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."
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
It is a public school. School has only the rights the public allows it to. If the people are opposed to RFID tracking of their kids, the school has just lost their right to track them.
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.
Lol wut?
You seem to be ignoring important cultural factors when it comes to lawsuits.
Asia and Europe are polar opposites when it comes to litigation.
In Asia, almost nobody sues because they have a cultural aversion to litigation and the court systems are fucked.
In Europe, lawsuits are less common because the public supports strong government regulatory bodies that ultimately limit the need for people to sue.
In the good old US of A, every sues because the libertarians/conservatives think regulation is bad and civil lawsuits are the solution.
As a bonus, those same libertarians/conservatives want tort reform because all those civil lawsuits are expensive.
At work you have to do what your boss says or you will be shown the door. What is so different with school.
School is not voluntary. Work is.
Homeschooling, while good/bad, isn't an option for everyone.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
Your first statement is flat out wrong and your second is a fallacious slippery slope argument.
We don't force conscientious objectors to serve in the military.
We don't force religious parents to vaccinate their children.
We don't even force the Amish to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes.
About the only time we do force people to violate their belief systems is when it involves safety or imminent health issues.
Your pedo mormon and fundie christian examples fall under the safety umbrella and If fundie Muslims wants to keep their female children out of school, they are welcome to do so, as long as they file the appropriate notice of intent to homeschool and get an education plan approved.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Actually tenure is meant to protect teachers who tell unpopular truths. For example, that the Earth is >4 billion years old.
A few parents may scream bloody murder and the administrator might prefer a teacher that doesn't get him yelled at so often.
Tenure has it's problems, but I think I prefer science teachers that are hard to shut up.
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".
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.
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