Slashdot Mirror
Student Refusing RFID Badge Now Fights Expulsion Order
BeatTheChip writes "Lawyers representing Andrea Hernandez, a science and engineering student at John Jay High School, are fighting an expulsion notice issued a week ago for refusing to wear a Smart ID badge. To represent her, lawyers filed a preliminary court injunction, seeking legal restraints on the school. She maintains stance of refusal to wear any badge containing an RFID tag for reasons of basic privacy and conflicts with her belief system. The controversial decision for her school to adopt the NFC badges is part of the Student Locator Project, tracking attendance. Local schools started issuing the lanyard badges this fall despite parental outcry at NISD school board meetings."
The school has a right to watch its costs and protect their students. If not then the lawyers will go after them for not using RFID yada yada.
For someone who works in the education system, I have to say the reason for this is money. The budgets are set on enrolled students. Not paper enrolled but physically enrolled each day. If a poor inner city school has a 20% truancy problem, then the budget is cut 20% and the teachers are fired.
I am more upset at the lawyers who are costing teachers jobs and I doubt their parents are in it for their child. They have a free lottery ticket at someone elses expense. Perhaps if parents were not so sue happy American schools could successful compete with Asian and European counterparts.
Schools have a right to enforce a learning environment as oppressive as some of the highschool slashdotters readers who want to say otherwise. At work you have to do what your boss says or you will be shown the door. What is so different with school. These are not implanted chips or anything and with drug dealers, pedophiles, and other problems it is not a bad idea to track where each student is.
http://saveie6.com/
So she can be marked as absent when she's actually in school? Great solution. Better to pursue the lawsuit.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
I was thinking of a tinfoil pouch for it. No need to destroy it; just make it readable only when you allow for it to be read. Willingly destroying the chip may have other legal implications (the badge may be property of the institution) - and anyway they're likely to issue a new one when one is found faulty.
Thank you for fighting for our freedom. Too few people do. Best regards, mrjb
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Destroy badge, get expelled for destruction of school property.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
If you voluntarily enter someone's property, then they should have the right to set the terms of entry. If they want to put a sign up that says "no clothes allowed" then you had better get naked when entering their property.
However, students do not voluntarily enter school. They are required by law to be there. Requiring students to give up rights because they entered your property, when you forced them to enter the property, isn't fair.
But students are minors and are not granted the same rights as adults because they aren't as capable of accepting responsibility as adults. If some rights need to be restricted to maintain order - like drug sniffing dogs being allowed to check lockers without a warrent - then so be it but we should try not to over do it. This RFID thing is over doing it.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
"for reasons of basic privacy and conflicts with her belief system"
I agree with half of her case.
But someone's "belief system" shouldn't exempt them from following the rules and laws of the land. Otherwise pedo Mormons could marry 13 year-olds, hardcore Muslims could keep their female children out of schools, and fundie Christians could stalk those who are having abortions.
You should oppose a rule because it is wrong for the population, not because it conflicts with your belief system.
Every job I've had since graduation in '99 has come with the requirement of an RFID tag either as a key fob or in my ID. I wore it with no question because otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to open any doors.
XDInd
It may well violate her religious beliefs for which she should be exempt and it has long been the case that students' 4th Amendment rights are suspended while on campus at a public school. Since the ID only applies during school hours, is not implanted and is not actively transmitting her location, I fail to see this problem. It isn't dehumanizing to keep track of students on campus, it is responsible. It isn't a violation of her privacy as on school grounds you have relatively little. It isn't eavesdropping on her personal conversations. It's to keep students from cutting class! Nothing more. Can someone please explain why this is a problem?
Wouldn't it be better to just leave it in her locker and always be at school?
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Anyone whose brings "against my belief system" to a court of law and expects special consideration because of that should lose.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Technological "invasion" of privacy is not a problem when it simply augments what is already in place physically, i.e., I have no problem with security cameras at a bank, because it is a public area which you enter with the expectation of it being fully monitored and guarded at all times, regardless of whether a camera system is installed. Adding a camera system does not fundamentally impact your expectation of privacy at a bank. I *do* have a problem with sticking cameras on every telephone poll in the city. I expect police to patrol the streets, and give periodic checkups on how things are going, but monitoring every nook and cranny simultaneously and being able to follow my movements camera-to-camera is a gross change and significant limiting of my normal expectation of privacy.
In this case, the girl is minor for whom the school is assuming responsibility during school hours and it is *expected* that they will be supervising her at all times. If teachers don't know where she is or what she is doing at any time during her stay that is indicative of negligence on their part, regardless of whether an RFID monitoring system is in place. So, as long as an uncovered and functional RFID tag is something she is only required to carry on school grounds, and she can put it in a foil sheath before and after, I do not have a big problem with the school adding some automation to what is already a comparable level of physical monitoring.
I'm not saying there aren't some slippery slopes to be vigilant against, but as it's been described, I don't think she is losing much if any privacy by using the school ID card.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
...is that so many others complied.
Government schools have degenerated into starter-prisions.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
After reading the article, I can't find any issues here that can really be raised for a minor in school, that the school is responsible for, that is essentially any different than the school id I had 20 years ago. In the article, it even states the school offered to remove the RFID functionality so that the picture / barcode was left. Even then, wtf, its RFID, not GPS. It's not going to track her location at home and even then, the school isn't telling her to never take it off outside of school hours.
Just more random thoughts:
1) Just like my id from 20 years ago, we had to scan in the mornings for school for attendance which actually made it more efficient for school admins to get a quick idea of who wasn't there and contact parents quickly. The other option is having teachers do it manually, typing into system, and wasting their time.
2) She's a minor that during school hours, the school is responsible for. More power if the school during those hours has a way to keep track of students on property (or lack of being on property) in a more secure way. I bet if for some reason she snuck off and something happened, these parents would be suing for neglecting to keep track of their kid during school hours.
3) If this is such a huge issue, why aren't people going bat shit crazy having to wear their work ids, which most have barcodes, pictures, and rfids these days. Really no difference here people. Wear to work / school, both track you entering and leaving, then that is it.
4) Their reasoning for religious is pure bs. My kid shouldn't wear a badge with the picture during school hours is the mark of the beast. Can you reach any harder for non sense. Again, lots of people for work do the same thing.
Off topic? Given that it's the protesters PRIMARY ARGUMENT, it seems pretty damn on topic to me.
Anyway, I find it difficult to reconcile the religious aspect of her argument with the fact that she's attending a science and engineering based magnet school. I'm not saying that religion and science are inherently incompatible, but I am saying that her equating an RFID badge to the "mark of the beast" makes me think her devotion to her religion will place a shadow over her science education.
FWIW, the article says the school offered to disable the electronic portion of the badge, but that the school requires the parents to stop protesting. I would love to hear the school's side of this story.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yep, looks like she's standing up for her 1st amendment rights.
The school also wanted her parents to sign an agreement stating they would publicly support the program.
The parents refused, which sounds like they are standing up for another 1st amendment right..
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You, sir, are a fool and are incapable of using logic.
School is mandatory and work is voluntary.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Why do people insist on technological solutions for problems that don't need them?
Voting machines - pointless; the number of volunteers or local government workers that can be drafted for a day scales with the size of the population.
RFID badges for students to track attendance? Don't kid these days spend their lesson in front of a teacher, who could check attendance manually in about 30 seconds....like they have always done. I mean, what problems are they trying to solve?
no taxation without representation!
Easily disputable. If/when someone comes to find her in class, they will find her. Who is to say a malfunctioning badge was intentional or not?
Nope. Attendance tracked by badge only, so if it shows she wasn't in class, she wasn't in class. Data don't lie, bitches. Right? (note to Troll Mods- that's sarcasm)
Now, as for the actual issue at hand, this is a public school so it's a little different than a private business or school requiring them. I'm not sure how the State's privacy laws work, but it's probably a stretch to make this stick unless they have something specifically written in to guarantee such protections. When I was a kid, we took attendance at the start of each class, the teacher called each student by name and they answered "here" or there was just silence, so from that point of view we've never really had any "privacy" in that regard. If you wanted to go to the bathroom during class, you had to get permission. At any time, for any reason, any teacher could ask why you were where you were, what you were doing, and you were required to give an explanation. They could follow you around if they wanted, and courts have already said that using CCTV cameras in the halls, etc. doesn't violate any privacy expectations (exception- inside of the locker room and bathrooms).
As for "conflicts with her belief system" she can just fuck right off with that. You don't get to be excused from policies, laws, regulations, etc. just because they "offend your belief system".
The difference is that the Nazis only forced the Jews to wear the Star of David so that they could be more easily singled out and oppressed. It is very different when everyone has to have the ID card. If you do not have a visible school ID card then you shouldn't be there. It happens every day in most secure businesses and no one complains. Why should a school be any less secure than your office?
Her refusal is based on an interpretation of the Bible. Is she never going to carry ID? I guess she win't be driving, joining a club, getting a job or leaving the country. All of these require carrying a numbered card which she refuses to do.
This slashdotter thinks you shouldn't let your SO represent you in any legal matters ;-)
The owner (or renter) of the property is not at issue here. If, say, your state had a requirement that all students had to complete 100 hours of community service to graduate, and that they had to wear an RFID tag while doing that service work, it would be exactly the same situation wherever the community service took place.
The issue is the extent to which a public school system can enforce the surrender of some of your privacy and freedoms. Your child must attend a school or be homeschooled, and for almost all families the only option that makes sense is to enroll your child in the public school suggested / mandated by the school board. Given that we, the people, have decided that you are all but required by law to send your children to this school, we the people are well advised to tread extremely carefully in reducing the rights of you and your child any further. Whether this case is an acceptable infringement is up for debate, and the argument needs to include a review of the benefits to individual students, the collective student body and the school administration. Personally I doubt it would pass my internal bar for acceptable, but I haven't heard all the arguments.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
Business that require visible ID at all time tends to be in the sectors that screw up real bad (financial sector). Why is this a good example? Plus getting all kids to accept real-time tracking can be a precursor to a full-fledge police state Joseph Stalin would be jealous of. I am SO glad metal detactors and chip tracking students are not implemented in my country.
Tomorrow is another day...
Considering the average level of network security that exists in most public school system IT departments (ie pwn-able by a savvy 12-yo), this looks like "Easy Internet Shopping For Pedophiles" as they can confirm their targets' location and schedule.
Given that a child is more likely to die getting to school than getting kidnapped by a pedo (by multiple orders of magnitude), I think that such considerations are insane to consider. There are more reports of people kidnapped by aliens and sexually assaulted than children kidnapped by pedos. Stastically, it just doesn't happen. You are more than 10,000 times more likely to be molested by a family member or kidnapped by a family member or killed by a family member than a stranger kidnapping by a pedo.
Learn to love Alaska
So the lesson to be learned is one of conformity then?
Isn't that what school is? Conform to what we want you to know? And someone please explain what expectation of privacy a child should have on public property. Does she complain about security cameras too? What is she going to do when she graduates and she has to swipe a badge to get into work or her work PC requires her login? Unless she plans on flipping burgers she better get use to badges and logins.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
If you do not have a visible school ID card then you shouldn't be there. It happens every day in most secure businesses and no one complains. Why should a school be any less secure than your office?
You have a choice where to work and what conditions you accept in return for your salary. And this is the government doing it and withholding your education if you refuse. And what does this have to do with "security"? It's just about simplifying taking the roll call so the school can collect the per diem from the government. It's not for the students' benefit.
The school could simply make it optional. Anyone who opted out could just sign a roll at the door or be counted absent. 99% of students would use RFID to avoid the hassle, so the overhead would be trivial.
Unless she plans on flipping burgers she better get use to badges and logins.
Even that won't work. Every fast food joint I've ever been in requires the employees to wear name tags.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
I think it has to do with degrees of removal from reality.
When there's a realistic system in place, people go along with it because it makes sense.
When there's not a realistic system, there's usually an "ideology" used to compel people to obey.
This drifts farther and farther away from reality and as a result, the state uses more control on its citizens.
They in turn react passively by being less productive and more corrupt.
Futurist Traditionalism
Except that you do. And if "my goofy magic man in the sky is the reason I can't do this" than ANY belief system should be acceptable for saying you can't do something or must do something.I derive my belief system from logic and from myself. My belief that I have a right to privacy and to not be tracked like cattle is at the very least as valid as someone else's belief that they can never be forced to work one day a week because magic man in sky say "no way".
Seeing as you have no expectation of privacy, you won't mind when I search your asshole for contraband the next time you're on public property.
I can see two outcomes...
- One kid left in class, carrying 20 badges...
- Kids swap badges constantly, rendering the system useless...
s'fun!
Because the school gets paid if you are there, they do not get paid if you are not. They don't give a damn if you know much (as long as you don't fail too bad), they just want your warm body for a state paycheck.
Unfortunately, there is no freedom of logic in the constitution. Rationalists actually have less rights than the religious in the US.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Isn't that what school is? Conform to what we want you to know?
In theory, the purpose of a public school system is to benefit the public and to break aristocracies (whose power is often maintained by a continued and exclusive access to quality education). In practice, the purpose of school is to babysit children while their parents are out working, because in today's world it is too dangerous for children to run wild in the streets (according to some). Brainwashing and teaching conformity are just unintended consequences of poorly thought out policies by the sort of bureaucrats who think scantron forms are a way to measure student aptitude (don't kid yourself: the people who are paid to educate children are not clever enough to develop a grand strategy for brainwashing them, and neither are the major party politicians who control school budgets; metal detectors, surveillance cameras, bars over the windows, etc. are just easy and lawyer-friendly ways to address the symptoms of broader problems).
And someone please explain what expectation of privacy a child should have on public property
How about the right to go to the bathroom without being watched?
Does she complain about security cameras too?
I would have. Considering that at my high school, holding a blank postboard in front of a security camera resulted in the guards running to the camera to see what was happening, while an actual fistfight (a rarity at my high school) didn't result in guards coming at all, it is pretty clear that the cameras have nothing to do with student safety (and neither do the guards).
Unless she plans on flipping burgers she better get use to badges and logins.
Or, people could learn to stand up for themselves and fight back against these sorts of things. I am a graduate student, and when my department was moved into a new building where our student ID cards were used as keys to our offices, and our doors could not be propped open without horribly loud alarms going off, we fought back. Eventually we got a compromise -- we could prop open our doors 9-5 on weekdays, so only the first person to come to the office would have to swipe in.
There is a broader problem here, and your response is a symptom of it: people have no desire to stand up for themselves, and they just let themselves get trampled by this sort of thing. This is where we come full circle, of course, since school is where people learn to be trampled -- unless they are wealthy and go to a school that teaches them how to trample others. So really, our public education system is failing to meet the goals it was originally created for (but we are too busy complaining about the UFT and about test scores to even notice that).
Palm trees and 8
Because the primary function of schools through high school is babysitting minors.
And someone please explain what expectation of privacy a child should have on public property.
Er ... you meant "what kind of privacy-negating activity can a child be forced to do when she's on public property that she's legally require to be on", right? This isn't someone choosing to go to a park and then complaining that she's in the background of someone else's photo. This is someone legally compelled to go somewhere, and then you suggesting that because she's there (as required!) that she's given up a right.
What is she going to do when she graduates and she has to swipe a badge to get into work or her work PC requires her login?
She's going to be legally required to work for a corporation? Next you'll tell me that there are no small businesses or farms left nor any chance to start one, no stay-at-home spouses, no trust-fund babies, ...
Staff is probably more concerned because it IS a "security risk" to have people running around that don't belong. My local high school had an issue with a 20-something lurking around and ended up in the girls' locker room.
So we have a technological solution that identifies that people who are supposed to be there either are or aren't there, but it doesn't do anything about the problem you say is the bigger problem. Obviously, this solution doesn't help until we embed a chip in EVERYBODY, and then if people who aren't supposed to be there are found, they can be intercepted. In the long run, that is probably what they are looking to do.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I posted a 3.5 gpa through high school with perfect attendance my first two years. Family issues caused me to move in with the other parent, and the social rebellion that followed led to me missing a LOT of school. Still maintained my gpa though, including some AP classes, scored a 32 on my ACT, and even though I was getting a's on tests, I was flunked from the last few classes I needed to get my diploma due to attendance. Not because I didn't demonstrate a knowledge of the subjects I was being taught, but because I didn't show up for X amount of classes.
More correctly, the student is a source of income for the school. The school is protecting its funding. Change the insane funding scheme based on student-days, and the costs of this system would not longer make sense, and it would go away.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits