Slashdot Mirror
School Admins Demand Access to Students' Cellphones
Reverberant writes "School administrators in Framingham MA have implemented a policy allowing them to not only confiscate cell phones, but also to search through students' cell phone data as part of their anti drug/violence efforts. Students claim that the policy is an invasion of their privacy."
ACLU of Northern Californial
http://www.aclunc.org/students/guide/searches.htm
"Can the principal or a teacher search me?
Yes, but only under certain specific circumstances, because you don't give up your right to privacy when you go to school. Under the law, if a school official wants to search you, there are two requirements. First, before he or she searches you, there must be a "reasonable suspicion," based on facts, that the search will produce evidence that you are violating the law or a school rule. For example, the principal would have to have specific information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a student is carrying a weapon, drugs or cigarettes. Second, the way he or she searches you should be "reasonable" based on your age and what is being searched for.
These restrictions apply to searches of a student's person (i.e., pat down of clothes, emptying pockets) and any personal belongings, including backpacks, lunch bags, or cars (if they are on school grounds)."
Reasonable suspicion = all your base are belong to school
"Remember: if the principal asks if you agree to a search and you say yes, you can turn an illegal search into a legal search."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
They have every protection under the US Constitution and US Federal law. Students only have SOME of their rights slightly restricted. This is typically while at school or during the time they are supposed to be going/coming to/from school or when they are supposed to be there. The US Constitution makes no claims as to the age when you receive any rights. All citizens born in the US received are protected by the Constitution from birth.
Why else would any lawyers argue over a minors' Constitutional rights in court all the time?
You can read more about reasonable suspicion here. Disturbingly:
Since it's been established that cell phones are fair game, could this ruling be used in defence of random cell phone checks?
I'd ask what next, but I fear I already know.
Yes it is, but I disagree with them. The UK has some pretty serious problems right now, and IMNSHO an awful lot of them stem from politically correct initiatives that affect how children may be treated and the rights they have. On the one hand, no forms of corporal punishment are now allowed in our schools, and parents must be wary of even smacking their children for fear of being accused of child abuse. On the other hand, antisocial behaviour has become one of the biggest problems facing our society. I've seen one of my neighbours confronting kids who were about to key the side of his car, and heard one of them shout at him that he couldn't do anything, because the kid was under 10 and he couldn't commit a crime - and I live in a pretty good neighbourhood compared to many places. Similar stories abound, often with responsible adults (including parents and teachers) winding up in court or otherwise under suspicion, while Joe Angelic seems untouchable even if caught red-handed doing something he shouldn't be.
Now, it doesn't take a genius to spot the connection here. Children don't yet have an adult level of maturity and responsibility; that's why they're still children. Thus it is manifestly unreasonable to treat them the same way as adults and expect the same response. I refuse to support the NSPCC (the biggest child protection charity in the UK) while they maintain that an absolute ban on smacking children is appropriate and use the "you wouldn't smack an adult" argument. We can debate the relative merits of corporal and other forms of punishment, and there are always the "My parents smacked me and it did me no harm" and "Well, I raised a child just fine without ever smacking them" brigades. However, I think even their axiom here is wrong: we do use violence, if necessary, to enforce the law on adults. This is, ultimately, what police forces and the military do. It may be reserved for use as a last resort, but the threat is always there. By excluding this possibility on a far smaller scale, children are actually being given a higher status than adults!
It happens that in this case, I do disagree with the rule. I think it's absurd that older children should have no default right to privacy, which is what this boils down to. You don't suddenly turn 18 and become responsible, and you're not automatically a menace to society at 17 years and 364 days. If there is a good reason for the adults responsible for that child to think they need to see something on the phone, that's one thing, but there must be a good reason.
Ultimately, it all comes down to the rights, freedoms and responsibilities thing, as it usually does in these discussions. The two are, or at least should be, fundamentally tied together. As long as you have adults who are legally responsible for minors, they need to have some degree of authority, and the minors can't reasonably expect the same level of rights and freedoms as if they were adults completely responsible for their own behaviour. On the other hand, as children grow older and behave more responsibly, it is inappropriate to deny them any extension of their rights and freedoms to match. Getting the balance wrong, in either direction, will inevitably lead to problems either where children are undisciplined and irresponsible, or where adults take advantage of them inappropriately.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.