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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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, ...