borrow someones, even without their permission as a lot of gun owners leave them loaded and lying around in the open (or at best, in an unlocked drawer). Until that attitude changes, dead kids are inevitable.
Canada and France have many more guns than the UK. France has 31 (per 100 people), Canada has 30 and the UK has 7, however Canada a
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how it's only the US which specializes in gun massacres. Must be more of that American exceptionalism.
Don't despair; Rwanda still leads in machete massacres, and Russian and China in gulags.
Oh, and the UK in officially ignored child abuse networks.
Re: (Score:2)
With comments like these, it is not possible to have a rational discussion. Thank you for your contribution to solving this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, be a bit more creative. So far we've heard it blamed on too many doors, Ritalin, and pornography. What about sugar and/or sugar substitutes. Soft drinks. Oooh, I know: THE INTERNET! Maybe it's Hi-Def TV. Or standardized testing. Go old school and blame fluoridation of water. Something in the packaging of cheap Chinese imports. No (Ch
Re: (Score:2)
Only about 180 years, actually. Though your point stands - it's not like they're a new technology. Note that I own two Civil War era revolvers (okay, so I was a reenactor once upon a time - get over it). One of which, admittedly needs some work (which I'll get around to someday - it's on the list), but between them, that's enough shots for your classic school shooting. With the added advantage of black powder smoke to scre
Re: (Score:3)
Note that the basic technology of the "assault weapon" is rather more than a century old as well.
Well, not quite. The modern assault weapon really started with the M1 Garand in the late 30's but it wasn't until the Soviet SVT38 rifle which combined a gas operated self loading system with a detachable magazine, even though they were introduced in 1938, they were complex so few were available in 1941 when the Nazi's invaded. These are classified (by Brits at least) as "Self Loading Rifles" as they use rifle calibre rounds and were semi-automatic. The first true assault rifle as we know it was the StG 44
Re: (Score:2)
4) Insecure facilities with too many uncontrolled entrances and lack of defenses.
That one's big ... and the schools are also just too damn LARGE.
In addition to the target rich environment and fish in a barrel architecture that tends to lead to, there's the fact that most teens are "troubled" to some degree or other ... it's a stressful time of life ... maybe forcing thousands of them together each day in one place in a Lord of the Flies environment is a bit of a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
gun control in the United States. School shooters are a profit center. Instead of spending money on teaches and classroom supplies we are spending money on security theater.
The quote looks absurd because someone thought it would be a good idea to start the discussion in the Subject line instead of using the Subject line in its intended use: To give a subject. Regardless, you are out of touch with reality if you truly believe the lack of gun control is to support spending money on Security Theater. Check yourself before you wreck yourself bro.
If we ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines, as they have done in Australia, we could protect school children and the rest of us.
How many school shootings involved an "assault weapon" and/or "high capacity" magazines? Forget about school shootings, how many crimes a
I'm sure it's just somebody's brother in law's (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to define a new unit of uselessness. It can't be a ratio, because 0/X is zero, and X/0 is undefined. And it has to include dollars (or whatever currency unit is appropriate for localization).
Got any ideas, Slashdot Pundits?
Little Brother excerpt (Score:2)
An excerpt from Cory Doctorow's Little Brother story:
I moved down the corridor lightly and sprightly, keeping my gait even and measured for the gait recognition cameras. These had been installed only a year before, and I loved them for their sheer idiocy. Beforehand, we'd had face recognition cameras covering nearly every public space in school, but a court ruled that was unconstitutional. So Benson and a lot of other paranoid school administrators had spent our textbook dollars on these idiot cameras that
Re: (Score:2)
Cameras are of little use if the shooter hides their face. It's not like it's hard to do. And if obvious means of hiding one's face are themselves detected (which I'm not sure how security systems should handle, should we arrest people walking around with band-aids hiding part of their face?), when there are cameras everywhere, they will be walking around with masks. There are very good silicone-based masks nowadays that even an human can get fooled by at a distance - so an automated recognition device has
Re: (Score:2)
*Exactly* And a mask is only useful for getting in, but once somebody is inside (mask or no mask), facial recognition and security cameras become as much a deterrent as "Gun Free Zone" signs posted around the school. Completely and utterly useless. Once the shooting starts, so what if the facial recognition system identifies Davy Dumbass as the shooter and he's using a Mossberg shotgun and 9 mm Glock? He's just going to keep on shooting and taking lives until he's either dead or arrested.
As for guns, you'
Re: (Score:2)
Erm (Score:2)
It can be used to alert officials to whenever sex offenders, suspended students, fired employees, suspected gang members, or anyone else placed on a school's "blacklist" enters the premises.
Shouldn't they also be using this to give an alert for people they haven't identified? Make a field day at the start of each year, and get pictures of all the guardians or some such.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! Suspended Students (Score:2)
I don't think you'll have any problem with suspended students trying to sneak back into school.
"But please Principal! I really want to go to class!
Out of school suspension for a teenage misfit is equivalent to forced paid leave for a professional. Might as well call it vacation.
Re: (Score:2)
right thing to do (Score:2)
obviously all these advanced technologies are the right thing to do, and they will be very effective.
this couldn't be solved any other way, like adjusting current laws/rights etc
What the hell happened ... (Score:2)
... to "America First?"
A paradox is that ... (Score:2)
... schools pay shit wages to teachers and big bucks to foreigners for something that is not likely to happen and not likely to work when it does.
Gen X Comes In With Exactly The Wrong Idea, Again (Score:2)
How much would it cost to issue each child a Chromebook and have them telecommute from home? All of your flashy shiny technology looks good on paper and I'm sure it makes you feel like a kid with a brand new toy. But the best way to prevent a MASS shooting, is to remove the mass. And if things really aren't so bad that you would consider this as an option, then I guess they really aren't all that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. (Score:2, Informative)
I live in Canada.
When my kids go to school they don't go through metal detectors or deal with facial recognition. Their backpacks aren't transparent and the only 'drills' they do are for earthquake and fire. There are no bullet-proof shelters in their classroom, no armed guards at the school and no debate about arming teachers.
Why? Because Canada HAS G
Total waste of funding (Score:2)
Here's how you prevent many school shootings: (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't agree with me? Here's my reasoning: First take a look at this article [npr.org] and see what the shooter had to say in his videos before the shooting took place. He's clearly looking forward to the attention and notoriety he's going to get from it. This is the way the minds of these sick fucks work: they think they've been wronged, they think the world owes them, they think that they're going to be 'heroes' when they commit their act of mass murder, and even though they're likely going to either be shot to death by police or die in prison, they're basking in the attention and the idea that they'll be the stars of the press for weeks and months. Each school shooter that is publicized is enabling the next shooter, and so on, and so on, as they all want their shot at fame and glory; WE NEED TO DENY THEM THAT.
There needs to be a gag order in place on these. The press needs to be denied access to information. The arrests, the trials, they all need to be closed-door with gag orders in place so the proceedings are entirely secret. When they put them in prison, it needs to be done silently, they need to be put in solitary permanently, not allowed to talk to ANYONE so there's no leaks. If there is no payoff to the shooters then my theory is most of the shootings won't happen because there won't be any reward for doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are on top of a pyramid, surrounded by slippery slopes.
First, yes, I too would like to "Stop publicizing school shootings!". It would be nice to have some kind of deal where this type of news is buried page 10 with just a statement of basic facts. It used to be that govt would work with the big news producers to suppress information, a state of affairs from WWII. Now, "everybody" is a news producer, and "everyone" is an editorialist. Lack of information will not suppress them--they will make up their ow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)