Slashdot Mirror


UK Schools Consider Searching Pupils' Smartphones

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."

283 comments

  1. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The seeds of yet another encroachment on human rights by the UK

    1. Re:Sigh by fiannaFailMan · · 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?"

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Sigh by Threni · · Score: 1

      Also "the seeds of" means "not".

    3. Re:Sigh by SimonTheSoundMan · · 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.

    4. Re:Sigh by BradleyUffner · · 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?

    5. Re:Sigh by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Not saying that everything going on today is an improvement but... you have a much-overromanticized version of history.

    6. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      kids are however humans still.

    7. Re:Sigh by fiannaFailMan · · 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.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    8. Re:Sigh by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe in your system of morality. Kindly keep it to yourself, if the only alternative you find is to force it upon others.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Sigh by Korin43 · · Score: 3, 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).

    10. Re:Sigh by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 0

      Oh really? So when your kid refuses to eat his oatmeal are you going to "respect his rights not to be force fed" or are you going to teach the little twerp to do what he's told for his own good?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    11. Re:Sigh by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      18? If only. In the US you need to wait until you're 21. :(

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    12. Re:Sigh by Golddess · · Score: 1

      respect his rights not to be force fed

      Yes, actually. It's called "being sent to your room without supper".

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    13. Re:Sigh by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 0

      Isn't violating his right to be fed?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    14. Re:Sigh by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      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?

    15. Re:Sigh by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Demanding a notebook that a bunch of students are giggling around, thereby causing a disturbance in the classroom, is not the same thing as stopping a student in the hallway and demanding access to their cellphone.

      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.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    16. Re:Sigh by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    17. Re:Sigh by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0

      yes, and it was training to teach you to FOLLOW ORDERS without question.

      the UK really sucks, sorry to say. the US is not far behind but the UK is the most worthless trash of a country in modern 'democracy'.

      I sure wish you blokes would re-take your country back. you used to really be something in this world to look up to.

      sadly, you are now a laughing stock of what 'fear' is, when gone completely out of control.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    18. Re:Sigh by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Please don't compare a notebook used primarily for school work (that usually gets handed into the teacher on a regular basis anyways) to a phone that is used for everything from surfing the internet, texting your girl/boy friend, talking to your grandparents and storing MANY photos of family/friends.

      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.

    19. Re:Sigh by Nikker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can predict the mental out come Johnny in either situation and that seems to be where we are falling short. By treating Johnny as a slighted traumatized victim before he himself has had a chance to reconcile the situation is what is getting us into this sheep culture to begin with. The reality is there will always be aggression between children as well as adults but indoctrinating a victim mindset is the worst possible method since it effectively eliminates the potential for the person being attacked to attain a positive state on their own and if that fails then intervene.

      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.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    20. Re:Sigh by joocemann · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:Sigh by joocemann · · Score: 1

      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 DEFICIT had they done whatever they had pleased.

      I want to assume you're a hypocrit or you don't have kids. Or if you do have kids and are not a hypocrit, you are likely failing miserably.

    22. Re:Sigh by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I understand that it's not enough to just write one's idea out, unaccompanied by an analogy but... please show some creativity and make it a car analogy :D

    23. Re:Sigh by nick_davison · · Score: 2

      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.

    24. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Not quite. The most likely outcome was somewhere between the two. Mark picks the fight and starts to beat up Johnny, a large crowd forms and pretty soon a teacher wades into the fray to sort things out. Mark gets yanked out by the ear and either reprimanded or sent to the headmaster depending on how serious things are.

      Everyone, including the crowd, learn that actions have consequences and while it would be extremely naive to think that they all go away to lead model lives it at least helps. Johnny also learns that either (a) [if provoked] it is stupid to poke people like Mark because you may get hurt, regardless of whether you have the 'right', (b) [if not provoked] you don't hang around near people like Mark because they are somewhat unstable and you may get hurt. i.e. you may have rights but sometimes you are better off if you chose not to push things.

    25. Re:Sigh by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      "Students are encouraged to interact in US Schools"
      how long has it been since u've been to school?
      40-50 students cant be encouraged to interact and stay on task at the same time

      --
      warning pointless sig
    26. Re:Sigh by joocemann · · Score: 1

      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 nothingness is that you can't have 40 students each ask questions about every fact or phrase coming out of a teacher's mouth -- but rather that each student is encouraged to THINK about questions, and periodically voice them (or be solicited to voice them by teacher), so as to get the benefit I described earlier. I recall the best learning experiences being similar to in college, where there is more of a discussion between the peers and teacher with the teacher providing the basis for the conversation and confirming any discrepancies that they are capable of. So, in practice, you ask maybe one question per class per day -- and two if its urgent.

      The place for persistent question/response interaction is in the home; one should never expect a teacher to replace their obligations as a parent.

    27. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up

    28. Re:Sigh by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet:
      Scenario 3:
      1970 - Mobile phones weren't an issue as they weren't publically available.

      2011 - Every kid 'needs' a mobile phone at school.
      How about just having a 'no mobile phones' during school hours policy, unless there is a specific compelling reason from parents/guardian why a student has to have one

    30. Re:Sigh by ZDRuX · · Score: 1

      No, actually.. it is not ok for you (or anyone else for that matter) to tell my child what is appropriate to keep on their PRIVATE cell phones. Neither are you, or a teacher allowed to peruse through my child's items at will. If they suspect something, or have reason for concern, they have my number, and may even refuse my child entry to school if they suspect there is reason to do so.

      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    31. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do not have the right to a mobile phone. You can leave that crap at home.

      And yes, even as an adult I have worked places where mobile phones were not permitted.

    32. Re:Sigh by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      18? If only. In the US you need to wait until you're 21. :(

      Excepting military service though.

    33. Re:Sigh by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    34. Re:Sigh by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      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.

    35. Re:Sigh by mind.the.oranges · · Score: 1

      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?

      Kids do not have the same rights as adults. It's okay to tell kids what to do and force the issue on certain things whether they like it or not.

      Indeed, Minors have fewer rights and fewer responsibilities, but you're glossing over rights to privacy and property as well as the potential for abuse in this case by authority figures. We should not allow the State or their agents to condition our children to expect diminished rights, it's pre-conditioning for their expectations as adults.

    36. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mark, Johnny and the crowd actually will learn to find a secure place to have/watch a fight where a teacher or the school staff can't find them before the fight ends..

    37. Re:Sigh by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yeah? Try renting a car at 21. It's not going to happen. In the US, we have retarded our population to the point that you are not actually considered a full adult until the age of 25.

    38. Re:Sigh by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      The extra overhead to deal with multiple coverage policies based on the actuarial cut-off of 25 or the additional cost for one-size-fits-all policies for everyone is the reason those under 25 can't rent cars in the US. Not because they're not adults, but because it's a completely undeniable fact that, on average, they have poorer judgment and are less trustworthy with expensive machinery and the lives of others than those who are over the age of 25. Yes, the cut-off is arbitrary, but if you make a distinction you have to make it somewhere. It takes too much time, effort, and expense to determine on a case-by-case basis who is a moron and who is not.

    39. Re:Sigh by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      The parents do have the rights and it would be them who would enforce.

      30 years ago, bullying would be localised. Yes it sucked being bullied.

      These days you can be posted to Youtube and watched over and over by numerous people. No child should have to go through that sort of crap.

      So I would certainly be against mobile phones in schools.

    40. Re:Sigh by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      then mark isnt there to fight, or was it jonny;

      who ever the "good guy" was, is no longer near the other in the 'secure' zone

      --
      warning pointless sig
    41. Re:Sigh by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      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.

      I remember one teacher taking a look at one of those notebooks, telling me it wasn't okay but that he liked the quality of it, then as "punishment" tasked me to do a collage of what was taught in class that day. Great way to defuse the situation and I haven't done such things since.
      On topic though; there's a difference between a notebook used in school, during schooltime, for school purposes and private information "gathered" outside of school on a personal mobile phone.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    42. Re:Sigh by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Renting a car? Try getting a pension! You're not considered an adult until you're practically dead!
      Or perhaps none of this actually has to do with being an adult or not.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    43. Re:Sigh by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      This assumes teachers capable of providing answers on a more fundamental level than whatever it says in the book.
      In my experience, few teachers (particularly during early education) have a sufficient understanding of the school topics they teach.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    44. Re:Sigh by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      In short: Yes.

      The notebook is private, as is the student's mobile phones - I mean, we are talking private phones here, not something issued by the school?

      How can this be so hard to understand? - Kids have rights too, and while the full set of human rights doesn't apply to them, they do have a right to privacy and the right to be protected against unreasonable searches.

      Now, if there is an incident, i.e. student A claims to have been phone-cyber-bullied by student B, the school should be able to examine the phones of the two students as part of the investigation. But only the phones of those two students and only when there is a tangible incident on the table.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    45. Re:Sigh by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      Kids are not adults.

      Whoa there! Are you saying here that kids have no right to privacy?

    46. Re:Sigh by chip_s_ahoy · · Score: 1

      "The teacher deleted the video of him/her sexually assaulting me!" Encroachment.

    47. Re:Sigh by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      ah yes, this was the justification given a while back when a school strip searched a 12 year old girl because another girl claimed she had ibuprofen.

      it's really amazing the things such an argument can justify because it basically translates into "you have no rights".

    48. Re:Sigh by Jiro · · Score: 1

      By treating Johnny as a slighted traumatized victim before he himself has had a chance to reconcile the situation is what is getting us into this sheep culture to begin with.

      Whether someone is bleeding and bruised really isn't affected very much by whether they can "reconcile the situation".

    49. Re:Sigh by thsths · · Score: 1

      > It's a good thing they are called "Human Rights", not "Adult Rights" then, isn't it?

      Yeah - I was going to say they may not be adults, but they are certainly humans... well, usually that is.

    50. Re:Sigh by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear I am not saying anyone should be refused medical treatment in any situation.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    51. Re:Sigh by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      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.

      While at school the teachers are in loco parentis - they have the same responsibilities and rights as parents over the children; if you've got the right to go through your kids phone, so does the school.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    52. Re:Sigh by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      And "six of the best" isn't an encroachment on rights?

    53. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The seeds of yet another encroachment on human rights by the UK

      The seeds of yet another piss poor article and the traditional ZOMG UK POLICE STATEZORS by /.

      Theres no such thing as "UK Schools". The article doesnt mention, but I would say this is England & Wales (who seem to love all this crap - some schools wanted fingerprint scanners on the doors).

      If California does something stupid like this, why doesnt it get reported as the entire USA? Of course, this is /., where everything evil comes from the United Kingdom of Englandshire.

    54. Re:Sigh by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part in Scenario 1 where Mark grows up to be a Police Officer.
      By not allowing bullies to be bullies, we are denying our future Police Officers valuable early childhood training. And without that early childhood training they will be less prepared to defend our children when they become Police Officers.
      Wont someone think of the children????

    55. Re:Sigh by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      Plus kids grow up to be adults. Of course if you train them now to expect to have no rights, it makes it so much easyer when they are adults to take them away.
      Of course I'm sure that Big Brother was not thinking about that.

    56. Re:Sigh by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      True but Parents have rights to force their children to do certain things. Like go to bed or do their choirs or eat their supper.
      Teachers have very limited rights to force students to do things.
      As for searching the child's cell phone, No they don't have that right and shouldn't have that right.
      Should they have the right to take away a cell phone and have the Principle or Vice Principle give it back after school? Yes. And if it becomes a reoccurring indecent then let the parents know about it, and let them know he/she is NOT to bring a cell phone to school anymore. If that doesn't help then suspend the child.

    57. Re:Sigh by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Flawed argument, in loco parentis != actual parentage. They have limited authority over what my kids do while they're in school custody. They don't have absolute authority over what my kids do even outside of school, especially not since that inherently contradicts my authority as a parent.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    58. Re:Sigh by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Alright. Say you want to do some shopping at the Exchange. You drive on base, your car gets searched. The analogy here is that instead of just searching just that car they also search your whole house, storage unit, and second car as well. And if they find anything you can't bring on base, or that they just don't like, you're fucked. Even IF it's actually perfectly fine where it is.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    59. Re:Sigh by xaxa · · Score: 1

      It's probably worth reading why this has been suggested. Start here for the more extreme examples, but note that this was starting to happen even when I was in school. I remember someone in my class getting caught MMSing a photograph of another student to others, that was in 2001. Children are bullying others on Facebook/by text/by video/whatever instead of (or as well as) verbally or physically.

      Any suggestions?

      PS On the scale of western countries the UK is pretty much equal bottom with the US for child happiness. You have no moral high ground here. In my opinion, one of the worst things about this country is the attitude to children -- in the media they're always portrayed badly, younger children are seen as a noisy nuisance, all teenagers cause trouble, etc.

    60. Re:Sigh by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      1) they're children, not adults
      2) they don't have to take their fucking phones to school

      3) the right of children not to be bullied trumps the right of other children to do exactly what they want with no repurcussions
      4) you are a twat

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    61. Re:Sigh by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      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.

      God! Why so negative!? Can't you look on the bright side here?

      I mean, Mark had a great day out and got a huge boost in self-confidence as a result of his win. He probably went on to become a banker or saleman of some kind.

      The other children who watched from the sidelines were also not only entertained by (free to watch) bloodsport, they also learned a valuable life lesson that there is no real justice in the world and that might makes right. They also learned how hollow Johnny's rehtoric, reasons, and faith really were. Some went on to become leaders, politicians, managers, etc.

      Others accepted their rightful place in the hierarchy. They learned that it is better to acquiesce to the demands of people like Mark rather than attempt futile resistance. Our diligent, efficient workforce--industrial and clerical--is founded upon such people, who will follow instructions even if they do not necessarily agree with them. Without them, who would do things like robo-signing and denying insurance?

      As for Johnny, though forever scarred in some way by the fight, his ignoble defeat defused tensions in the wider group. And his tragic demise focused minds on the consequences of conflict, giving all more incentive to reach civilised consensus and co-operation.(Which is to say nothing of the economic benefit to his future therapy and treatments!) And most importantly, the children learned that the good guys only win on TV.

      Our society is built on such moments! Without them, how would our companies, courts, banks, or governments ever work as properly as they do?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    62. Re:Sigh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Wow, you managed not to say "sheeple", well done.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    63. Re:Sigh by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Go take your libertarian absolutist claptrap and shove it up your arse.

      If I am a teacher in school and I see your kid doing something wrong, I am not going to think "oh I mustn't infringe on the precious little snowflake's inalienable right to be a shit", I'll do something about it.

      The fact that you have problems with authority figures does not give you the opportunity to fuck up another generation of kids.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:Sigh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      True but Parents have rights to force their children to do certain things. Like go to bed or do their choirs or eat their supper.

      I thought that was just priests?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    65. Re:Sigh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      ah yes, this was the justification given a while back when a school strip searched a 12 year old girl because another girl claimed she had ibuprofen.

      it's really amazing the things such an argument can justify because it basically translates into "you have no rights".

      [citation needed]

      I don't know where you live, but here in the UK no school would do that without both the permission and presence of a parent, or else they'd be done themselves for child abuse.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    66. Re:Sigh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I sure wish you blokes would re-take your country back. you used to really be something in this world to look up to.

      Maybe we should have a revolution, but a nice disorganised one with no one telling anyone else what to do? That'll work.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    67. Re:Sigh by ShadoHawk · · Score: 2

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501690.html
      She was 13. This was in Arizona... Man that place scares me.

    68. Re:Sigh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Kids are not adults.

      Whoa there! Are you saying here that kids have no right to privacy?

      While you're living with your parents you effectively have no privacy at all.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    69. Re:Sigh by Volntyr · · Score: 1

      The extra overhead to deal with multiple coverage policies based on the actuarial cut-off of 25 or the additional cost for one-size-fits-all policies for everyone is the reason those under 25 can't rent cars in the US. Not because they're not adults, but because it's a completely undeniable fact that, on average, they have poorer judgment and are less trustworthy with expensive machinery and the lives of others than those who are over the age of 25. Yes, the cut-off is arbitrary, but if you make a distinction you have to make it somewhere. It takes too much time, effort, and expense to determine on a case-by-case basis who is a moron and who is not.

      Based on that argument, it means that the 23 year old military pilot flying the 100 million dollar fighter jet can not rent a 30 thousand dollar car

    70. Re:Sigh by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I would say this is England & Wales (who seem to love all this crap - some schools wanted fingerprint scanners on the doors).

      What's so stupid about that? It's just like punching a timecard, it gives objective proof of absence/lateness. Seriously. Does it infringe on their basic human right to skive off and go nicking sweets from the local corner shop or something?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    71. Re:Sigh by operagost · · Score: 1

      They're allowing teachers to search and delete content from the phones. It's none of the teachers' business what is on the phones. The only time a teacher should touch a phone is if the student is using it in class: it should be confiscated for the day.
      Here in the USA, it was determined decades ago that young people don't leave their rights at the schoolhouse gate (Tinker vs. Des Moines), but we continue to ignore that ruling for our own twisted ends.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    72. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      This is why I homeschool.

    73. Re:Sigh by Hydian · · Score: 1

      You forgot about Mark's friends who help out and the part where the school punishes Johnny harshly for being a troublemaker because it is his 3rd beating this year ("It takes two to fight") yet Mark gets off with a slap on the wrist because he is well liked and hasn't had any other incidents.

    74. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea how Ritalin works? No? Didn't think so. Also your arguments are pretty terrible and infantile. You stink at Slashdot. Stop posting.

    75. Re:Sigh by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the reasons should be obvious to anyone paying even a second's worth of attention to the underlying circumstances.

      Do you really need it spelled out for you?

    76. Re:Sigh by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If you can put in the 20 years of work to earn the pension, you can get it. My father started getting his first pension at 38. That is hardly dead. Of course, the age that you get your pension is correlated to age, but it is not caused by age, other than SSI. And SSI is given because you are PAST the age of functional adulthood. Whereas renting a car has the specific has the requirement of being 25 because they feel that people under 25 are not mature enough to rent a car.

      I'm sure you know all this though, and are just grasping at straws.

    77. Re:Sigh by kryliss · · Score: 1

      From what I know, most schools require the students to turn off their phones and leave them in their lockers.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    78. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police stop you on suspicion of having drugs in the car. There are none in the car, but they use every key on your keyring to search the common locations you visit as well. For good measure, they will sometimes read all the mail you've sent for the last few years.

      And they claim this is just searching your car.

    79. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either one of you have a medical degree that gives you the prescience to accurately diagnose ADD or ADHD? If not, then let that one go.

    80. Re:Sigh by easyTree · · Score: 1

      meh.
      I'm still not feeling it. Come on. Try harder! :P

    81. Re:Sigh by wwphx · · Score: 1

      I spent the first four decades of my life there, and I'm glad to no longer be a resident. I don't care for visiting there, but it's where my family and friends mostly are. Life is very different these days than 15-20 years ago.

      At least I'm no longer constantly exposed to Sheriff Joe's idiocy.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  2. Whatever will the British do? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the one hand, a proposal to allow teachers to search smartphones is an expansion of the invasive-yet-dubiously-competent surveillance state. Therefore, our limey friends on airstrip one have an obligation to adopt it, it's in their national character or something.

    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?

    1. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0

      In the US, you have just as many CCTV cameras in your cities as London does. Your surveillance state keeps you in the sights of some twitchy cop's gun all the time, though. So I guess you have it worse.

      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.

    2. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Microlith · · Score: 2

      In the US, you have just as many CCTV cameras in your cities as London does.

      We do? Which cities? What city do I live in that you know this?

      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.

      Wait, where's this gun at? Have you ever been here, or are you going on what you see in the movies?

    3. Re:Whatever will the British do? by hedwards · · Score: 0

      I've had a knife at the neck, but never a gun pointed at me. And I've had it comparatively worse than most Americans. You should provide a citation about the cameras because it's not true. The UK has 1 camera for every 14 citizens and we don't have anywhere near that many here. I know the building I used to work security in had only a handful to keep track of a huge amount of space and thousands of people on a daily basis. And we had more than the other buildings in the downtown core.

    4. Re:Whatever will the British do? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, 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.

      I live just outside a major city. I doubt if there's a CCTV camera within ten miles of here.

    6. Re:Whatever will the British do? by digitig · · Score: 1

      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 (do the sums yourself). And of course most of it isn't state surveillance; most of the cameras are privately owned and run.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    7. Re:Whatever will the British do? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:Whatever will the British do? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      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)

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Seumas · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, they could just ban cell phones like they did when I was in school in the 90s.

    10. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the number of lawsuits

    11. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      WTF?

      Stop watching 24.

    12. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a teacher looks at my daughter's phone because he expects to find sexting pictures of her or her friends, I'm filing a complaint that he's a pedophile.
      He can say he did it to punish the kids all he wants, he's not a cop nor a TSA agent.

    13. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      (note: there is currently no one pointing a gun at me, nor a cop looking at me, nor a camera recording me)

      Same here. There might be a camera recording me today if I go to the bank, or maybe one of the more security-conscious locations I work at. Much the same as you.

      I bet you get filmed on more CCTV cameras than me today, though.

    14. Re:Whatever will the British do? by julesh · · Score: 1

      You should provide a citation about the cameras because it's not true. The UK has 1 camera for every 14 citizens and we don't have anywhere near that many here.

      You should follow your own advice and provide a citation yourself. And I'll proved a counter-citation just in case you dredge up one of the various tabloids who have reported the figure. The number was, essentially, made up. The average number of CCTV cameras in 211 business premises that are open to the public in two particularly high crime London streets was counted. This was multiplied by the number of businesses in London (note: not just those that are open to the public), and an arbitrary number added as a guess of the number of cameras not operated by such businesses (e.g. public transport cameras). The result was divided by the population of London and multiplied by the population of the country (note: the rest of the country has lower crime than London, so probably less CCTV). This is not a valid methodology.

      I don't think anybody has performed a similar analysis in the US, but it's worth noting that Chicago's network of over 8,000 centrally-monitored CCTV cameras is of a similar size to London's (7,500 AIUI), despite London being about 3 times the size of Chicago. Yes, Chicago has the highest number of such cameras in any US city, but the point is that the comparison can be made in some places.

    15. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      But then, your daughter will also be found to be a pedophile! Would you have your daughter thrown into jail and living under a bridge later just to get the teacher?

    16. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Inda · · Score: 2

      And most of those cameras are in shops and offices.

      You yanks can't tell me there's no CCTV in the local 7-11, the gas station, ...

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    17. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Plus the police just recently halved the estimated number, after doing a more accurate estimate....

    18. Re:Whatever will the British do? by greap · · Score: 1

      In the US, you have just as many CCTV cameras in your cities as London does.

      London has ~250,000 cameras according to the CCTV user group. According to NYACLU New York has ~12,000.

      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.

      In some US cities it is harder to get a license to carry a gun outside the home then in the UK, Italy has fewer restrictions than half a dozen US states. The US states with few restrictions (open carry, must issue concealed carry) also have the lowest levels of violent crime. Also most of the US has lower level of violent crime then anywhere in the UK. Even non-urban crime rates are higher in the UK.

    19. Re:Whatever will the British do? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      MAD is a pretty strong deterrent.

      If only people thought that way. Similar to how most people think they are better drivers than everyone else most gun toting idiots think they are faster on the draw and more accurate than you too.

      Banning guns isn't the answer of course, getting people to stop shooting at each other is. My point is simply that MAD doesn't work very well on an individual level.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Whatever will the British do? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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 routinely record every journey too. A little camera in the window of trucks saves everything. They also have telemetry from the engine to make sure the drive is driving at optimal speed and in a way that saves diesel.

      1 camera per 14 people probably is bullshit but none the less there are a hell of a lot of them out there and most are under private control. I'd love to know what percentage are registered with the Data Protection Registrar.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Whatever will the British do? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well then it's a good thing I wasn't talking on an interpersonal level. I was talking about The Man. ... and if you missed it, my tongue has been planted firmly in cheek for both my original comment, and this one.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    22. Re:Whatever will the British do? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      In some US cities it is harder to get a license to carry a gun outside the home then in the UK

      In the UK it's easier to get a gun licence than a driving licence. Oh, and under certain circumstances (mostly weirdass crazy farming laws) then *not* owning a shotgun is illegal. Go figure.

      ATTENTION SLASHDOT JANITORS - fix the <i> tags. Sometimes people need to use italics, and putting it in <strong> or <em>phasis tags is stupid.

  3. easy and necessary fix. by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No phones. Period.

    1. Re:easy and necessary fix. by kick6 · · Score: 0

      No phones. Period.

      This is the way its done in the States. I'm surprised it isn't universal.

    2. Re:easy and necessary fix. by YoshiDan · · Score: 1

      This is how my school was. All mobile phones were banned. Didn't stop people sneaking them in though and texting each other when the teacher's back was turned.

    3. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Microlith · · Score: 1

      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 breaks in Firefox on login (hey, when I can I have comment counts on the front page while logged in, Taco?)

    4. Re:easy and necessary fix. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:easy and necessary fix. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      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."

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:easy and necessary fix. by King+InuYasha · · Score: 1

      They can't do that. Many parents rely on students' cell phones as a way to track them (I don't agree with doing this, btw), as well as staying in contact with them when something unexpected happens (I do agree with this, though).

    7. Re:easy and necessary fix. by vxice · · Score: 1

      How about no phones during class time period? Do children not have ANY reason to have a phone? It is only when it is used during class time that it interferes. And the phone ringing counts as using. So a confiscate any found phones might keep them off or at least on silent when they can be disruptive but not removing them completely, i.e. no random searches.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    8. Re:easy and necessary fix. by YoshiDan · · Score: 1

      Our principal used to confiscate sim cards and send them home to the parents in the mail... Not everybody got caught with their phones either.

    9. Re:easy and necessary fix. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:easy and necessary fix. by digitig · · Score: 1

      It was the policy at my kids' (UK) schools that the the kids couldn't have their phones turned on during the school day, but most had them for the journeys to and from school.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    11. Re:easy and necessary fix. by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2

      ...and that attitude is precisely why old people like me can sit here enjoying our many years of experience and nice salaries, safe in the knowledge that there are no young knowledgeable whippersnappers coming up throught the ranks with an ability to displace us.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    12. Re:easy and necessary fix. by shish · · Score: 1

      My school had a blanket ban on all phones; it worked excellently while I was there, but this was a few years ago -- I wonder if the youth of today are more attached to their phones than we were...

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    13. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Jurily · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      No phones. Period.

      This is the way its done in the States. I'm surprised it isn't universal.

      Because in most other countries, it would be: "No Phones. Full-Stop"

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    15. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      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 teacher). But DUMB phones are perfectly good for that. No one needs a GPS to find their way around campus, and they absolutely don't need texting or web browsing. What children need to learn in school firstly is to sit down, shut up, listen, and focus. Smart phones are a hindrance to that. Teachers should have every right to confiscate phones that are in use during class and return them later.

    16. Re:easy and necessary fix. by joocemann · · Score: 2

      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 landline in the office).

      I'm not saying you shouldn't critically argue, but it is this type of 'lawyer-esque' thinking that keeps big problems IN ACTION. In blunt reality there is no need for cellphones in school.

    17. Re:easy and necessary fix. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Now that's a clever application of policy. :D

    18. Re:easy and necessary fix. by gknoy · · Score: 2

      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.

    19. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but does that grant the teachers the right to search through and delete any information of the phone? With a teacher holding a phone hostage they have absolute power and what they choose to do with it is under their discretion. Meaning, if they think it should be deleted it's deleted, regardless of whether it was even harmful. This also leaves the option open for them to delete important information. Which is bad.

    20. Re:easy and necessary fix. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      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 to bad parenting? What then?

      let me guess... GET A LAWYER. Thats right. When parenting fails, and self-interest disregards others, and repurcussion almost touches home... thats when its time to get a lawyer. (sarcasm about US culture)

      Grow up. If you worked for me and were texting during a meeting, I would fire you. I feel you wouldn't learn the lesson and would badmouth me for being a 'bad boss'. Good luck with that.

    21. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said they need to learn that firstly, not only.

    22. Re:easy and necessary fix. by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      i think you mean
      "i am not saying this is LAWFUL OR NOT, only the way it is."
      reality and the law have a chance being close but right and wrong have no place when talking about reality; and only idealists(like myself) try to being right and wrong into a debate on law, expect it to be listened to, over a dollar or a piece of cheese on a toothpick from anyone else

      --
      warning pointless sig
    23. Re:easy and necessary fix. by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      i can think of a really good reason for cellphone, schools are run by technophobs or what ever and cant compete w/ my usual stimulation during my free time. if u allow them to ban tech they will get very far behind and google will be a better teacher then the best teacher in the best school in short order; as the class size grows the less actual time the student gets help from the teacher and the curriculum will get even more dumbed down, add tech and you help the problem quite a bit

      --
      warning pointless sig
    24. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      So the teachers will, at least, teach them good backup procedures.

    25. Re:easy and necessary fix. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      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 (and people like me) have learned to take, for example, a new word they learned, and start imagining a variety of sentences and/or conversations where the word is applied. The difference between processing information in loose time, or moving on to a list of more facts (or facebook updates), is drastic. The more you practice thinking, correlating, and creating, the more fluid it becomes -- and soon you find yourself 'learning' where no new information is actually input to you. In time I will deliberately teach this skill to my children. Most people make some level of effort in this regard, but most are far too passive in doing so and are driven by a 'need' for new information and end up bored. You've got to make use of your brain for it to improve --- simply feeding it more input is *not* an effective method for improvement.

      Something tells me you don't actually want to hear any of this.

    26. Re:easy and necessary fix. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      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.

    27. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · · Score: 1

      So when little Johnny coming home from his first day at a new school gets lost on the way home and can't find his way back he spends in the night on the street? Yeh, fair enough.

    28. Re:easy and necessary fix. by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      " 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"
      i didnt either, i WILL claim that rule is non-sense as even books can be distractions if you dont value whats in them, like always new media isnt valued till much later; printed bibles weren't like by the the church, other books(slowly as they came) distracted boys from framing and young maidens from cooking, etc.

      its just a new media form that people havnt quite got right yet, and i value my time spent on slashdot as a great place to learn strange political ideas, argue facts, and even add some news here and there; there is more here then at school w/ its crowded classes and old fashioned teaching styles could ever give me

      "and soon you find yourself 'learning' where no new information is actually input to you"
      and yet im forming new ideas now from the opposite view point, not something i learned in school, probably got it from my parents arguments for why i should do something being anywhere to sound logic to mindless nonsense(most likely moral panics started by media/politics)

      "Something tells me you don't actually want to hear any of this"
      lol no, i do like arguing late into the night with some techno in my ear, much more stimuli then a teacher taking at me on a subject i dont care for

      and as a side note i wish schools would go back to a basic idea from ancient grease(or was it rome) an place where people go to talk about anything

      --
      warning pointless sig
    29. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an excellent reason to have a phone with you when you're in school. School shootings.

      There are other times when it's helpful to be able to call for help as well, but a shooting in progress is a dramatically good reason to have a phone on you right at that moment. And maybe somebody trustworthy with a gun, too, but you can't always get what you want.

    30. Re:easy and necessary fix. by julesh · · Score: 1

      It was the policy at my kids' (UK) schools that the the kids couldn't have their phones turned on during the school day, but most had them for the journeys to and from school.

      Bingo. And this is the major difference between UK and US -- here in the UK it's common for kids to walk non-trivial distances to get to school without parental supervision. AIUI, in the US, subsidized bus transport means most kids don't have to walk anything like as far. If your kid is going to be unsupervised for long periods of time, it's convenient that they can have a phone in case of trouble. If they aren't, there's no real need for it, so banning them is probably the best plan.

    31. Re:easy and necessary fix. by julesh · · Score: 1

      If something unexpected happens, you call the school and they notify the student.

      What about while the student is on their way to or from school? You can't contact them like that then.

      i use US History, pre 1999, as an example where this method worked and life moved on.

      OTOH, lifestyles have changed to take advantage of modern technology, and to force people to go back puts a lot of pressure on parents for little benefit. If schools can't keep their students from using the phones during class, there's a worse problem than the fact that the students have the phones, and that should be dealt with as a priority.

    32. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My school had this rule, but it was abused. Many students including myself, were stupid enough to have our phones confiscated. Fair enough. They were then taken to the school's safe till the end of the week. Not till the end of the day, which would be totally fine, but the school was excluding you from the use of your phone for up to an entire week.

      All I can say is, Schools go on and on about their duty of care, and not letting you do certain things, and then go and potentially put students in dangerous situations by not allowing them the use of THEIR phones AFTER school hours. I can't imagine there wasn't a single time where this system didn't at the very least inconvenience someone.

      The solution is simple, really, but teachers and schools are too soft to do it. Kick the disruptive kids out. They've already decided they have better things to be doing, so kick them out of that class and let them go do whatever they want. At least, until they go to their next class to be kicked out of.

    33. Re:easy and necessary fix. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      i ... reason for cellphone, ... or what ever and cant compete w/ my ... if u allow them ... better teacher then the best teacher

      Speaking of such things, have you actually considered paying attention to your English teachher?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    34. Re:easy and necessary fix. by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

      How about no phones during class time period? Do children not have ANY reason to have a phone? It is only when it is used during class time that it interferes.

      I have to agree. At least in Finland many people simply don't have landlines any longer. If your kid doesn't have a phone and you want them to be able to call you if they go to a friend or something they need a phone of their own. One might argue that they should tell you beforehand where they are going, but that doesn't exactly work so well anymore when they are in their teens.

      --
      .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    35. Re:easy and necessary fix. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      In blunt reality there is no need for cellphones in school.

      It's not unreasonable to have one for the journey to and from school. I regularly took the "family" mobile phone to school starting in about 1998, so I could let my parents know if I wasn't coming home at the normal time for some reason (e.g. decided to wander round the shops with some friends) or so they could let me know about their plans (e.g. would meet me at the shops after school).

      I left it on switched off (or silent) during the day.

    36. Re:easy and necessary fix. by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      I can see from your writing that you don't listen to your teachers. I'm not a grammar nazi, but that hurts my eyes. Oh and it's spelled "technophobes", not "technophobs".

      Try the cell phone off during school. You might learn something.

    37. Re:easy and necessary fix. by jc79 · · Score: 1

      So when little Johnny coming home from his first day at a new school gets lost on the way home and can't find his way back he spends in the night on the street?

      Yes, that always happened to every child ever, until GPS-enabled mobile phones were invented. It's a miracle any of us are alive today, let alone educated and everything.

    38. Re:easy and necessary fix. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I took his "firstly" to mean "of primary importance", rather than a chronological prerequisite. I don't believe that those four things should be the primary goals of an education institution (though they seem to be), and I have serious doubts as to whether turning to a mute listener is best for education -- perhaps because my kid and I both seem to have learned best when allowed to ask lots of questions.

  4. Boss key by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Boss key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps using biometrics to recognize it's owners face with an display-side camera, and show something innocuous when viewed by an unauthorized user? There's money in an app for that...

    2. Re:Boss key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Either the phone is yours or it's not. If it's yours, then it would be silly for someone else to believe what the phone tell them about its contents. You can log into my fileserver as guest, but that doesn't mean you see all the files.

    3. Re:Boss key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't /. have a boss key?

  5. Forgot my password by Arch_Android · · Score: 2

    Simple solution. "Teacher, I forgot my password. Sorry!".

    1. Re:Forgot my password by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Forgot my password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was Germany that did that.

  6. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're probably so stupid because they were reading comic books instead of novels such as 1984.

  7. Unacceptable by omb · · Score: 0

    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. Now
    I would insert the barrel of my SIG 210 up their left nostril and politely ask them NOT to do it again.

    What do those people think they are?

    They can insist that the phone be made silent and pupils do not initiate calls

    1. Re:Unacceptable by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between deleting something specific on a phone if someone reports it and looking through everything on everyone's phone. In either case, the kids would probably have it online by the time it gets deleted off the phone though...

    3. Re:Unacceptable by mistralol · · Score: 1

      Actually .... you would have your sig 210 destroyed in 1997 :)

    4. Re:Unacceptable by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What kind of fucked up "school" has cubicles? That's a great way to foster teamwork...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Unacceptable by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2

      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

      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 she-males.

    6. Re:Unacceptable by digitig · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    7. Re:Unacceptable by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      What kind of fucked up "school" has cubicles? That's a great way to foster teamwork...

      What kind of fucked up school fosters teamwork in the bathroom? Or did you really think the OP was talking about students having their pants down in cubicles like the ones in Dilbert's office? What a howler.... PHB and Dilbert comparing wankers on the job?

    8. Re:Unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of fucked up "school" has cubicles? That's a great way to foster teamwork...

      Teamwork in the toilets? I think your school was more fucked up than his!

    9. Re:Unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would sue? Good luck with that in a British court!

    10. Re:Unacceptable by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Who do you think you are using deadly force willy-nilly?

      You're the sort that gives CCP holders a bad reputation.

    11. Re:Unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long have you been bigoted against the transgendered?

    12. Re:Unacceptable by julesh · · Score: 2

      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:

      Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

      1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

      2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

      Note that while (2) allows the government to legislate away parts of the right described, they have not done so for this situation, so it stands without exception in this case.

    13. Re:Unacceptable by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Erm... I think we have a language misunderstanding :)

      Over here, "cubicles" mean office cubicles, only. The bathroom "sub rooms" we call stalls.

      Apologies for the confusion.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:Unacceptable by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > I would insert the barrel of my SIG 210 up their left nostril and politely ask them NOT to do it again.

      And you would go to jail for it and a good thing also.

      Protecting yourself, your family or total strangers is fine. Pulling a gun unless you are in a life-threatening situation is not.

      Now go rub manly oil on your biceps or whatever it is you like to do while not bi-winning around the clock.

    15. Re:Unacceptable by RichiH · · Score: 1

      The same law that let him pull a gun on the teacher without police taking care.

  8. apologists by epyT-R · · 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.

    1. Re:apologists by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Hey! We don't like logic 'round these parts! We be to busy thinkin' of the chillun!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.'

      I'm pretty sure most of the time the teacher or professor doesn't like that because they're worried about their class's average performance, assuming it will be used to gauge THEIR performance as a teacher. (And thus affect their salary and job security.)

    3. Re:apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /sigh

      1. Throwing out the students that are not learning will not help them learn.
      2. I have known of many that would purposefully do such things if they could get out of the eye of the teacher.
      3. It is rare enough to find someone with a headset or ear buds that is quiet enough to not be heard while in a quiet environment like a classroom.
      4. A simple turning off or proper silencing (not vibrate) of a phone is good enough. If there is an emergency, schools can be contacted and usually are.
      5. Having kids fail classes because they want to is becoming less and less possible due to dumbing down of materials. There are plenty of articles like the recently posted on about teaching "non-factual" sciences.
      6. If a student is causing problems, the best way is to embarrass them so that they do not want to do it again. Maybe call on that student to solve a variety of problems on the board, with a short and direct insult if they refuse to rile them up. -- Can cause problems with certain personalities though. This is also frowned upon by many districts in the States.
      7. My list is longer than yours, even if it only has a stream of conscientiousness listing.

    4. Re:apologists by elewton · · 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.

    5. Re:apologists by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      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 disruptive kid stay in class is ok because it gives him the chance to change his ways if he's failing, and/or pick up bits of knowledge he didn't realize he didn't know about the subject if he's passing.

    6. Re:apologists by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2

      "1. Throwing out the students that are not learning will not help them learn."

      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 book or text messages on their cell phone rather than try to talk to other students in the middle of a lecture because they're bored. Another pastime for bored students that have nothing to distract them at their desk is to disrupt the lecture by asking intentionally stupid questions or making a ruckus.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    7. Re:apologists by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Slightly off-topic, but where are you that student performance has a significant effect on a teacher's career? As far as I know, student performance is forbidden from being used as any kind of "metric" to gauge teacher performance by the unions in every place I've heard of in the USA.

    8. Re:apologists by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      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 students. the teacher's ego is irrelevant. he's got the grade book. if the kid hasn't mastered the material, then fail him. that's a fair punishment. if he knows the material, then there's no reason for the teacher to be upset.
      5. and so....? most of the problems in school are due to obsessive compulsive control freakery on the part of the faculty. in the old days, we just threw the disruptives out of class until they shaped up or dropped out.
      6. fine..call him up to the board.. he'll walk up there and either demonstrate his mastery before sitting back down to his game of whatever on his phone, or he'll demonstrate he's failing to the whole class. if he cares about his classmates' opinions he 'might' be motivated to change. usually, bad performance isn't solely due to simple laziness, and kids in that situation have usually quit caring about what others think of their performance long ago. insults from the teacher will just make him even less interested in the class.
      7. yah.. the irony is that most authority figures can't muster up any justification for the rules they set except for "mine is bigger/stronger than yours"

      anyway this article was about stopping 'bullying.' it's really just another 'for the children' argument to satiate micromanagement types.

    9. Re:apologists by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:apologists by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      What you're talking about is banning phones in class so that they don't text or phone each other, or so they can listen to music - which they shouldn't be doing anyway. They're in class and should be there to learn not socialise.

      What the article is about is kids taking humiliating photos and distributing them around the school - and teachers having the power to search the phones and remove content that could be used to bully people.

      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. You make an excuse by say "Well, they'll have to get used to being bullied in the real world". I can say without a shadow of a doubt, that bullying in school is *nothing* like bullying in the real world. I've been subjected to both, and I can assure you that it's far far worse in school. Or worse you'll argue that bullying is "character forming" - what a crock!

      Sure, taking content off phones isn't going to stop bullying from happening. After all, if it's on one phone, it's probably on many. But at least the teacher could give the parents a heads up as to what is happening in their child's life.

      As far as I'm concerned - you are the apologist. You are condoning bullying in school. And you then have the audacity to suggest that the teachers are the bullies?

    11. Re:apologists by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:apologists by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      Except this post was about the UK, not the USA. USA != the rest of the world.

    13. Re:apologists by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      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 jump on the bandwagon. one instance in class can last for weeks worth of torment from the others. the teachers have the power and set the stage..

      As far as I'm concerned - you are the apologist. You are condoning bullying in school. And you then have the audacity to suggest that the teachers are the bullies?

      no I am not. you reason like a politician. the teachers can ALSO be the bullies, and the power this article talks about would help that along. Yes you do need to get used to some bullying. welcome to the real world. what we should be teaching kids is how to stand up for themselves..with eloquent reason that shatters the fallacies of those around them, as well as self-defense skill for those lunkheads who are immune to reason and only understand the fist. This simpering passive-aggressive 'politically-correct' nonsense that tolerates no expression whatsoever is why kids today bottle everything up and then explode later.

    14. Re:apologists by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid our douchebags didn't connect to the internet to update their status every time you used one.

    15. Re:apologists by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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 anything. And I also think that if the entire class fails because the administration won't prohibit distractions then the teacher truly is NOT at fault for their failure.

    16. Re:apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he's in the UK, the basis for this story? I'm not sure why you think your extensive knowledge of "places you've heard of in the USA" is suddenly super relevant.

    17. Re:apologists by nine932038 · · Score: 1

      Do you know what happens if a teacher allows students to, well, not listen? Students don't have a sense of long-term consequences - that's why they're considered minors. They will, very often, choose the path of least resistance. They'll nod and smile and won't understand a damned thing, because if they're not listening, you can't very well ask them questions to test their understanding.

      That's the difference here, by the way - high school is not university. If it's university, you can just stand and lecture and let the less motivated students fail. But you can't do that in high school - not if you want them to learn anything whatsoever. The kids will almost certainly be lacking in self-control and discipline, and if you let the less-motivated kids dictate what's acceptable in class, well, you'll lose it all.

    18. Re:apologists by nine932038 · · Score: 1

      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.

      You're also assuming that it's the fault of the teacher. This is not always true; the curriculum may have something to do with it, or just the randomization of students - it's possible that you could get a class with an abnormally high number of under-achievers. It happens.

      If you've never tried teaching, then don't presume to give front-line teachers advice. ...and if you have tried teaching and it turns out that you can uniformly turn all your students into A+ super-achievers, well... tell us, your lesser colleagues, what your secret is. 'cause brother, it ain't always easy out here.

    19. Re:apologists by geekmux · · Score: 2

      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 direct line via cell phone. You're a student, not an ambulance driver.

      And as far as your headphone example, well the student is a distraction, simply based on he has something that I don't. Kids are just that way, and therefore it is a distraction. Again, short of listening to some audio lesson in class (which headphones should be provided temporarily by the teacher), not a single good reason you can give me to allow headphones in school. In fact, they could be considered a safety issue (especially given the volumes most kids crank their music up to). Cell phone and headphones? Kid might as well be deaf and blind. Plenty of cases of people dying while texting and not paying attention, whether driving or walking. Student runs over another student while both are texting in the school parking lot, you're gonna try and justify that legal liability? Fat chance.

      And no lawsuits will be filed, nor will property be destroyed. Schools here have a zero-tolerance policy. They see a cell phone, or even suspect a student using one, they confiscate it. Period. End of distraction, and now we return said student to their normal schedule of doing what us taxpayers are paying for.

      And the term cyber-bullying isn't some hollow term hyped by the media. Plenty of kids have committed suicide over it. Bad enough that shit goes on at home, no logical reason to perpetuate it in real-time with live-streaming feeds at school.

    20. Re:apologists by fincher69 · · Score: 1

      First article I could find about Florida doing this. Not sure about other states, but obviously it isn't forbidden in America. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-03-24/news/os-education-reforms-senate-03-25-2010-20100324_1_merit-pay-plan-rank-and-file-teachers-public-school

    21. Re:apologists by geekmux · · Score: 1

      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 that you don't see the value in a zero-tolerance policy for students in a classroom, because you certainly cannot give me a valid reason for any student to "need" a cell phone. There are plenty of viable alternatives to reach said student, even in the event of an emergency, that remain viable today.

      And the only parents who disagree with that are those who are just as addicted to their Crackberrys and iPhone app collections as their kids are.

    22. Re:apologists by nine932038 · · Score: 1

      I could answer your question, but since it appears to be coming out of left field (that is, gf's post asserted that students playing with cell phones is a non-issue for the class, I disagreed - your question relates to the necessity of entertainment), answering your question would only derail the discussion.

      I will also assume that you, geekmux, meant a general 'you', instead of an actual, personalized you, because I, personally, certainly didn't suggest allowing students the free use of cell phones. As a matter of fact, students in my classes get one warning before the cell phone takes up residence on my desk for the remainder of the class.

    23. Re:apologists by nine932038 · · Score: 1

      By your logic, no one could need a cell phone, ever, because adults work in places with fixed landlines, and kids are in schools. But, you know, life gets in the way.

      I don't appreciate students using their phones in class, but that doesn't mean they don't need them. It depends on how full their plates are - some students go right home after school, yes, but some students have a wide variety of after-school or weekend activities, and the utility of having some means of contact and communication while in transit is pretty clear. It's true that when they arrive at their destination, they are probably contactable, but you know, buses get flat tires, or sometimes there's traffic, or maybe the kid gets on the wrong train, or whatever. It's nice to have a backup in case of unforeseen circumstances.

      A reasonable middle ground might be to ban cell phones when the student is under the immediate supervision of a teacher or other responsible adult. You clearly want kids to be able to call 911 in an emergency, after all, but if a teacher is around, that job should really fall to the them.

    24. Re:apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention if it were true they'd all be giving As. As it is now teachers bump up those grades to avoid the parents who complain too much (to them) or because they aren't dicks. Teachers are dicks or not dicks from my experience. None of this has any effect on a teachers career though. They get tenure in 4 years and what does make them worth more is the degrees they hold, classes they've taken, and time in districts. The most highly qualified and paid public teachers are disliked by school districts. They can hire two teachers for the price of one. Some principals go after and harass teachers to the point they quit based on the dollar signs. So if there is anything that is detrimental to a teachers career it is becoming too highly paid.

    25. Re:apologists by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Tell me a good reason any student "needs" a cell phone in school...

      A single reason that would apply to everyone? Geeze, people can't agree on any generalization and you want a reason for something that applies to "any student".

      There's not a damn thing in this world that you would "NEED" to address 3 minutes sooner by having a direct line via cell phone.

      When I was living in Poland (you said 'the world', so this would apply), as a teenager, I had mobile phone updates on my Nokia 3120, and later a Nokia 6310i (my father's old mobile phones - He changed phones a lot) to tell me when to get out of an area because of the Polish mafia doing stuff in an area. I'm pretty sure a few minutes difference could have been problematic for me.

      There, I gave you one and it was from when I was a teenager when I was a student - The quoted statement above is shown to be invalid. Of course you're probably going to try to reword it now or something in a follow up post.

      Schools here have a zero-tolerance policy.

      There are schools on Slashdot!?

      (Seriously an unspecified 'here' location isn't very informative in the slightest)

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    26. Re:apologists by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      When I was living in Poland (you said 'the world', so this would apply), as a teenager, I had mobile phone updates on my Nokia 3120, and later a Nokia 6310i (my father's old mobile phones - He changed phones a lot) to tell me when to get out of an area because of the Polish mafia doing stuff in an area. I'm pretty sure a few minutes difference could have been problematic for me.

      There, I gave you one and it was from when I was a teenager when I was a student - The quoted statement above is shown to be invalid. Of course you're probably going to try to reword it now or something in a follow up post.

      I don't think your contrived "example" invalidates the statement at all - as we are talking about cell phones within the school environment, what warning to you would be so serious that it would not apply to the student sat next to you, or two rows away, or the next class? What warning would be so specific that *you* would have to leave the class room and no one else? What warning would be so specific that a call to the school main number and given generally would not be the preferential course of action?

      Students should not have mobile phones while in class. And that includes for inbound calls - they are just as disruptive as outbound ones or text messages.

    27. Re:apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.'

      Wow, that's amazing! I never knew!
      How did you go about establishing this? Did you interview every teacher on the planet? How did you compensate for the fact that they may be lying to you?
      </sarcasm>
      In other words: horsecrap.
      If I am teaching and someone doesn't want to pay attention, that's fine. There's a door to the classroom. On the one side of the door, there's the class, where the students come to learn and the teacher is there to teach. On the other side, neither of us has such specific commitments.

      tl;dr: If you're big enough to not pay attention, you're big enough to do it anywhere in the world but in the classroom.

    28. Re:apologists by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      What warning would be so specific that *you* would have to leave the class room and no one else?

      I was the only foreigner in the school and at the time, foreigners were somewhat unwanted. Other people didn't have to worry about the same things I did for that reason.

      What warning would be so specific that a call to the school main number and given generally would not be the preferential course of action?

      The above example, language barriers (person on the phone might not be able to speak the language well enough to convey a message properly) and the fact the school's landline was usually busy a lot, the fact that my where abouts was not even known by the school it self half the time (private one on one schooling to help me with studies as I didn't know the language well enough to always join the class in some subjects - these were arranged directly with teachers and myself, not the administration and were prone to regular changes).

      Students should not have mobile phones while in class

      Depends on the situation in my opinion.

      You still didn't answer where 'here' is.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    29. Re:apologists by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Give me a break! I said it was slightly off topic, and asked WHERE the poster was. Sheesh.

    30. Re:apologists by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Looks like the pay clause was eliminated in the senate bill, and I could not quickly find evidence that it passed into law (do they have a house that has to pass an identical bill?): http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/q-amp-a-on-floridas-senate-bill-6/1085001 It wasn't at all clear that the "evaluations" had any real impact, as union pressure seems to have defanged the bill.

    31. Re:apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      It's not about having the cell phone available in school, during the class. It is about what happens after school. Make sure they got to their piano lessons ok, have them be able to call me if something happens on the way home etc.

      And no, I didn't need one when I was a kid, but I didn't do as much stuff as they do now. My grand parents didn't need TV when they were kids and they even survived without access to antibiotics as a kid. Times change.

    32. Re:apologists by elewton · · Score: 1

      Excuse my delay in answering.
      I live in Ireland and am not a teacher. I know several.
      School principles have a strong influence on a teachers career paths, and teachers who improve their students marks more will generally be assigned higher stream classes. Their accomplishment with these is a significant factor in their advancement to, for instance, a deputy principle post.

      This isn't official advancement-based-on-results, but a truism of our educational system. YMMV, apparently.

    33. Re:apologists by digsbo · · Score: 1

      That makes sense, though one might suggest that better teachers ought to teach lower-performing students (might they so choose if it were incentivized?). In the USA, most principals/administrators were once physical education teachers (I saw hard stats on this once but cannot conveniently find them now). So I doubt there is really any strong correlation between teacher quality and advancement in our country. Though I will say in my old high school, one of the best teachers did move on to administration, where he replaced an ex-phys ed teacher who had nearly destroyed the school (allowing two teachers continued employment after evidence of gross, habitual sexual activity with students and himself sexually assaulting a staff member). Any wonder I hated school???

    34. Re:apologists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 direct line via cell phone. You're a student, not an ambulance driver.

      And as far as your headphone example, well the student is a distraction, simply based on he has something that I don't. Kids are just that way, and therefore it is a distraction. Again, short of listening to some audio lesson in class (which headphones should be provided temporarily by the teacher), not a single good reason you can give me to allow headphones in school. In fact, they could be considered a safety issue (especially given the volumes most kids crank their music up to). Cell phone and headphones? Kid might as well be deaf and blind. Plenty of cases of people dying while texting and not paying attention, whether driving or walking. Student runs over another student while both are texting in the school parking lot, you're gonna try and justify that legal liability? Fat chance.

      And no lawsuits will be filed, nor will property be destroyed. Schools here have a zero-tolerance policy. They see a cell phone, or even suspect a student using one, they confiscate it. Period. End of distraction, and now we return said student to their normal schedule of doing what us taxpayers are paying for.

      And the term cyber-bullying isn't some hollow term hyped by the media. Plenty of kids have committed suicide over it. Bad enough that shit goes on at home, no logical reason to perpetuate it in real-time with live-streaming feeds at school.

      Tell me one good reason kids need pockets in school! They have a backpack for anything school related and pants pockets can be used to conceal weapons or something illicit that kids shouldn't have. There is absolutely no reason for a child to have pockets in school and having them can lead to class disruption or other negative things.

      Now doesn't that sound unreasonable yet perfectly logical? Just because YOU think there is no good reason doesn't mean 1) There aren't any, and 2) That those reasons are legitimate.

      By your same line of reasoning NOBODY at a school needs to have a phone/pager. You can make an argument against just about anything you think children shouldn't have, the real question should be "Does it actually matter in the end", and the answer in the case of phones is that it doesn't. Your entire post is irrelevant, every single word of it. It's basically a mad-lib of "What kids do no matter what". Just replace the cause of the distractions with anything kids have available at the time. Kids WILL find a way to get distracted and bully other kids no matter what, they don't need cellphones to do it. Your assumption that cellphones is the only way for kids to do this is just insane. You sound exactly like some old-school douche bag that has just assumed that the newest piece of technology just HAS to be the cause of a problem that has existed for generations. This isn't a new problem for schools and kids yet you seem to think that it is a new device that has caused it. I don't want to say you are biased against children having fun, but it sure looks that way from every other angle besides the "Mean old fart who doesn't like them new-fangled phone-boxes and th

  9. Anyone remember FakeReset on TI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will work great... I remember classes that let us use graphing calculators--the teacher would reset them before a test.

    So first thing geeks would do is install a program with a fake reset button. Later classes presumably flashed with a firmware with a fake reset once the TI signing key got cracked...

    It wasn't that I wanted to cheat in precalc--I just didn't want to lose my mario brothers game for after class...

    "Sorry, nothing on my phone but a text from Mom..."

    May as well teach kids to subvert authority as young as possible after all...

    Load this app up on a hotkey press during school hours...problem solved.

    Although, this does bring up an issue near to my heart--why doesn't android have ANY useful encryption yet?

  10. No cell phones in the New York City public schools by slonik · · Score: 1

    NYC department of education found an ultimate solution. All electronic gadgets sans HP calculators are banned in the public schools.

  11. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is different from the States, how?

  12. You don't have to bring your cell phone to schoo; by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  13. Pin? Terrorist? by mistralol · · Score: 2

    Is this not why people have a pin on their phone? Oh wait next they are going to be slapping little bobby in jail for not giving up his password under the terrorism act

    1. Re:Pin? Terrorist? by Stormthirst · · Score: 2

      Actually it would be under the RIP Act.

  14. I know where to hide them by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    "Headmaster, Headmaster . . . Nelson, minor, has twitter up his shitter!"

    Shamelessly stolen from Viz.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  15. "Kids are not adults." by jeko · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:"Kids are not adults." by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      You cannot force a child to work commercially for you for free.

      Sure you can, if you have kids and own a business you do not have to pay them.

      You cannot compel a child to testify against themselves.

      Tell that to my parents.

      The police may not search children without a warrant.

      Why would they need to? They can get the school to do it.

      The school may not interfere with a child's practice of religion.

      As a person not of the main religion while I was a child in the southern USA, I would say that is the law but not the actual practice.

    2. Re:"Kids are not adults." by xwizbt · · 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.

    3. Re:"Kids are not adults." by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about?
      I am only describing the reality the saw when I was a kid 20 years ago.

    4. Re:"Kids are not adults." by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Do you remember what you were supposed to be learning that day?

      Yes, he said it in his original post. He learned not to be a cheeky little fucker and expect to get away with it scot free.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:"Kids are not adults." by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      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.

      And in my home country, you can't force anyone to testify against themselves, police need warrants to conduct searches (even though most sheeple don't realize this and grand permission to be cooperative) and you can't be compelled to do commercial work for free.

  16. Questions remain? by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

    "questions remain whether such a move would give teachers too much power and infringe on student rights."

    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 content from a student's notebook or to take a student's books and burn them.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  17. search, ok. delete? No. by johncandale · · Score: 1

    A few of the problems is smart phones are more like computers. you can hide files, you can encrypt files, etc. Sorry I don't trust teachers to know every phone OS and os hack (kids love hacks) on every new phone coming out every 6 months. I think they should just take them away for the day on first offense. Offense meaning being seen. Second offense they should be banned from having them on their person

  18. Here's a revolutionary thought... by jaskelling · · Score: 1

    How about all the school teachers and admin folk just worry about TEACHING? The only difference between this search & delete against the students' will and an actual cyberbully is that you're doing it there and in person and telling them they have no choice. Way to go rolemodels!

  19. Re:No cell phones in the New York City public scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much did HP pay for that one?

  20. There is no question. by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

    This is absolutely a violation of the rights of the students. It is not a question, it is absolute.

    --
    Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    1. Re:There is no question. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:There is no question. by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Everything is a right until taken away. Kids could be playing in the public square or down by the river hauling water for the farm. Education is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't give a few power hungry freaks the right to delve into the most personal and private relationships, data, and hardware of the young.If anything, bringing up children in a free environment teaches them to love freedom, bringing them up in a totalitarian regime that they hate, fear, and can do nothing about also trains them, to accept bullshit as fine.

      And frankly, I never use my phone in my college classes, only few do, and only for short texts. It certainly doesn't interfere with their schoolwork, in most cases.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    3. Re:There is no question. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      So when your 10 year old (hypothetically) is asked what the answer to the problem on the board is, but he's busy expressing his freedom by playing Angry Birds, and so he says "what? nah I'm busy" in response, what then?

      Or better yet... When your 10 year old, who will likely end up a failure for lack of focus, direction, structure, diligence, keeps using his distracting technology around my 10 year old to the degree that the class is dysfunctional... what then? I suppose we could have separate schools... schools for kids that care to learn and then schools for jerkoff kids that do whatever. We already kinda have it, but the 'do whatever' half day schools are getting so full that now the (its usually neglected kids that end up this way) bad kids are very common in even the regular public schools.

      Yes, there is such a thing as 'too much freedom' when it comes to raising kids. The difference between freedom and limitations, in this case, is what we call PARENTING.

    4. Re:There is no question. by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Or you raise your kids not to be total douche bags, and help them get a good education. I never used distracting devices in class, yet I had them. I was brought up right and learned. Bottom line: don't blame other people for your failure to raise your children properly, the school taking away freedoms and parents taking away freedoms are two, very, very different things, and even then I think most of raising a child comes in at a very young age, you can have your child making proper life decisions by the time they are 13. Thats how my parents raised me, and I'm in honors programs, I'm an eagle scout, I've won various other awards and had a happy life until my mother lost her mind when I was 14 from working 80-90 hours a week. Course, it helps to have knowledge of developmental psychology and to pay attention to your children, something that judging by your response you have not done, instead taking the hard line "do as I tell you because I tell you to" stance, which is inevitably distancing and utterly useless in raising children, unless you want a bunch of pregnant 13 year olds running around.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
  21. "respect his rights not to be force fed" by jeko · · Score: 1

    "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.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
    1. Re:"respect his rights not to be force fed" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "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.

      And I hope you're not a parent if you think you shouldn't teach your kids that they have to do some things for their own good.

      Or do you let them stay in bed all day eating crisps and drinking coke, not washing properly or cleaning their teeth and never going to school?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:"respect his rights not to be force fed" by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I don't know what kind of fuckups you had for parents(or are) but mine never had to beat me/force me and amazingly I still went to school, took reasonably good care of myself and comletely failed to spend my days lying in bed drinking coke and eating crisps.

      they were actually competent parents.
      They treated me like a human being and used reason.

      the biggest red flag for an obviously awful parent is the use violence first and the second i the use of the phrase "because I said so" rather than explaining why.

  22. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My kingdom for mod points.

  23. Assume no privacy in public by hort_wort · · Score: 1

    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 my privacy by looking at me.

    If no one had anything against school rules on their phones, then they wouldn't have to implement such a policy.

    1. Re:Assume no privacy in public by russotto · · Score: 1

      If no one had anything against school rules on their phones, then they wouldn't have to implement such a policy.

      Ah, the old "if you have nothing to hide..." argument.

    2. Re:Assume no privacy in public by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      Well someone had to argue the other side, the debate is boring if everyone is on the same team. :P

  24. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  25. Kids are not humans by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    If they don't have any rights then they have no human rights. If they don't have human rights then they aren't human
    I submit that kids are clearly not human

  26. Schools can search lockers... by KhabaLox · · 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 frequently.

    So what's the lesson? Encryption. Password protect your data, and have remote wipe capability, etc. It's all been discussed to death here already.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  27. Seriously? by lolololol · · Score: 1

    How can anyone in their right mind say that this is a good idea? Kick out the disruptive kids. If their phone rings, its a disruption. The school has no right to go through a students phone just because it's in the students possession. The "kids aren't adults" comment: Remind me how kids aren't people? The government isn't allowed to search your shit without a warrant or probable cause, why would a school have more freedom to do so? Removing phones from schools isn't the solution either. Please stop saying "humans evolved just fine without them." Yeah, we evolved without them, but we also evolved without vaccines, health care, school, etc. That isn't any justification not to have them. Just ask students to turn their phones off, and if the teacher catches them with it out, it is placed on the teachers desk until the end of the class. Multiple violations will result in it being confiscated for the entire day. "If no one had anything against school rules on their phones, then they wouldn't have to implement such a policy." Please. Just because you shouldn't have anything against school policy on your phone doesn't mean they should be able to search it. Who wants to have all their private emails and conversations read, as well as pictures and online profiles that the teacher wouldn't have access to otherwise. As I have said before on here, you all need to read 1984. It's becoming more and more relevant...

  28. here be dragons by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:here be dragons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how is deleting items supposed to help in the fight against bullying? Isn't more likely going to be used as a convenient way of getting rid of evidence of those unpleasant problems that no teacher really wants to deal with?

    2. Re:here be dragons by analyst-cz · · Score: 1

      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.

      Absolutely agreed.

      Deletion of information should by my meaning be crime under any circumstances, all over the world. Blocking access is at least opened to discussion, even if I assume it is overused even in the current world and after all much less effective and unbreakable then expected in many lawyers should-work-like-this stories.

      Anyways I (as multiple children parent) postulated a theorem what I would call "Psychological quantum law": You can either watch (either openly or secretly) someones information, or directly act according to (against) it. Period. There are many examples in the wilderness (and I mean real children wilderness), that shows, that any other approach has just one of the following outcomes: 1) Any further information in such area gets hidden from you. Children are more clever than humans, didn't you know? And not knowing what your children REALLY do is dangerous weakness. 2) Your action will be forcefully (any means available from the nature of situation; no sorry or collateral damage considerations) immediately countered or long term undermined. 3) The child will hate you (even if in very moderate level, but the effects are cumulative over all the children life) because of strong injustice feeling; too bad should you be the teacher, fatal should you be parent.

      There however ARE many good ways how to act regarding the information you know and here is the exception of the above mentioned "Children are more clever than humans" rule: in long term deep thought strategies you should always have top over children, stress on DEEP THOUGHT.

      And there is one more psychological rule (this time even postulated by real psychologist), humans (including children) tends to act in the manner you assume they are when you interact with them. So the more responsibility you can pass to the children and the more you can make them to absorb, the best.

      So as the conclusion I always tend to offer children more liberty than usual, however based on two pillars: 1) They prove in advance psychical and technical ability to cope with the situation under my supervision, eventually in prepared model situations. 2) They never betray the trust I put in them. Should they fail, the rights they poses are revoked appropriately. This is the best tool to deal with behavior like defiance, vandalism and even more subtle, like not willingness to help to old or incapable. Children like their freedom so much, that you can find just little more (if any) motivating things. So far fully verified by my own results, however looking forward to check them in the stress testing of the puberty. Off course, application of this approach requires strong nerves and hypertrophic self- and in-children-confidence. And maybe plenty of undeserved luck as my wife use to say.

      --
      "Interesting times to you..." (One of the most feared black magic curses.)
    3. Re:here be dragons by coofercat · · Score: 1

      And more to the point, if there is something bad on one kids phone, you can bet he's already passed it on to at least one other kid. Thus, teacher deletes the file, and it is instantly restored from a crowd source backup.

      Looks like one of those proposals that goes out specifically to get it shot down by everyone except the Daily Mail.

    4. Re:here be dragons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      School taught me one important lesson: The separation of powers does not apply. Teacher makes the rules. Teacher watches whether you break them. Teacher decides whether you broke them. Teacher hands out sentence. Step 1 may occur after step 2 or 3.

  29. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    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.

  30. The probem is the parentis... by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    they're loco

    --
    Nullius in verba
  31. cellphone =~ backpack by darkonc · · Score: 1

    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).

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    1. Re:cellphone =~ backpack by RichiH · · Score: 1

      In what country is searching the bag of a pupil OK?

  32. Teaching the teachers, eh? by nine932038 · · Score: 1

    This is always the same goddamned discussion. "Teachers should be doing their jobs! If they can't bring out the best in every single student, they're incompetent!" "Let students be responsible for their own performance! That's what I always wanted, so that must be the best solution!"

    Listen. Many people assume that each student essentially acts as an isolated island. This is not always true.

    A classroom is not only thirty (or whatever number) of individual students. A classroom is also its atmosphere and its dynamic. If you let one kid text in class, even if he knows the material, you've suddenly lost your justification to prevent other kids from doing the same. This will slowly poison the whole class to the level of the most common denominator. It's a matter of fairness. The rule has to be the same, or very similar, for everyone.

  33. Why? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Why? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Because kids walk home from school, and a cellphone provides an easy and immediate way to call if they are going to be late (which worries parents) or if they're in trouble or injured along the way?

    2. Re:Why? by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      Because kids walk home from school, and a cellphone provides an easy and immediate way to call if they are going to be late (which worries parents) or if they're in trouble or injured along the way?

      You can get a mobile phone that has something like four buttons on it: "Call Mom", "Call Dad", "Answer Incoming Phone Call" and "Hang up". The 'Mum' and 'Dad' numbers are pre-programed by the parents. There is no SMS messaging, no internet, just the ability to call two people (parents). I seem to recal they are cheap enough to just be used as a second phone, for just these occasions; i.e. a child can have a super expensive smartphone with loads of features, but bring the simple one to school where it won't distract them, and they can still contact their parents (and be contacted) if neccessary.

  34. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by youngone · · Score: 1

    That's right. At my kids' school all phones are handed over at the start of day, and held by the teacher until the end of the school day. Everyone gets their phone back, I can txt my boys and they'll get the txt after school without interrupting class. The system works pretty well from what I can see.

  35. "you have kids and own a business" by jeko · · Score: 1

    Not all states have the family business exemption, as this Hartford pizzeria found out. If you're "managing" your kid's acting career, you can't touch a dime 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 work.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  36. Leave the phone at home by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    And you don't have any problems. Also, password protect it. Any "school" official wants to look at MY phone, isn't going to get access to it.

  37. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So following your logic, schools could tell kids to take their cloths off and walk around naked? After all, they brought their clothes to school so the school can impose rules on how they use them, right?

    1/ Why are cell phones less important than clothes or pens? As a parent I think cell phones can be very helpful to kids, for example if they take the bus home and some problem happens they can contact their parents and ask for help. Yes, cell phones are also used the wrong way but so is everything. For example, students use pens to draw on tables (the tables in my school were so covered in graffiti I wish students could all get laptops and never see a pen again!). Why assume cell phones are a luxury, not important, have no place at school, and the school can make any rules it wants about them?

    2/ Schools can't make any rule they want. They can ban phones, that might be legal. They can forbid the use of phones during class. But they can't make a rule that allows teachers to take away cell phones forever or damage them as a punishment. That would be illegal. Are you one of those people who think any contract is legal, no matter what human right it says you agree to give away and whoy also think breaking a TOS is a crime?

  38. Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In today's world I don't think this would stand a chance legally, at least not in Canada.

    Persons in Canada (including snot nosed kids) are protected from illegal search. It has been proven with case law that a school can search anyone entering their premises to ensure facility security. Since children do not attend school voluntarily in Canada (it is required that they attend until they are 16 under law) the argument that they must submit to the search of a mobile phone or be denied access (or punished) doesn't fly. Since no content on a mobile phone would be capable of disrupting facility security on its own (unlike a gym bag which could be used to conceal a gun, knife, etc) the school would not have authority or backing by the courts to search a student's mobile phone. If there is "bullying" going on then let the police deal with it as criminal harassment... The schools need to focus on teaching and butt out of issues they have no business sticking their noses into.

  39. Who are the bullies ? by dargaud · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid / teen, everybody knew who the bullies were, except the teachers. I never understood why they couldn't see it and act on it. Are bullies more subtle than I remember or do teacher avoid the issue by turning a blind eye ? If they spanked a bully once in a while, there wouldn't be any. I know, my bullying for being a geek stopped for good the day I hit back. If only I'd done that a decade earlier...

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  40. Ok, and now let's consider the reality behind it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What will happen? Nothing. With the average amount of smartphones, and the fact that teachers are by no means more technically able than their pupils, it will mean that teachers will become the laughing stock of bullies, more than they were ever. Oh, you want to search my phone, teacher? Here! The video where I kicked the shit out of the geek is safe on the memory card in my pocket.

    The problem isn't that teachers can't see that someone gets beaten up. The problem is that the teacher gets into trouble when he interferes. How many teachers are actually stupid enough to get into one such fight and risk being accused of beating a pupil because the only way to get the bully to stop was to grab him and drag him off?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. A future project by qbrick · · Score: 1

    Let's take away their privacy when they are kids, so they will be accustomed to a life without it when they are adults.

  42. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by monkyyy · · Score: 1

    "But they can't make a rule that allows teachers to take away cell phones forever or damage them as a punishment. That would be illegal."
    actually ive heard someone make that argument allowing damage(i think from magnets), from a student who is older then me, repeating some lies from a teacher(and confirmed by others); lucky for that teacher i didnt get him OR ELSE I WOULD ARGUE, IGNORE, HELP OTHERS CHEAT etc.all though his class but show up everyday getting a nice shiny A fair and square, insulting him daily, writing letters to whoever in change, maybe add a nice touch with picket signs every week or something

    --
    warning pointless sig
  43. in 1993... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 1993 I had a Psion Series 3a which I brought to all my school lessons. It was only confiscated once, and that was in good humour: the viciously nationalist Scottish Latin(*) teacher was going off on some anti-English waffle, so I knocked together a quick routine in OPL to play the UK national anthem in the middle of his tirade (back in my day it wasn't against some corporate policy to have on-device programming).

    He cut short his invective (pre-mobiles, an electronic device playing a tune in class was a rare thing), pointed at my toy and, "Give that to me!" He placed it in his drawer and the lesson proper resumed (victory for the geek!).

    I think I got it back at the end of the lesson - or was it the end of the day? Either way, both student and teacher deserved the exchange.

    (*) Scottish teacher of Latin, not teacher of Scottish Latin. Who can say what degeneracy might produce the latter?

  44. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're suggesting that my child should leave his mobile at home, even though it is practically the only way he can contact me, whilst he has to change between 3 buses just to get home each afternoon. And if he gets on a wrong bus by mistake, what then?

    Think your shit through you moron. A cell phone in this day and age is a vital means of communication, especially in cases of emergency.

    We take for granted that our cell phones are private, and that no-one else has the legal right to look at it's content without your express permission (not that this is entirely true, but we take it for granted nonetheless). This is just another example of big brother trying to monitor us all. Say a teen is txting their friends, and saying how much they dislike a certain teacher. That text was intended purely for it's recipients, and if the teacher goes through the child's phone and sees this, it could cause issues. One simple example out of many potential abuses of the system.

  45. Tabloid pleasing by dugeen · · Score: 1

    This is just about generating a story that Daily Mail readers will lap up - unruly kids brought to heel by stern authoritarian teachers. In practice it would be so difficult, physically and technically, to search an unwilling student's phone that no-one will bother. People have mentioned home school contracts as if they would legitimise this. These 'contracts' have no legal standing because they don't involve a consideration, ie the school undertakes to provide nothing on the basis of the contract that it would not have to do anyway.

  46. Question on too much power? by Posting=!Working · · Score: 0

    FTA: "questions remain whether such a move would give teachers too much power and infringe on student rights."

    There's a question? Is there any way to argue that this doesn't give teachers too much power or infringe on student rights?

    A teacher has absolutely no right or business reading private communication between a parent and child. I would raise hell at the school if that happened to my kid.

    Some teachers are smart, some are trustworthy. But not all - and you don't get to pick each one of your kids teachers, you generally only get to pick a school. I know the science teacher is stupid, she routinely marks off completely correct answers that don't match the book's incomplete answers exactly. There's at least one teacher that most of the kids don't trust (tells them something, next day claims he never said it.) What if the kid's texting their parent about the teacher? You think they're not going to overreact?

    Schools seem to be preparing kids in how to live in a fascist dictatorship - Obey without question, prepare to be searched, do not speak up against wrong, no part of your life is private, authority is to be completely trusted at all times, rules are absolute no matter what the situation is. It's nauseating.

    --
    This sentence no verb.
  47. How about punishing those who act badly? by master_p · · Score: 1

    Not all kids use their cellphones for nefarious purposes...the best approach to this is very simple: just punish those kids that use their cellphones in the wrong way.

    Forbidding all cell phones just because there might be an abuse sometime in the future is a non-democratic act. In fact, it's totally fascist.

  48. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How they use it, yes. But it cannot mandate that they have to hand it over, or provide access to anyone.

    They can't take my house keys from me. They can't take my wallet off me. They're not taking my phone out of my hands without it being locked and encrypted. Simples.

  49. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    Do your kids and their possessions become the school's property when they enter the school building? It doesn't work like that in many parts of the world, I'm sorry if it's like that for you.

    You might as well complain about having to get vaccinated or having to wear pants or leaving your bong at home.

    Are you saying that a school can decide you must get vaccinated? What a sad school.

  50. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Fuck off, children managed to get to school and back before they invented mobile phones. If your kid is in trouble h/she can always ask a responsible adult (e.g.bus driver if they're on a bus) to contact you. If there's an accident, your kid should have a name and contact number on them anyway if you're letting them out alone so the police/ambulance can ring you.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  51. Re:Reasons for a kid to have a phone at school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Kid going to a friends after school.
    2. Kid needs to contact parents to be picked up after an after-school activity
    3. Parents need to let the kid know they need to do something different then normal after school is out.
    4. Someone tries to kidnap kid on the way to or from school.

    I'm sure there are more.

  52. Re:No cell phones in the New York City public scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol yeah, because kids don't hide the phones in pockets and txt without looking right?

    Schools around here have a no personal electronics policy too. Walk by any class and see how well that works.

  53. Re:You don't have to bring your cell phone to scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then give the students some form of temporary storage where the can leave inappropriate materials while on campus. Something that locks so they can be sure that their possessions are secure.

    Oh yeah, AND DON'T SEARCH THEM.

  54. Two words... by RichiH · · Score: 1

    Fuck you.

    You are part of the problem, not the solution.

    1. Re:Two words... by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      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.

      Fuck you.

      Oh, were you the one with the hacking tools on your disk who had to fork out $70k to repair the mainframe and was sent to juvee? Sucks, bro. I imagine folks like us have it rough there. I'm glad they caught you though. As a tax payer, I'd hate to have to pay for that because you got bored and screwed stuff up.

    2. Re:Two words... by RichiH · · Score: 1

      No, I was the one with the huge knife and other assorted tools. Teachers knew about them because I carried them openly.

      This being Germany and non-retarded times, no one cared.

      Still, searching property is Not An Option without a warrant and Must Be Opposed.

      Period.

    3. Re:Two words... by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

      What public did you goto that has a mainframe the school could spend 70K fixing? I went to HS between 1997 and 2000. We had the cheapest Dell desktops one could buy in 1996. They never worked.

    4. Re:Two words... by hort_wort · · Score: 1

      Perhaps mainframe is the wrong word.... The guy did something that affected all the computers in the school over the network. They had to hire a couple techs as regular employees to straighten it out and prevent things like that from happening in the future. That's a couple full time jobs that the school wouldn't have had to pay for otherwise, and I figured each was paid ~$35k/annum just as a guess.

      It was quite entertaining though. The computer literate people in the school were pulled aside in groups of 3. The culprit was in my group. As soon as the principal stepped out of the office, he turns to us quite pale and said, 'I think I'm gonna have to get a lawyer."

  55. Re:No cell phones in the New York City public scho by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

    What if your HP calculator is just an app on your iOS device?

  56. tutaj jest "here", lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ja jestem polak tesz. Dla czego ti po pisal to do mie:

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2024512&cid=35403488

    ?

    (Tak jest polaczi... polaczi bitcz (fight) polaczi!)

    APK

    P.S.=> I hope you understood that, as I have not written in polish since I was 6 yrs. old... apk

    1. Re:tutaj jest "here", lol... apk by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Ja jestem polak tesz.

      Nie jestem polakiem, tylko mieszkalem w polsce za dziesiecio letcie.

      Dla czego ti po pisal to do mie

      Reasoning.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  57. WoW (cool): You understood it! apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In any event, you understood my attempts @ written polish (thank goodness it's easier to write than English (less "rules" & you write like it sounds))... now, if I understood you correctly? You're not polish, but you do write it nicely enough for me to have understood what you meant.

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly, in closing: I don't "go with" a lot of today's "memes" (even the term itself sounds stupid imo, lol), so, I guess I really do not understand that, & I was unable to reach your link/URL, but... there you are! apk