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."

39 of 283 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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?

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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...
    7. 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).

    8. 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?

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

  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 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?

    2. 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...
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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
  3. easy and necessary fix. by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No phones. Period.

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

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

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

  5. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. "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 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.

  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.