Slashdot Mirror

I still think it's an bad idea, because there are administrators who will try using it to do their thinking for them instead of using it as a tool.

If this "Mosaic" software asks questions like "Do you spend more than 15 minutes a day on the Internet?", "Do you use IRC, MUDs, or chat rooms on a daily basis?" and uses the answers to those questions to judge whether or not a kid could be potential "trouble", that's a Very Bad Thing.

It doesn't.

Students will probably never see Mosaic, it's for administrators.

From the NYTimes and Gavin De Beckers's web site it asks questions like:

What kind of access to firearms does the student have?

__No known possession of a firearm
__Friends known to have ready access to a firearm
__There are firearms in the home
__There are firearms in a home frequented by the student
__The student owns his own firearm
__The student recently acquired a firearm

I'm guessing from the context of the web site, but if student Joe Geek was just dumped by his girlfriend and he sent her a threatening invitation to the prom (ala Go with me or it will be an unforgettable Prom, and your last prom!) and Joe Geek just bought a gun, maybe Mosaic-2000 will flag him.

George

Novel concept, I went to Gavin De Becker's web site and from this article> I found a list of profiling characteristics.

Dr. McGee had over 60 categories of information on classroom shooters and about 80 inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, arrayed in spreadsheets and tables. And here was where he caught me. As the slides displaying this information commenced flashing on the big screen at the front of the darkened auditorium, I began noticing an eerie congruence between his profile of the school shooter type, and the actual traits of the boy who had murdered my son... member of alienated group; appearance of normality to adults; negative self-image and unstable self esteem; average to above average IQ; covert vandalism and dishonesty; distrustful and secretive with adults in authority; interest in real and fictional violence in the media; motive vengeance and achievement of power; mixed personality disorder with paranoid, antisocial and narcissistic features... the list went on. The fit was uncanny. McGee told us, for example, how in their fantasies, school shooters pre-select victims, witnesses, time, place, location, means and course of action. I recalled testimony from the criminal trial to the effect that my son's killer had repeatedly and publicly rehearsed his fantasy of shooting up the dining hall at the evening meal.

And this interesting characteristic:

These kids were middle class male Caucasians averaging 16 years of age, who felt socially isolated and who had ready access to guns. Other kinds of information were surprising. These kids were NOT drug addicts or alcohol abusers, and they had no documented history of severe mental illness. Aside from an occasional preference for dark or camouflage clothing, they presented a normal appearance to adults. They were not pierced, tattooed scary looking kids, and they were not high-profile trouble makers. They were, generally, of above average intelligence.

Hmmm, can we categorize these as geek or goth characteristics?

characteristic geek goth

alienated group maybe maybe

appearance of
normality to adults maybe no

negative self-image
and unstable self
esteem* maybe maybe

average to above
average IQ presumable maybe

covert vandalism and
dishonesty** maybe maybe

distrustful and secretive with
adults in authority maybe maybe

interest in real and fictional violence
in the media *** maybe maybe

motive vengeance and achievement
of power no no

mixed personality disorder
with paranoid no no

ready access to guns no no



* this sounds like a typical adolescent, GH
** does cracking count?
*** does AP history count?

You can make almost any adolescent fit these characteristics, but maybe in summation they mean something.

You'll notice a lack of computers in the mix, too.

I had to fudge some of the Goth stuff, not really knowing any Goths anymore.

George

Novel concept, I went to Gavin De Becker's web site and from this article> I found a list of profiling characteristics.

Dr. McGee had over 60 categories of information on classroom shooters and about 80 inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, arrayed in spreadsheets and tables. And here was where he caught me. As the slides displaying this information commenced flashing on the big screen at the front of the darkened auditorium, I began noticing an eerie congruence between his profile of the school shooter type, and the actual traits of the boy who had murdered my son... member of alienated group; appearance of normality to adults; negative self-image and unstable self esteem; average to above average IQ; covert vandalism and dishonesty; distrustful and secretive with adults in authority; interest in real and fictional violence in the media; motive vengeance and achievement of power; mixed personality disorder with paranoid, antisocial and narcissistic features... the list went on. The fit was uncanny. McGee told us, for example, how in their fantasies, school shooters pre-select victims, witnesses, time, place, location, means and course of action. I recalled testimony from the criminal trial to the effect that my son's killer had repeatedly and publicly rehearsed his fantasy of shooting up the dining hall at the evening meal.

And this interesting characteristic:

These kids were middle class male Caucasians averaging 16 years of age, who felt socially isolated and who had ready access to guns. Other kinds of information were surprising. These kids were NOT drug addicts or alcohol abusers, and they had no documented history of severe mental illness. Aside from an occasional preference for dark or camouflage clothing, they presented a normal appearance to adults. They were not pierced, tattooed scary looking kids, and they were not high-profile trouble makers. They were, generally, of above average intelligence.

Hmmm, can we categorize these as geek or goth characteristics?

characteristic geek goth

alienated group maybe maybe

appearance of
normality to adults maybe no

negative self-image
and unstable self
esteem* maybe maybe

average to above
average IQ presumable maybe

covert vandalism and
dishonesty** maybe maybe

distrustful and secretive with
adults in authority maybe maybe

interest in real and fictional violence
in the media *** maybe maybe

motive vengeance and achievement
of power no no

mixed personality disorder
with paranoid no no

ready access to guns no no



* this sounds like a typical adolescent, GH
** does cracking count?
*** does AP history count?

You can make almost any adolescent fit these characteristics, but maybe in summation they mean something.

You'll notice a lack of computers in the mix, too.

I had to fudge some of the Goth stuff, not really knowing any Goths anymore.

George

Apparently, it is being developed with the help and encouragement of the Beaurau of Alchohol, Tobacco and Firearms as well as the LA DA Gil Garcetti. It is being tested in a couple dozen schools.

Mosaic-2000 is documented here, by it's creator and developer, 'parenting expert', Gavin De Becker.

According to Mosaic-2000's website:

MOSAIC-2000 cannot label anyone as anything. People unfamiliar with the method may jump to the worry that principals will use it to unfairly label kids, but the objective process resists bias. MOSAIC-2000 is vastly more likely give a low rating in a situation to which people are over-reacting - than to give a high rating in a situation people are not concerned about.

School administrators already label kids. This will simply provide a tool with which they can harass them and bring them to the attention of the district and other professionals. Are they going to use this 'tool' on the beer-drinking all-star quarterback who date-raped his last girlfriend and enjoys slamming the heads of freshmen into the wall? Will they use this on the home-coming-queen who is hiding bullemia and drinking to avoid her abusive parents and contemplating slitting her wrists? Probably not. But they may jump at the chance to use it on the kids who keep to themselves and spend most of their time reading and expressing themselves through their abrasive or depressing writing and 'odd' attire.

MOSAIC-2000 seeks to identify those students most in need of the interventions and resources that are available, and in the school setting, all appropriate intervention is good. In other words, if you happen to fit their specific profile of what a 'troubled student' is and this hunk of code shows that you meet the outline of a possible psycho-killer, you will probably be forced to undergo counseling, therapy, possibly even be weeded out to attend a 'special' school.

How many of us have been the victims of busy-body teachers? I certainly have. When I was in grade-school, I constantly had bruises on me because I also happened to be very active in wrestling and Judo. And because I spent most of my after-school time in sports, I had to bury myself in reading and writing at school -- just to keep up. This appeared to a certain teacher as a loner-child who keeps to himself and is abused at home. This teacher asked me about this and although I gave her my honest explanation, I was speaking with the school counselor by the end of the day, and by evening, there were case-workers from Child Protective Services checking on my parents.

Needless to say, my parents were shocked. So was I. It didn't matter that I was a completely normal child who's bruises were from sports and who was deeply involved in his school-work. What mattered was the self-asserted perception of a busy-body who should have spent more time teaching than trying to play a fairy-god-mother. Is it really much of a stretch to say that a computer would look at the same situation and make the same possibly conclusion?

We must also remember that regardless of what the computer says, the input is from humans and is interpreted and acted upon by humans. Is a teacher going to suddenly change their opinion of a student because a computer did not believe the evidence provided warrented a truly 'potentially violent child'?

A range of answers is far more likely to stimulate accuracy fairness, and completeness. For example, if asking about firearms, a Yes/No question could not stimulate as fair or complete an exploration as a range:

__No known possession of a firearm
__Friends known to have ready access to a firearm
__There are firearms in the home
__There are firearms in a home frequented by the student
__The student owns his own firearm
__The student recently acquired a firearm

First of all, how in the hell are they going to know these things? I don't even know if my friends or neighbors have firearms. And if I have recently acquired a firearm, am I going to be walking up to any authority and tell them about it?

It seems that any questions that could possibly render any (even incorrect) answer as to whether a subject is a risk or not would require a certain amount of investigation to aptly answer. How will these answers be obtained? Will it require students to fill out a long questionaire? If so, how can anyone be sure the student was truthful? If not, then will schools begin employing detectives to start checking-up on children by interviewing their friends, family, teachers, co-workers, fellow-students, churchr-members or neighbors? By what right would the school be investigating anyone for anything? Even the police must prove a necessary need to do these things. A policeman can not simply go around interrogating everyone who "looks like a troublemaker" and "may, someday, in the next ten or twelve years, become violent".

For the first time, schools at the elementary, middle, and high school levels will have access to technology and methods that have long been used for many of our nation's highest stakes assessments.

The same technology used to weed-out international terrorists at airports based on one's ethnicity and accent will now help weed-out seven-year-old little Johnny so that he won't blow everyone's head off by the time he is in highschool.

Please note: hazing, intimidating, harassing, kicking, punching, spitting-on, humiliating, torturing and otherwise generally abusing and making other weaker students lives hell is acceptable.

How many times do you hear a killer's neighbors, friends, co-workers and even family say "I never knew..."? This is precisely because only certain types of violent people have certain traits and histories. In fact, more people who have those same traits and histories are not violent than those who are. You can not look at a person and claim that they will destroy an entire city block by the way they dress, music they listen to, and their proximity to places and people with guns.

If this thing is widely accepted, I'll be surprised if it isn't soon used in the workplace. Of course, we know it already is to a degree, but soon we may be able to officially harass that really quiet guy who reads all those high-tech magazines down in accounting!

School administrators would use MOSAIC-2000 only in situations that reach a certain threshold (e.g., a student makes a threat, brings a weapon to school, teachers or students are concerned a student might act out violently).

Better teach little Jilly to watch her mouth. Next time she says stamps her feet on the ground in a fit and says "I hope you die!" because little Timmy took her favorite Pokeman card, she may be filed away in the school computer and considered a potential threat.

Does MOSAIC-2000 invade the privacy of students?: The information gathered for each evaluation is held at the school only, and is never communicated over the Internet. MOSAIC is a stand-alone system, secure at each school, with no central combining of cases. The system isn't a "Big Brother" approach. MOSAIC-2000 merely brings organization and expert opinion to a process every principal already has. So if something is not distributed over the Internet, it is not invading your privacy? Is this why we walk around giving our social security numbers, home phone number and bank account number to every person who asks?

I find it extremely offensive that someone would want to tag myself or my child as a risk because of computer profiling -- and build a database with their information, telling me it's for the better. What gaurantee is there that this information will never be incorporated into a database or ever released to anyone outside of the school district? Further, what right does my child's teacher or principal have to know anything about the child that isn't directly involved in the child's education?

I understand that safety is involved, but this is a wreckless answer to a problem that has been grossly exaggerated. Profiling, at best, will give a false sense of security and at worst, rob us of any dignity, privacy and freedom while we're still reading Curious George and learning addition.

MOSAIC systems have been in daily use for a decade. Society faces many types of high-stakes evaluations (threats to public officials, hazards to domestic violence victims, workplace violence cases, etc). MOSAIC systems are used by the United States Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve Board, the Central Intelligence Agency, Governors of eleven states, and many others.

Is there really anything that needs to be said right here? Supreme Court, Federal reserve Board, Governors, Central Intelligence Agency, K-12 . . .

In cases where students have been expelled as a result of safety concerns, when they are considered for re-enrollment, some schools may use MOSAIC-2000 to help evaluate if the risk has lessened.

Oh, can't you just smell the lawsuits the next time some kid mows-down his entire graduating class after being reinstated by his school administrators because of Mosaic-2000?

The cost for the final version of MOSAIC-2000 (due in February, 2000) will be determined by the M-2000 Advisory Board. It is likely to be a small monthly fee for each school.

Oh, great. Now the little rats will be coming to my door more often, trying to peddle candy and magazines.

The system operates on entirely standard and traditional hardware, including an IBM-PC compatible 486 computer. It uses very little disk space.

They're apparently not running it on Windows.

Concern that a student might act out violently can be triggered in any of several ways:

a student makes a threat;
alarming writings are observed;
a student brings a firearm to school;
a student gets into trouble with police; teacher, counselor, psychologist, parent, or fellow student becomes concerned and makes a report

I'm not sure about the school you went to, but students made idle threats all the time at mine. It's a part of being an immature kid. As for bringing a firearm to school -- what moron requires a computer to tell them that the child is a risk? First, it is illegal to bring a firearm to school. If you need to rely on the computer program to tell you that posession of a firearm is a danger-sign, you need your face bashed in with a brick.

Alarming writing? What does one consider alarming? The greatest and most lauded writing in the world tends to be alarming, shocking and disturbing! Writing should be a method of release and creativity. And a lot of the most truly disturbing and brilliant pieces I have ever read were written by rather youthful authors.

Mosaic-2000 is not an all-seeing oracle. It is a peice of crap that should be left out of the school system. The answer to the problems of children is not to throw more technology at them and invade their inner-most thoughts and secrets.

The answer is to afford them a little more time, attention and considertion. If it requires mass-murder for us to come to their aid and hear them, we are a ruined society. When the only attention we provide kids with is the scrutinizing eye of accusation, we can only expect jaded, disinterested, paranoid children.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com

http://www.gdbinc.com/mosaic2000.htm

It just goes to show you that oportunists will stop at nothing to crawl out from under there rock and make a profit off of fear.

Details about the software to be used can be found here:

here is the link to the homepage Gavin de Becker Inc. and here is a not-so-detailed paper on the product: Mocaic 2000