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."
What these kids don't understand is that simply by attending the school they lose the majority of their rights. Since they are minors, the school becomes their de facto guardian while they are there, and thusly, it has power that supercedes their rights.
Yes, it certainly is. Kids, if any person demands to examine the contents of your cell phone, tell him to get a warrant. Call your parents, call the local press, and call a lawyer.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Who exactly needs a cellphone at school?
Noone needs a cellphone. Humanity survived before we even invented them. We don't need cars either. We survived without cars. You're missing the point though.
Creating technology is a good thing and why we shouldn't we take advantage of it? It can be useful, fun or just interesting. If people want cellphones for whatever reason, why not? I can think of many reasons why having a cellphone is better than not having one. I don't see why people should have to justify it though. If someone else wants a cellphone they should be allowed to ahve one as long as they aren't breaking any laws, or in this case, school rules (such as turning them off during the classes).
The real question is are school administrators allowed to reading their pupils diaries? What if their diary is stored on their cellphone? Should we give up all our privacy for the 'thinkofthechildren' and 'terrorism' projects?
I say no. It's annoying that we are forced to use encryption to protect ourselves from our own authorities, but if that is what is required, so be it.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I am nearly 48 years old and I don't give a rat's ass about what some kid can or can not carry inside school grounds.
But I *do* think that current privacy laws were enacted in bad faith and they are used in bad faith.
And it is that very vagueness that allows their manipulation.
As fars as children, cell phones, and privacy... If the school permits someone to carry a device within school grounds and they want to look at the contents of that device, they can go get a warrant... or they can go fuck themselves.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
I'm not suprised at all by this.
At my public high school in Texas, they do the exact same thing, in addition to a few other things...
You're not allowed to leave campus for lunch, but students do anyway. However, if you get caught by security guards driving on their golf carts patrolling the student parking lot, they will search your car. If they find any "contraband" (pocketknife, lighter, drugs, OTC medicine including cough drops) you get an instant suspension. Here in Texas they love their Zero Tolerance laws.
There is also another degredation of rights where I go to, pertaining to violence. If someone walks up to you and flat out punches you for no reason, you cannot do anything. If you fight back to defend yourself, you will be instantly suspended as well as the perpetrator. A kid last year was jumped by another student who stabbed him with a sharpened lead pencil, and when he fought back, eventually knocking the attacker to the ground and kicking him, he got suspended. He didn't even know his attacker.
So, if you are suprised by this, don't be. It's sadly nothing new.
The kids just enter names like 'pot dealer' with the principles home number. They text threatening things to their friends in jest, all pre-agreed between parties. They enter 'Osama bin laden' with the number of their local FBI field office. They text each other about fictional big-time drug deals and terrorist plots. They overload the system with so much false information that the entire exercise becomes pointless and a huge administrative burden.
The staff should give the pupils full access to their mobile phones as a gesture of good will, you never can be sure what those pesky teachers get up to in their personal lives.
"Cell phone data" (depending on the device) could also mean stored info used to help with tests (as opposed to actual studying and learning) or "texting" answers to other students. Anti-drug/violence has nothing to do with this, but perhaps local, state or federal funding comes into play when schools get strapped for cash, so this is one way to get the money.
This is a somewhat odd story, does Framingham have a serious drug-dealer problem or are they trolling for funding and government money?
Jane - Why don't I just go to Ms. Li and expose this whole cell phone spying thing?
Ms. Morris - She already knows.
Jane - Okay then back off or I'll tell the PTA.
Ms. Morris - They know too.
Jane - Congress?
Ms. Morris - You're beaten Lane.
Jane - How about if I call the three local TV stations and tell each one that the other two are running the story?
Ms. Morris - Damn.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
One thing that has been common among "progressive schools" is that parents lose many of their rights governing the activities of their children once they cross the threshold of the school. For a society which likes to admonish parents for not holding their children accountable, discipling them, many think its okay for schools to usurp the parents choices. If you diminish the values of parents the children will lose respect for those values and you get the problem you claim you were trying to avoid.
In many areas of the country the schools have been too invasive into families and worse they are nearly immune to correction. This is just another symptom of failing schools. When on the downward spiral you make damn sure all those who can criticize you fear you in one way or another. An "unusual" mark on a child - automatic suspicion of child abuse. Too thin, child abuse. Too fat, child abuse. DFACs should know!!! Bad grades, must be from a bad home environment; again child abuse!
Want absurd? One guy at work mentioned that a neighbor got a letter from the school's counselor. Seems the kid didn't like what he did or did not get in his lunch his mom sent him to school with. The school actually wrote a letter suggesting that the parents aceed to their child's wishes or give him money to buy a school lunch or snacks!!!
Too many of the schools are run by arrogant self style intellectuals. Another person at work recently moved so his wife could teach in a new school district all to get out from overbearing peers whose views of how children and parents should be handled came close to being unethical. There are many good teachers and administrators but too many are cowed by those who know the system and use it againts "non-conforming teachers", students, and even parents.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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!
I went to Brooklyn Technical High School in New York and it was PLAGUED with scandals. Sexual abuse, underage sex, corrupt principal, teachers stalking kids, etc. You can read about our principal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Technical_Hi gh_School. Just scroll to the bottom for "Lee McCaskill controversy".
Now I'm all for schools trying to keep drugs and weapons out of schools. But when the school administration itself is playing dirty, who can you trust? What if a pervert of a teacher accuses a girl of selling drugs and looks at her cell phone?
If a school wants cell phone access for safety, then students (or at least the PTA) should have the same rights. I want to know that my principal is not spending school money to build a house. I want to know that my math teacher is not buying underage kid porn somewhere. I want to know that my dean is not in anger management classes. And so on. Seems extreme and strange for us to have this information right? Well that's the same way students feel when you take their cell phones and look through them.
If O2 is good, O3 must be 1.5 times better!
Ever hear of a little thing called compulsory attendance? It's more like the law agrees FOR them
It's compulsory education not compulsory attendance otherwise children wouldn't be homeschooled and more and more children are being homeschooled. As far as I'm concerned policies like this, this cell phone policy, is one of the reasons parents are removing their children from public schools. Another policy I hate is the manditory drug testing many districts and schools have for participation in extra curricular activities. I especially hate the new "No Child Left Behind" from Bush. It stresses teaching for tests not learning and neglects subjects that are harder to measure progress in like arts, and music. Though I don't have any for a long tyme I've thought that if I ever had any children I'd home school them myself, teach what I could and get tutors for what I couldn't teach.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.