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."
Wear it all day long.
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/
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
For many Christian families, including the Hernandez’, the mandatory policy is eerily close to the predictions of Revelations 13: 16-18, which warns of the Mark of the Beast:
16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads,
17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or[a] the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666. (New King James Version)
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?
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.
Student Refusing RFID Badge
refusal to wear any badge containing an RFID tag
school to adopt the NFC badges
One of these things is not like the other.
The school letter says that they offered her the opportunity to wear an ID with the "battery and chip removed" on two occasions and she refused.
So this isn't about RFID, it's about wearing ID.
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.
She was offered a badge without an RFID chip in it. She refuses to wear a badge of any sort.
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!
I think it is important to make a distinction between RFID and NFC. NFC works only at very short ranges (a cm at most). So basically is only useful for tapping your card on a reader. This has a very different implication to RFID which can be scanned from several feet away, allowing much more ubiquitous monitoring without the input of the person being monitored.
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)
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
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