Slashdot Mirror


Judge Issues Temporary Order Blocking Expulsion For Refusing To Wear RFID Tag

An anonymous reader writes with an update about the student refusing to wear an RFID badge in Texas. From the article: "A district court judge for Bexar County has granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) to ensure that Andrea Hernandez, a San Antonio high school student from John Jay High School's Science and Engineering Academy, can continue her studies pending an upcoming trial. The Northside Independent School District (NISD) in Texas recently informed the sophomore student that she would be suspended for refusing to wear a 'Smart' Student ID card embedded with a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tracking chip."

305 comments

  1. From the original article... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The student was offered a security card with no battery and chip, but still refused. I'd have some sympathy if the college hadn't offered this option, but as it stands it's simply refusal to wear an ID badge and has nothing to do with RFID tracking...good luck to her when it comes to finding a job with any company that uses ID badges of any description.

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    1. Re:From the original article... by L1mewater · · Score: 5, Informative

      Keep reading the article. The father claims that they would remove the RFID from her badge only if they ceased criticizing the program and publicly endorsed it or something. If she had just gone along with that offer, plenty of other folks would be complaining about her not standing up for her principles.

    2. Re:From the original article... by Paran · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except the conditions on removing the chip required endorsement and giving up the right to criticize the tracking program.

    3. Re:From the original article... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You missed the part where the school also required that the parents and student must vocally support the RFID program, even with a crippled badge.

      You also missed the part where wearing said badge -crippled or not- implies acceptance of the program to the other students, forcing compliance.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:From the original article... by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I think at this point it is the principal of the matter.
      I imagine she would of been perfectly fine wearing the normal ID badge, but after encountering so much opposition she has dug in her heels.

      And she is right to. She is guaranteed a high-school public education and I doubt that it is legal to force things like this onto children and then expel them when they refuse. She is not disrupting other children's educations nor being violent of otherwise harmful, so the public education system does not have grounds for expulsion.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:From the original article... by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      She is not disrupting other children's educations nor being violent of otherwise harmful, so the public education system does not have grounds for expulsion.

      Well, technically by not being "in attendance" they do, because thanks to some stupid laws (NCLB, I think?) high school funding is based on attendance. If a student is absent more than X days, the school is denied funding for that student (and it's easier ot just expel them and wipe their hands clean than anything).

      Which leads to solutions like this, where they don't care if one student swipes 10 RFID cards entering a class - they just want the record to state that said student was "present" at that class for that money.

      And of course, if a parent wonders where their kid is, they can always point to the RFID record, oh-you-mean-someone-else-stole-their-ID-not-our-problem.

    6. Re:From the original article... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 4, Informative

      >tl:dr is the internet equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears and going "lalala". We don't need to know.

      tl:dr is what you did with the original article, and you didn't put any further research in to it. They told her she could have one with no battery if she didn't talk bad about the program. From other news sources (from before the infowars one) they state students that didn't have the fully working RFID card were not allowed to participate in student voting and other functions. Also not stated is that this is a pilot program for 100 other surrounding schools. Someone wants to to shut up so they can get rich implementing this at all the schools in the area.

    7. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well I think at this point it is the principal of the matter.
      I imagine she would of been perfectly fine wearing the normal ID badge, but after encountering so much opposition she has dug in her heels.

      And she is right to. She is guaranteed a high-school public education and I doubt that it is legal to force things like this onto children and then expel them when they refuse. She is not disrupting other children's educations nor being violent of otherwise harmful, so the public education system does not have grounds for expulsion.

      I think you meant the principle of the matter. Here's the principal of the matter: https://nisd.schoolnet.com/outreach/jjhs/admin/harris/

      This is the guy responsible for trying to expel her because she stood up for her rights.

    8. Re:From the original article... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a student is absent more than X days, the school is denied funding for that student (and it's easier ot just expel them and wipe their hands clean than anything).

      They schools also play games where students get transferred to another school, so that they don't count on the rolls and the clock is reset for the second school.

      Ultimately, education starts at home.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:From the original article... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of people don't stand up for their rights just for themselves, they stand up for the rights of all. "We'll give you an exception because you made some noise, but we're still going to press ahead with this utterly pointless scheme to chip every student" is not really a victory.

      And, as others have pointed out, it would require them to endorse it.

    10. Re:From the original article... by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. It's all about removing the chip, not ditching the lanyard/card thing. Nowhere did they mention not putting adhesive Faraday screen on the back of it and in the lining of their jacket, lol. Try reading that chip now. I'd be more than happy to leave it in there in that case.

    11. Re:From the original article... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The student was offered a security card with no battery and chip, but still refused. I'd have some sympathy if the college hadn't offered this option

      And you'd have some sympathy for Rosa parks, if the driver hadn't offered her the option of standing, instead of leaving the bus?

      It might be work, if the college promised to have no battery, chip, or RFID in the cards of all students.

      Otherwise, it's just a continuation of the status quo.

      Attempting to work out an exception for the person with the courage to refuse and mount a legal challenge with great personal cost, without changing the rules for everyone, doesn't rectify the social injustice; it just results in a situation that is even more unfair,....

      Oh, and also.... if you have one or two people with no RFID chip, they will be easy to track.

      I'm surprised they don't work out a deal with that company that lets business monitor foot traffic in their stores by tracking individual cell phones.

    12. Re:From the original article... by mpe · · Score: 1

      The student was offered a security card with no battery and chip, but still refused.

      If the device contains a battery then it will have a much longer effective range compared with a passive RFID. At least until the battery fails. Wonder if anyone has considered what to do when that starts happening. There's also the issue of what to do when bullies and criminals find out what the effective range of these devices is.

    13. Re:From the original article... by detritus. · · Score: 1

      [..] about her not standing up for her principles.

      And standing up to her Principals.

    14. Re:From the original article... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can chose to not have a cellphone. You can chose not to have a credit card.

      But this RFID card is mandatory, which is the problem.

    15. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uhm... I can't imagine a school forcing students, let alone parents, vocally to support ANYTHING, and if they do, the court will surely rule against them.

      However, if they disable the badges, if the school actually uses them, seems to me it will be real obvious, and the kids who do this will be obligated to pay for the replacements. I worked somewhere once where I had to wear an access badge, that had an RFID chip in it. It was mandatory because you had to display the badge (it had a photographic ID on it that let anyone you pass in the hallway, security forces, etc., know that you're allowed to be where you are,) and also it functioned as the key for getting into various secured areas of the building.

      If you disable it, you can't open the fucking door, you'll be late for work, you'll get fired. So don't disable the badge. Presumably the school is using them (or should be) the same way, namely students have to have them, have to have NOT destroyed or disabled them, or they won't be able to get to class.

      Case closed. As for the school tracking their "movements," THEY'RE IN FUCKING SCHOOL! I SHOULD GODDAMNED HOPE THE SCHOOL KNOWS WHERE THE FUCK THEY ARE WHILE THEY'RE... AT SCHOOL!

    16. Re:From the original article... by icebike · · Score: 0

      Don't perpetuate the mistakes of the the post to which you reply.

      Its a high school, not a college.
      She attends by law, not by choice.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    17. Re:From the original article... by jeffasselin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother"

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    18. Re:From the original article... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Its a high school, not a college.
      She attends by law, not by choice.

      Ok, well, it is a college; high schools are colleges, anyways. It's not a distinction I was making.

      She may have to attend due to circumstance, but someone close to her has a choice.

      The law in the states applies to most (but not all) children -- have to be enrolled in a program, and attend school they are enrolled in, at unless they have reached age 14 and drop out of high school with parental permission, get married/emancipated, exempt, they reach age 18, or otherwise get excused from the requirement.

      Even if the student is enrolled in the program, and it's a requirement -- ither the student (or their parent) have some choice about which school the child is enrolled in, which is related to the choice of which state, county, city, they choose to live in --- they can move to a different place of residence, where the local school will be a different one without the RFID thing, they can also move to a different state, where the child may no longer be required to attend high school..

      So it's a little more complicated than "no choice"; it's more like potentially: "very limited, troublesome, unfairly burdensome or damaging options" for escaping the RFID badge rule.

    19. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT's not a c ollege and #$@& your theoretical job creators!

    20. Re:From the original article... by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      Well, technically by not being "in attendance" they do, because thanks to some stupid laws (NCLB, I think?) high school funding is based on attendance. If a student is absent more than X days, the school is denied funding for that student (and it's easier ot just expel them and wipe their hands clean than anything). ... Which leads to solutions like this, where they don't care if one student swipes 10 RFID cards entering a class - they just want the record to state that said student was "present" at that class for that money.

      The solution is clear then
      Schools cannot be allowed to claim RFID swipes as "attendance" since they in no way serve as a guarantee of attendance. This would solve everyone's problems...

    21. Re:From the original article... by anagama · · Score: 2

      1. This is a high school, not JPL. The secrets and technology contained in HS are barely worth the time of day and do not require extreme measures of protection.
      2. Children are required to attend HS. Employment is totally voluntary.

      Get 'em young, get 'em for life. The darker side of this is getting young people to accept constant tracking by agents of the government. Yes, we all have cell phones, but this is much more overt, and much more dangerous because like employment, having a cell phone is voluntary. Going to HS is not.

      The many circumvention suggestions don't get around the fact that when today's teens and preteens are older, and have been conditioned to think that tracking is just a part of life, it will mean that most people will just put up with it accelerating the already alarming rate at which civil liberties are evaporating. Secretly circumventing the tracking will not in any way end the tracking -- it takes public protest and outrage, but where is that going to come from if tracking is accepted as a fact of life by most future adults and those who don't accept it, act in secret?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    22. Re:From the original article... by theArtificial · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But this RFID card is mandatory, which is the problem.

      Attending this school is a choice, their religious beliefs are what are an issue here.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    23. Re:From the original article... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not being tagged like a criminal or an animal is a religious belief?

    24. Re:From the original article... by mantissa128 · · Score: 2

      high school funding is based on attendance

      No, the student has to be in class when the morning bell rings or they count as absent, even if they are present in another area of the school. The RFID is to ensure all students in the building are in their classes at first bell, and to capture evidence that this is the case. RFID tags do nothing outside the school building, and do nothing for attendance other than automate the recording of it.

      This is being done solely to meet the definition of attendance as specified by the funding program. Operating costs do not go down proportionally with each student that is away - cutting funding based on attendance as a punitive measure on the schools is breathtakingly stupid. How about funding reform as a better solution than chipping each student like cattle?

    25. Re:From the original article... by theArtificial · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hey funny guy, the article mentions they object on religious beliefs. So only criminals or animals make use of RFID? Walmart clothes must be criminals. I certainly hope you appreciate the irony if you use a mobile phone, since that actually broadcasts your location instead of simply responding.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    26. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my school years they sent the problem students too problematic for public school to continuation school.

      They could send that student to a nearby continuation school. Sure, it wouldn't be a science and engineering magnet school but they'd still get their guaranteed high school education at a public school.

      As has been mentioned quite a few times already--many workplaces use RFID badges for access in and out of badge access areas. This is just one step further with a battery operated transmitter, but who is to say the workplaces won't also get those types of badges too?

      High school is supposed to prepare the students for adult life? Well, workplaces use RFID badges not just for access in and out of buildings but also have additional badge access credentials for specific labs where they exist.

      Hello, wake up it is 2012, RFID should be used in schools to prepare them for RFID used in the workplace.

      As has already been mentioned as well--separation of church and state. Their religious beliefs have no bearing on the business of the state. If the state wants to use RFID then the church needs to either follow the program or step aside. In the case of the student--step aside would be explusion and possibly transfer to another school.

    27. Re:From the original article... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      And of course, if a parent wonders where their kid is, they can always point to the RFID record, oh-you-mean-someone-else-stole-their-ID-not-our-problem.

      That wouldn't fly with me. I'm not paying the school to know where my kids RFID badge is. I'll even happily pay another $10/year (or more) if that's what it takes for a teacher to sight my child and tick them off a sign in sheet. School attendance is a a social problem and all the technical solutions i've ever seen are flawed.

    28. Re:From the original article... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      But the kids are tracked anyway and have been for decades - every class they attend they are (or should be) ticked off the roll. This is purely an attempt to do the same thing for less cost, which would be fine if it wasn't totally flawed and didn't potential expose a tracking cookie to anyone outside with an RFID reader (i assume they leave their ID cards at school at the end of the day but sometimes they might forget).

      This girl is objecting due to some biblical reference to wearing some form of trackable ID, which is about the stupidest thing i've ever heard. There are plenty of technical objections to this "solution" without involving the bible which isn't going to go down well with the majority of the population (the mark of the beast thing would raise the eyebrows of most christians that I know!)

    29. Re:From the original article... by penix1 · · Score: 3

      So by your logic putting everyone in prison solves the issue of where people are. And people shouldn't complain because it is for their safety right?

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    30. Re:From the original article... by drkim · · Score: 2

      ...don't disable the badge. Presumably the school is using them (or should be) the same way, namely students have to have them, have to have NOT destroyed or disabled them, or they won't be able to get to class...

      There is nothing that would keep her from keeping it in an RF shielded sleeve (they already make these for passports) and pull it out when needed.

    31. Re:From the original article... by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...the public education system does not have grounds for expulsion.

      ...Nor did they expel her. They just reassigned her to her original school, which does not use the RFID cards.

    32. Re:From the original article... by ae1294 · · Score: 2

      And the Jews could have moved out of Germany before they where all rounded up. People like you can always make up some other option that isn't realistic can't you? Why not instead support someone who is fighting for their constitutional rights. I'm not even talking about wearing the damn thing right now I'm taking about being told "You are getting expelled but if you and your father never talk about this again then we will let you wear a disabled badge and let you stay. Boy getting expelled would sure ruin your life wouldn't it?" That is pure extortion, Give up your freedom of speech and be a good little party member and we'll just forget about everything...

    33. Re:From the original article... by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Religion is a choice.

      Also, you shouldn't need to cry "my religious beliefs!" for something like this to be a valid claim. If that contributes any weight to her complaint, then that's kind of a fucking catastrophe. Kind of like when I see stories about "NUN patted down by TSA!"... because, you know, it's only a violation of valued principals in this country if you're religious (or disabled, very old, very old, or a vet -- in the case of TSA stories).

    34. Re:From the original article... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Also, you shouldn't need to cry "my religious beliefs!" for something like this to be a valid claim.

      I absolutely agree. I'm pretty tired of all the people who shout intolerance when they're the ones who're being intolerant. I understand this isn't exactly the case here but like another poster mentioned, the rules should apply to everyone or no one. It's unfortunate that this has to involve the courts, however, they will decide if this has any weight. It's not like I'm all for "chipping" people, far from it, I value my privacy and I also use a mobile phone. I understand there are a great many benefits to having on my person, and I also understand leaving it behind. With respect to the badges I don't see this as a giant privacy issue, its automating an existing process. Either way, if its a good system or a bad one time will tell.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    35. Re:From the original article... by BaldingByMicrosoft · · Score: 1

      Yea... But infowars.com looks a bit like the Time Cube site with like-minded advertising...

      Methinks they'd print anything as long as it was way far-right leaning and/or controversial.

    36. Re:From the original article... by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

      The father claims this to a reporter. None of the paperwork from the district carried any such language as a condition of her disenrollment.

    37. Re:From the original article... by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

      ... says the father. The district response letter informing them of the disenrollment, and how to stop it, contained no such condition.

    38. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, why not just have every student leave their RFID badges in their desks all year long. Perfect attendance!

    39. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the schools would have many reasons for wanting the cards on students. One is the keeping out of intruders. I would think alarms would be triggered if a person without the badge was walking about in the building. Also it means that students would have to attend each class. If they did switch badges with another student that student would be forced to attend the class as well. If a student cuts school perhaps they could be located by that tag.
                  As we become more and more of a crowded society filled with people of diverse beliefs and motives should we not expect more observation of vulnerable people and places?

    40. Re:From the original article... by marnues · · Score: 1

      You must be British or something, but you have it wrong. School is mandatory to 16 years of age as a minimum while some states including Texas are at 18. The one part that does fit your argument is that because it's a magnet school it's not the standard public school and she always has the option to attend there instead. However, the badges are likely to turn up there as well once the pilot program ends.

    41. Re:From the original article... by marnues · · Score: 1

      How about predatory school administrators with access to the tracking system? Why would we place so much trust in them?

    42. Re:From the original article... by marnues · · Score: 1

      Adding crazy to the argument does not prevent the general argument from being correct. Also, tracking kids in a classroom that is designated is one thing. Knowing that little Suzy is in the locker room by herself and late for class is completely different.

    43. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US high schools and colleges are not necessarily the same thing. Some might be together but typically high school = grades 9 to 12, college = secondary education/bachelor's degree/that type of thing.

    44. Re:From the original article... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      And the Jews could have moved out of Germany before they where all rounded up.

      No they couldn't; their movements were restricted by Germany. They tried, and actually Germany tried forced emigration out of the country before death camps, you know... before Germany's attempts to take over the world.

      Some jews successfully fled, and got into safer countries. The vast majority of jews attempting to flee were in fact rejected when they attempted to enter the other countries.

      Almost all the jewish refugees attempting to flee Europe were rejected due to anti-jewish sentiment in other countries, and the result was a huge PR boost for Hitler.

      See Voyage of the St. Louis

    45. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep reading the article. The father claims that they would remove the RFID from her badge only if they ceased criticizing the program and publicly endorsed it or something.

      If she had just gone along with that offer, plenty of other folks would be complaining about her not standing up for her principles.

      Keep reading it yourself. It has nothing to do with tracking, the refusal is based on a somewhat fringe belief some Christian groups hold which says any type of ID amounts to the Mark of the Beast from the book of Revelations. You're free to believe what you want, but rules should apply to everyone equally and not give special exemptions just because someone says a magic man in the sky told them they don't have to follow them.

    46. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you'd have some sympathy for Rosa parks, if the driver hadn't offered her the option of standing, instead of leaving the bus?

      Right, because the entire struggle of the Civil Rights movement is the same thing as someone claiming that Satan placed his mark on her if she carries an ID.
      This isn't insightful, it's as bad as a Godwin.

      Black people had no legal recourse to change the laws. They had tried. Nothing worked. They were treated as second class citizens. This girl hasn't done jack shit- she never petitioned the school board or even wrote a letter to her local or state representatives. She interpreted a passage from the book of Revelations in a way which doesn't match with what most other Christians read it as saying. And that's somehow the same thing as treating all black people as slaves?
      Fuck you, and fuck whatever dickless fuck rated you up. Rosa Parks stood up for quality. This girl isn't standing up for anyone but herself- she thinks she should get special treatment because some guy ate some funky mushrooms and wrote a book about having a bad trip.

      We have to have quality in the rule of law, we can't go around granting exemptions just because someone believed some shit written in a book. If you have some kind of argument about how carrying an ID on a closed campus is a fundamental violation of human rights then let's hear it, otherwise go fuck yourself.

    47. Re:From the original article... by mark-t · · Score: 1
      The point is that it would be always needed while on school property.

      Part of the function of the ID is that it is visible, so people can visible identify you, performing the same function as a company ID tag that employees have to wear.

      And while I know that going to school isn't an option like going to work, it's really making a mountain of a molehill here. It's just a friggen name tag... it lets onlookers know that they belong there, and kids from other schools could be spotted quite easily, which can make security and safety much easier to manage.

    48. Re:From the original article... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      School is mandatory to 16 years of age as a minimum while some states including Texas are at 18.

      People of age 14 are able to seek full time employment, particularly in Farming/agriculture communities.

      They can get out of the schooling requirement, there are various ways.

      One of which is taking an accelerated program, and meeting the minimum requirement to earn a High school diploma early. Once they have the diploma, they are relieved of the requirement, without reaching a particular age.

    49. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...good luck to her when it comes to finding a job with any company that uses ID badges of any description.

      And that's why she'll start her own company that makes blockers of RFID technology and you'll probably be working for her.

    50. Re:From the original article... by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      She is disrupting other children's educations. The public education system is there to turn people into docile workers. If she exhibits free thought and any modicum of individuality/rebellion then that is contrary to what the schools are trying to achieve. By doing this so publicly she is also providing a negative example to other students, possibly undoing years of conditioning.

      She. Must. Be. Stopped.

    51. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that she and her parents are principals of the matter too.

    52. Re:From the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow the money. Who is making money off this program. The program stinks to high heaven and someone is making money. It might be surprising if we only knew who.

  2. Number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not just make the ID a number tatooed onto the forearm, papers please, Oh Godwined

    1. Re:Number by lsllll · · Score: 1

      You joke about this, but that is, in a way, the exact thing they're doing. They're starting bullshit like this at an early age, so that by the time you get to critical thinking (late high school early college) you've been used to it, looking at it as a matter of fact and not questioning it.

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    2. Re:Number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forehead or Left hand. Oh God.

  3. What's the big deal? by cob666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I personally don't see any problem with students having to wear RFID badges while they are at school.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    1. Re:What's the big deal? by Kingofearth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, let's condition our children to be treated like cattle. I'm sure that will do wonders for our free society!

    2. Re:What's the big deal? by Paran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then allow them to chip your children and stay away from mine.

    3. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Also, they should have serial numbers tattooed on there arms.

      You know, to go with the theme.

    4. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally don't see any problem with students having to wear RFID badges while they are at school.

      You are free to post your ss#, mother maidens name, and your birthdate online, if you have nothing to hide. But just because you fail to see the problem, with this or being tracked in general don't make the rest of us suffer for your blind ignorance.

    5. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's courageous of you to have no problem with someone-who-isn't-you being required to wear a badge. But what's the upside of making them wear the badge?

      Turns out the school had no problem with the student not wearing the badge, too! There is no upside; the conflict is about nothing. They outed themselves as requiring the badges for no reason and .. shit, you just can't make up stuff this crazy. If the father of the student is to be believed...

      “He told me in a meeting that if my daughter would proudly wear her student ID card around her neck so everyone could see, he would be able to quietly remove her chip from her student ID card,” Steve Hernandez told WND. “He went on to say as part of the accommodation my daughter and I would have to agree to stop criticizing the program and publicly support it."

      .. the school is being just plain evil here. If they really made the above offer, fuck them with fire. Make people lose jobs over this. Please oh please, Hernandez, tell us you have a recording of that offer.

    6. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because there isn't one. Tracking student attendance is commonplace and has been for many years. Tracking student location is also commonplace. This device simply automates it. Now if she can make a case based on her religion then good on her but the right to privacy is usually suspended while on campus. In my district, this took the form of a signed agreement form by parent and student agreeing that, while on school property and/or time, the Code of Conduct superseded legal rights. You can sign away legal rights in a contract. It isn't dehumanizing and many workplaces use RFID cards to restrict access to sensitive areas and to keep track of who is coming into the building. There is a lot of FUD surrounding this kind of thing and so long as these are limited to schools and workplaces I fail to see any problem.

    7. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 0

      I don't get this ultimate desire for privacy. Who the hell cares where you go? What does it matter if you aren't committing a crime? You are no one. The government has bigger fish to fry. Just because they can track you doesn't mean they are the least bit interested in doing so until you pop up on their radar.

    8. Re:What's the big deal? by jitterman · · Score: 1

      Slippery slope starts now...

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    9. Re:What's the big deal? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      , the Code of Conduct superseded legal rights. You can sign away legal rights in a contract.

      Utter bogus bullshit. You BELIEVED that nonsense? It's been ruled, again and again, that you cannot sign away any of your rights with a contract. No TOS, no code of conduct, no contract, no employer's regulations, NOTHING supersedes your rights as established by law. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to be secure in your person and your home, all of that is LAW, and nothing supersedes it.

      Good God, how can ANYONE roll over and play dead, just because some arrogant bastard tells them to? This is America, not some warlord's regime in the outback of Africa.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 1

      I was taught this at college by a lawyer in Legal Issues for the Musician 1 - Contract Law. Unless you're a lawyer too or can provide proof of what you're saying I will continue under that assumption. Also, I don't appreciate your tone. Let's keep it civil, thanks.

    11. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there isn't one. Tracking student attendance is commonplace and has been for many years. Tracking student location is also commonplace. This device simply automates it. Now if she can make a case based on her religion then good on her but the right to privacy is usually suspended while on campus. In my district, this took the form of a signed agreement form by parent and student agreeing that, while on school property and/or time, the Code of Conduct superseded legal rights. You can sign away legal rights in a contract. It isn't dehumanizing and many workplaces use RFID cards to restrict access to sensitive areas and to keep track of who is coming into the building. There is a lot of FUD surrounding this kind of thing and so long as these are limited to schools and workplaces I fail to see any problem.

      You're quite correct: There isn't a problem with taking attendance without these cards. Schools have been doing it for decades. Any student that simply doesn't want to have to carry one of these things for no other reason than they don't want one has every right to immediately toss the ID in the garbage in front of whoever hands it to them. Any school admins or principals that get their panties in a wad and decide to make a bigger deal out of a student's refusal to carry a school ID than just doing their jobs and focusing on education should lose said jobs.

      Robert Harris should be fired, along with anyone else who participated in the move to expel that student.

    12. Re:What's the big deal? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The lawyer taught you wrong. You cannot sign away your rights. Tone? Did you say tone? Try this: do some loan sharking. Get some chump to agree that if he doesn't pay you back, you can break his knees. Get it in writing. Get a nice, legal contract, get it notarized, witnessed, get all the trimmings for your contract.

      When he fails to make a payment or two, go visit him. Bring your ball bat, or whatever, and inform the police that you may need some protection while enforcing your rights under the contract. Tell the cops that you expect your client may resist having his knees broken.

      Try it. The contract supersedes his rights, isn't that what you just said?

      If your claim about a lawyer teaching you that shit is true, you need to get your tuition back. The rat bastard LIED TO YOU!!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:What's the big deal? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't get this ultimate desire for privacy.

      It is not the government's business what you do - provided you are not committing terrorism etc. This is a fundamental principle. It has nothing to do with whether you have done anything it is simply that the government has *no business* looking into your private life without certain exceptions that citizens have acquiesced to for the common good (eg. certain government agencies may carry out investigations but this requires checks and balances to prevent it being misused [eg. judicial oversight]).

      It is sad that you don't get it. Unfortunately many many people just don't grok the concept that the government is by us and for us, we are not servants of it (yet). It simply has no justification to probe our private affairs - that is not what governments were created for.

      In this case the school has taken a leaf out of the government's book and is completely mistaken in it should be doing. Yes, reducing truancy is a good thing. However, *enforcing* invasive tracking is completely wrong. It shows how detached from reality the school governance is - they simply don't understand they down 'own' their students. Although this is by no means unusual, many in the teaching profession are using to ordering their wards around exactly as they see fit (I've seen it for myself).

      Unfortunately, there are too many people who don't get the desire for privacy and use the "don't worry if you have nothing to hide" and "you are too small for the government to worry about" fallacies. The truth is that the government is usurping powers that it has not been granted and we should not go along with it - citizens have not granted the government these powers. Notice how that works, the legitimate authority flows from the citizens to the government, not the other way around. By usurping these powers the government (or school, in this case) is overstepping its permitted authority (that is, committing what would be a crime if a citizen did it). This must be pointed out and resisted (as the student so courageously did, despite probable peer pressure from mistaken sheep).

      Can you at least get that? She has the right to defend her rights. The government and school have no business *forcing* her to provide her whereabouts with RFID. If she is absent from school then that can be noted and action taken - this does not mean they have carte blanche to force tracking on her or anyone else. It should be unacceptable to even suggest this, yet the sheeple even support the illegitimate demand against someone standing up for their right not to be tracked. Surely you can understand that, yes?

    14. Re:What's the big deal? by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      until you pop up on their radar

      That's the problem. You never know when you're going to pop up on their radar, but if you ever do they have the capability to fuck you in many more ways than they would without any semblance of privacy rights.

    15. Re:What's the big deal? by Jethro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I fear that your attitude will be the prevailing one. In the future I foresee myself being the outcast because I /don't/ share everything about my entire life on Facebook/Twitter/Whatever, because I don't let my cellphone announce where I am at all times.

      I'm not worried about the government tracking me. Hell, if they want to, they will. There's not a lot I can do about it. It's everything ELSE tracking me. It's vast databases containing vast amounts of information about all of us. It's large corporations who use you and I as products.

      Look, I hate getting those things in the mail addressed to "Resident". But I hate even more the ones addressed to me directly, from people I've never heard about. And how do those happen? Because someone somewhere took YOUR privacy and sold it.

      You say "you are no one". Untrue. You are data. Data people can use. Data people can make money off. If you're ok being treated as a product, that's your business. I am not.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    16. Re:What's the big deal? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Read more fiction, think, and then extrapolate. We are being slowly boiled.

      --
      Good-bye
    17. Re:What's the big deal? by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Work is not school. They are not equivalent and you would do very well to remember that. What adults CHOOSE to do when they enter the workplace is VASTLY different from forcing it on a child. I dont know about you, but i have always had the ability to walk away from a job i dont like, kids dont have that option. Are you starting to see the fundamental difference?

      --
      Good-bye
    18. Re:What's the big deal? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's condition our children to be treated like cattle. I'm sure that will do wonders for our free society!

      Sure... I wonder why they aren't implanting the RFID tags though?

      RFID badges are easily traded/held by friends, zapped with a microwave, or blocked with RF blocking.

    19. Re:What's the big deal? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      And people like you are a large part of what's wrong wth America. The founding fathers would start a new American revolution against the current government if they were alive and saw the shit government pulls these days...

    20. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just because they can track you doesn't mean they are the least bit interested in doing so until you pop up on their radar.

      This assumes several things:
      1) The government is the only one with access to the data
      2) The government is as friendly as you believe
      3) There are no subsections of the government that aren't as friendly
      4) No party will ever be elected that isn't. (See the rise of every fascist/dictator government in history).

    21. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It entirely depends on what rights your talking about.

      Legal Issues for the Musician

      This suggests they were talking about Intellectual Property rights to your music. Copyright, royalties etc. Can you sign away IP rights in a contract? Absolutely you can.

      Human rights, privacy rights. These are completely different in law and you cannot sign those away.

      Any contract attempting to do so either invalidates that section of the contract or the entire contract as a result (depending how written and how enforced).

    22. Re:What's the big deal? by Xeno+man · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are some rights you can sign away and some you can't. Happens all the time in settlements. You can sing a paper stating that in exchange for receiving payment you waive your right to sue but you can't sign away human rights. You can sign an agreement that failure to pay back a loan in 30 days results in your becoming a slave to the other party but it's completely unenforceable.

    23. Re:What's the big deal? by mpe · · Score: 2

      Who the hell cares where you go? What does it matter if you aren't committing a crime? You are no one. The government has bigger fish to fry. Just because they can track you doesn't mean they are the least bit interested in doing so until you pop up on their radar.

      People interested in kidnapping, robbing or raping you can be very interested in knowing where you are. Similarly criminals using identity fraud want identities of "nobodies". From the point of view of a criminal (or "intelligence" operative) they have more time to escape if the cops are after you instead!

    24. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolls aren't very creative nowadays, are they?

    25. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 1

      RFID is close range. If she isn't at school her whereabouts won't be noted. The RFID would simply monitor location while on school property so if she passes an exit (which could theoretically also be against her will) it will be noted and intervention could be implemented. Tracking on school grounds is not invasive. At all. I don't care if my location is traced because I'm not committing a crime and (more importantly) if I were to be in an emergency situation, I'd want to be found swiftly. I understand that government is by us and for us I also understand that there are implied powers that the government can take. Location tracking for public schools and emergency response seem like appropriate use of implied powers.

    26. Re:What's the big deal? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      And people like you are a large part of what's wrong wth America. The founding fathers would start a new American revolution against the current government if they were alive and saw the shit government pulls these days...

      Being not an American, articles like this remind me why I want to laugh hysterically when someone claims the USA are "the freest country in the world".

    27. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But reliance upon such is at least as bad. If a kid is reported missing and someone trusts the badge that says the kid is in a hallway or a room somewhere when in reality it is only the badge that is there after being pulled off, then it actually delayed response. And it will happen, just as people have been thrown in jail for committing arson when it turned out it was their kid that used their store rewards card to buy the matches and lighter fluid. People make stupid assumptions about technology all the time, both about how it actually will be used and how reliable it is.

    28. Re:What's the big deal? by mpe · · Score: 1

      RFID is close range.

      Even for a purely passive RFID this can be tens of metres.

      If she isn't at school her whereabouts won't be noted. The RFID would simply monitor location while on school property.

      Only the badge itself stays on school property. It's basically a transponder which will send out a reply whenever it receives an appropriate signal.

      At all. I don't care if my location is traced because I'm not committing a crime

      What if a criminal wants to know your location so they can commit a crime against you?

    29. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get this ultimate desire for privacy. Who the hell cares where you go?

      If no one cared, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place, would we?

    30. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too many immigrants, mostly illegal lately that have no desire to be Americans with the rights and duties that such citizenship entails. They are so used to being beat on, abused, etc. since they can remember, they don't understand what it means to be an American citizen. They love taking up the ass. It's "natural" for them. Just like that "professor" in Austin, TX. Anyone that forcibly tries to take away my rights needs to be treated like the terrorist they are. GTFO.

    31. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can sign away legal rights in a contract. It isn't dehumanizing

      No, you can't, and yes, it is. Such a stupid statement can only come from a troll.
      When you sign away basic human rights, you are less of a human. When basic human rights can be signed away, they are lessened. And just think of the nightmare that comes about when people with power can leverage others into signing away their rights. This is not difficult to reason out.

    32. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please let the adults discuss. It is quite clear you do not understand the issue at hand here if you think this is comparable to a nametag.

    33. Re:What's the big deal? by jythie · · Score: 1

      In this case, religious objection.

    34. Re:What's the big deal? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Even for a purely passive RFID this can be tens of metres.

      Can you provide a link? I work in the IT Asset Management business and I've never seen an "ID Card"-style passive RFID card that can be read from tens of metres away. Heck, finding one that works from a fixed-reader that's more than a meter away is tough.

    35. Re:What's the big deal? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      I understand that government is by us and for us I also understand that there are implied powers that the government can take. Location tracking for public schools and emergency response seem like appropriate use of implied powers.

      I'll say it again in case I wasn't clear. The government can only do what the citizens grant it to do. It cannot decide what it will and won't do itself. The citizens have not granted the government the power to track citizens. The citizens have not granted a school the power to track students and schools cannot usurp this power for themselves. They cannot and should not use coercion to gain this power (as they do in this case).

      All the other arguments about technical ranges of RFIDs and the other possibly good uses (that you point out, eg emergencies) are spurious. These outfits (school and government) simply cannot force people to be tracked against their will (even on their own premises) - which is what is happening here, and which the girl is making a case against. The technical arguments about short range etc are irrelevant. Just because she goes to school does not mean she surrenders her right to privacy at the gate eg. does the school have rights to place cameras in the toilets? for the good cause of preventing illegal drug smoking for example, or for her safety? no! it is clear this is not the case and she has a right to privacy. Whether it is cameras or RFID it is no different, the school simply has no right to mandate this if someone objects, as I'm sure a court will eventually rule.

    36. Re:What's the big deal? by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      The crazy non-intuitive part is that the decline of freedom didnt really happen until the American civil war, a war that was on the face of it all about expanding freedom to include all men and women.

      The problem with the civil war was that it was the usurping of States rights by the Federal government. Everything changed from that point forward. The States could no longer over-rule the Federal government, completely contrary to the constitution, which didnt give the Federal government rule over anything not explicitly defined within, in fact making any other authority completely verboten.

      Sure, its easily argued that freeing the slaves was a good thing, but good intentions are exactly how rights are eroded.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    37. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really I heard the same thing, it was the friend of a relative, whose dogs siblings lived right next to a county commissioner who hung out with a lawyer all day!!!

      Get real, you cannot sign away legal rights. Here is a for example if you like one. The housing code in my state says that if there is a clause in the lease that is counter to what rights the law gives, then that part of the contract is unenforceable. If the landlord had good reason to know the clause was unenforceable, the entire lease can be thrown out.

      Maybe you shouldn't listen to lawyers from the RIAA anymore.

    38. Re:What's the big deal? by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The school wants the kids to fake attendance. That th secret here. US schools are paid by attendance. Teachers taking roll call is too hard to fake without overt fraud. An electronic system allows (and greatly motivates) the students to devise systems to fake attendance, which the school can then act surprised about when the system is discovered. Much better money that way.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    39. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, I don't appreciate your tone. Let's keep it civil, thanks.

      I don't appreciate you sucking the government's cock. Go fuck yourself, you fucking fascist-enabler. Thanks.

    40. Re:What's the big deal? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Few from the USA would claim this. We have pretty darn good freedom of speech protection, not having fallen for the whole "hate speech" scam yet (hey, let's outlaw speech the government hates, it's for the best!). That's about it though. The Bill of Rights created a very free nation once, but most of that has been lost. Well, police still need a warrant from a judge for most things, so we've got that going for us.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    41. Re:What's the big deal? by readin · · Score: 1

      Also, they should have serial numbers tattooed on there arms.

      You know, to go with the theme.

      Good idea. And as reward for being so cooperative, everyone who remembers to get their tattoo should get a gold star, something they can sew on their clothes to let everyone know how patriotic they are.

      --
      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.
    42. Re:What's the big deal? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      What if a criminal wants to know your location so they can commit a crime against you?

      This is a school. I don't know what it was like for the rest of you, but my life would have turned out very differently if my school had depended on these... bullies stealing my transponder to force me to "skip class" -- kids putting up their own tracking devices or breaking into the school system so that they knew when a victim was out of class/in the bathroom/etc., kids experimenting with the transponders to increase range/burn out victims' transponders etc.

      Kids can be nasty, no matter how much zero-tolerance bullying policy is floating around.

      someone could even set up an antenna that would notify them whenever the cards showed up at specific locations off school grounds. Where would kids get the antennas etc? Need you ask? They're lying all over school property.

    43. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the moment, the government doesn't own your children but there is a day coming, sooner than you think, when children will be raised in a government run crèche. This will be to make sure they are taught the proper respect for the government, for the rules set out in Agenda 21 and so they'll happily throw themselves into the suicide booths when their time comes.

    44. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the issue is that the badge must leave school property with the student and is read by other entities (government and retailers) in the community. This level of tracking is equal in privacy invasion to the secret GPS attached to a car that created a comment storm on here previously.

    45. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, not enough citizens are watching, thinking and being critical of what their governments do. This leads to a government where the leader, elected or not, runs things by fiat. Look at how many things your current president has put into law by Executive Order when he couldn't get the House and Senate to agree. It's frightening. Things from confiscation of rural property if not used in governmentally approved sustainable fashion to relocating Hamas members to the United States.

      But back to the RFID tags. Even if the tags are short range, you do realize that these are planned for just about every use you can think of including keeping track of store inventories and doing automatic checkouts. RFID tags are used to collect info for highways and bridge tolls. You might think the readers are only in the schools but they are soon to be a ubiquitous part of the landscape.

    46. Re:What's the big deal? by readin · · Score: 1

      I personally don't see any problem with students having to wear RFID badges while they are at school.

      Put a reader on the entrance to the bathrooms so you can track how often and for how long every student is using the bathrooms. As a bonus you can use a computer to determine which students are frequently entering the restroom together.

      Add more readers in the hallway so you can track Ms. Hernandez to find out who she hangs out with, who her boyfriend most likely is, when she goes to the restroom, how long she stays there, how often she's alone...

      Put together a database for all the students and I'm sure you can sell it to both advertisers and potential employers so they can know which students were popular in school, which students hung out with the jocks, which students hung out with the dopers, which students were loners, which students hung out with emos, which students were geeks.

      Simply taking class attendence doesn't get you all that. Even simple IDs on lanyards doesn't give you all that information. But an RFID chip opens a world of possibilities.

      --
      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.
    47. Re:What's the big deal? by jythie · · Score: 1

      This needs to be modded way up.

    48. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 1

      If the government can only do what citizens grant it to do, we wouldn't have taxation nor would we have a treasury. Implied powers are a real thing. Without them the Secret Service and FBI wouldn't exist. So on and so forth. So the fact of the matter is that they have these powers, there isn't a problem tracking people on school grounds. There is a material difference between a camera (which produces an image of people on said toilets) and an RFID which simply makes a computer take a note: "Student X is in restroom Y. Is Permitted? True/False. Do nothing/Make a note." I fail to see the issue here. On school grounds time and time it has been shown that a student and their belongings (including their parked car) can be searched at any time. That is what I would call invasive, not RFID location tags. This isn't to say that all uses of implied powers are good. PATRIOT Act and NDAA are prime examples of poor uses of implied powers.

    49. Re:What's the big deal? by Arker · · Score: 1

      I see a big problem with the power and tax money of the state being used to force children into a monopolistic school system which proceeds to treat them as, and condition them to accept being treated as, cattle. I really do. A school in a free society should be geared towards teaching children the exact opposite of what this is teaching them. If our schools were doing their jobs, most or all of the students would be refusing to go along with this, instead of just one.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    50. Re:What's the big deal? by cryptolemur · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but just for clarification: are you against roll calls, too? It is "location tracking", after all. RFID is but a mere technical extension of already existing tracking, is it not?

      In your ideal world, could I live my life at the same time as a productive member of society and yet completely anonymous to everybody else?

    51. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the slippery slope started a long time ago - sometime in the 1980s. You just didn't notice it then, because you weren't too fussed about it. It always starts gradually, in a way that nobody could complain about. For instance, only a liberation nut would worry about all their purchases being tracked by a credit card company, wouldn't they...

      If you don't believe me, think what someone from the 1950s would think about today...

    52. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not be up to date. Or haven't you noticed all the companies who require you to waive your right to trial as part of their terms of service? This has already been upheld by the courts.

      Rights superscede contracts, isn't that what you said?

    53. Re:What's the big deal? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, in the scenario you describe, it could tell them exactly which camera footage to check immediately to identify what happened and get a description of the person who nabbed the student.

      You are assuming the most incompetent response in the presence of the RFID badges, therefore it seems only appropriate to assume the most incompetent response in their absence. Without badges that response might be "we don't know where to start looking so we will send one administrator to walk the halls and checking classrooms and storage rooms looking for the reportedly missing student and if we don't find her in the two hours that takes, we will know she's not on school property".

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    54. Re:What's the big deal? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Even for a purely passive RFID this can be tens of metres.

      As opposed to those really scary things, human eyes, which have a range of tens of meters and, even more scary, cameras which can have effective ranges (w/appropriate lenses) of hundreds of meters.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    55. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying someone seeing you in public is the same as a being required to inform the government of your every destination, and who you are traveling with.

    56. Re:What's the big deal? by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      What if a criminal wants to know your location so they can commit a crime against you?

      If you're really arguing this, I hope you don't use a mobile phone, make exclusive use of VPNs, never post to a site like slashdot that doesn't use SSL, disable JavaScript, only connect through WIFI points, don't use email (since its sent unencrypted) and pay cash for everything. Also you don't leave the house (otherwise a criminal may follow you home to commit a crime, since they can identify you using your license plate, they're unique after all!) or talk to anyone since they might commit a crime against you, since statistically you're most likely to get raped by a friend or family member. Also you boycott stores which use RFID tags to track inventory since the technology is inherently evil.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    57. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Slavery is only legal if it's punishment for a crime. Contractually you're limited to what amounts to indentured servitude.

    58. Re:What's the big deal? by theArtificial · · Score: 2

      No TOS, no code of conduct, no contract, no employer's regulations, NOTHING supersedes your rights as established by law.

      Let's use an NDA, or a Security Clearance as an example. NDAs are contracts. These contracts restrict you from talking about something you otherwise would be able to. You could still do it, but you'll be facing penalties for doing so. These are not 'rolling over and playing dead' these are agreements entered into willingly. If you break the agreement it means your word is worthless, how about not agreeing to something you otherwise have no intention of doing.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    59. Re:What's the big deal? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      School RFID tags are a moot point when you realize that sometime next year you're going to be called to your doctor's office to have your ObamaCare RFID chips implanted, one in each hand. The you, your child, everyone will be trackable 24/7.

      You need to keep tightening that tin foil hat of yours. Much, much tighter as you are still getting some (limited) blood supply to your brain. It would be best if you cut it off entirely.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    60. Re:What's the big deal? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      I understand the point you are trying to make. However, the important part of my argument boils down to this: roll calls are accepted by the citizenry, RFID is not. Now there will be a court case to determine whether the use of RFID for tracking students can be mandated. The court may or may not determine that RFID is permitted. However, the fact that the citizen can challenge it is the basis of my argument - the US government (or school) cannot simply take powers (even if a mildly similar thing has been permitted in this past). Because it cannot simply take powers the courts are able to prevent the government from doing such things - based on the government is unable to create new powers for itself. That some other system has been allowed elsewhere does not automatically mean the government (or a school) can do as it pleases.

      The fact there are limitations on the US government in this way is the real strength of the US (nb: I'm not a US citizen, just callin' it how I see it). It is not merely democracy that brings strength to the US, plenty of other countries have elections but have no power to challenge the government (which means those government, eg, Russia, China, Iran can do as they please, and citizens have little *effective* recourse). In the US the government tries to do as it pleases (as the school does in this case) but two facts keep the government in check. The first is the government can be legally challenged (and must obey the courts), and the second is that the government acknowledges that it gets its legitimacy from the people (unlike some other countries).

      It is not an 'ideal world' (implying some kind of fantasy land, yes?) that I'm talking about. I'm talking about how the actual US system of governance, power structure (from the people, not a strongman or clique) and 'checks and balances' were constructed. Yes, the US government does overstep its power. It gets away with it because either the people acquiesce, or they don't care (too busy following mindless celebrities tweeting inane bullshit over irrelevant subjects/bitchfights). But the significant thing is, just because the government gets away with it does not mean that the government is doing it legally or cannot be challenged about it - as this girl is attempting to do. Don't be defeatist and talk as if just because the US government oversteps existing bounds that the situation is hopeless. The creators of the system knew that the government would do this (and sometimes should do this, for efficiency reasons as the government adapts to situations), but they also put in place a balance against this. This girl is part of the balance. My posts were about the poster who could not understand why the girl (or anyone) would attempt to maintain their privacy. It is all part of the way the system was designed (and not only in an 'ideal' sense, but in compensating for the messy and complicated 'real' world).

      In your ideal world, could I live my life at the same time as a productive member of society and yet completely anonymous to everybody else?

      Please re-phrase. Your intent is unclear. I'll take a guess though. If you mean that it is impossible to be completely anonymous in a practical level while still integrating into society then you are somewhat right. However that doesn't mean you don't have a right to privacy, or to limit the information collected about you, or to try be anonymous if you so choose. All of those principles held up by US courts and legislators (for the most part). This is why there is such a stink that they are being eroded. This is why many of us are amazed that folks like you seek to justify the government stripping them away - which is essentially what you are doing, even if you don't think you are (implying those that to uphold those rights are ideologues that only understand idealized models of reality when it is not so).

    61. Re:What's the big deal? by JonySuede · · Score: 1
      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    62. Re:What's the big deal? by kcitren · · Score: 1

      RFID is not GPS tracking, this isn't an issue about privacy. There's no new information being giving out. It's a technical improvement over standard photo ID badges. It's a school, they should have student IDs, for a number of reasons (security being just one).

    63. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utter bogus bullshit. You BELIEVED that nonsense? It's been ruled, again and again, that you cannot sign away any of your rights with a contract. No TOS, no code of conduct, no contract, no employer's regulations, NOTHING supersedes your rights as established by law. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the right to be secure in your person and your home, all of that is LAW, and nothing supersedes it.

      You really have no idea what you're talking about. Modifying rights is precisely what contracts do. Every standard, run-of-the-mill contract involves giving up some right in exchange for consideration. For example, I might give up my property right to a widget in exchange for money. Alternately, I might give up my right to file a lawsuit, or speak publicly about a settlement, or seek employment in an certain market, etc...

      On the other hand, some contracts cannot be enforced, and are void as a matter of public policy. SOME rights can't be signed away. No one can enforce a contract for slavery, gambling, prostitution, an illicit drug deal, or any number of other aspects of your life, but that's hardly the default position.

      source: law school, years of practice and any and every civil dispute ever

    64. Re:What's the big deal? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      If the government can only do what citizens grant it to do, we wouldn't have taxation nor would we have a treasury.

      You jest, right? taxation is accepted by the citizens as a mean for providing communal welfare that everyone benefits from. One would have to be completely ignorant or rather backward to argue against taxes. What people do is argue about the level of taxation and what ought to be taxed and what should not. Although really taxation levels are a little bit of a 'red herring' (misdirection). When people protest against taxation usually they are talking about the wrong thing - they are opposed to government *wastage* of the collected revenue, rather than against taxes collect for communal benefit.

      So the fact of the matter is that they have these powers, there isn't a problem tracking people on school grounds.

      They do not have those powers. The government has no powers except those granted by legislation. Even if the government does something routinely, and the citizens don't mind, it still does not mean the government has a particular power to do anything. The first successful legal challenge to the government against an action the government is not legislated to perform restricts that action. This is what the girl is attempting to do.

      There is a material difference between a camera (which produces an image of people on said toilets) and an RFID which simply makes a computer take a note: "Student X is in restroom Y. Is Permitted?

      I doubt there is legislation in the US that permits US citizens to be tracked by RFID or any other technology except for appointed agencies who have judicial oversight (eg. the FBI must often get court orders - although there are blanket laws that are starting to come into effect, but they are not relevant for a case of students tracked by their school).

      I fail to see the issue here.

      Well, I'm trying to give you insight into what the problem was. I cannot help if you personally cannot grok the arguments against the actions of the school (fortunately outfits like the EFF and US Supreme Court can). It's ok if you lack the imagination to follow the particulars of the objections of others, just please understand that others understand the many issues very well - and are opposed to the action of the school (which is why there is this stink about it on Slashdot). Fortunately the high school girl also understands the issue at hand better then you. We need more courageous people prepared to make a stand over *existing* rights.

      This isn't to say that all uses of implied powers are good.

      What is the legal basis for the "implied powers" you describe? the government either has a power granted to it by law, or it does not. The government can take any action it wishes, but if there is not legislation to back it up then the government is in the wrong and has to make amends and stop doing it in the future. If you are suggesting that because the government does something, even frequently, that is not permitted by law then it somehow has gained an "implicit" power then you are mistaken - it has gained nothing and a successful court challenge will show the government to be wrong, no matter how many times the government has taken the action against an acquiescing population.

    65. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 1

      The government is allowed to take reasonable actions as a means toward its ends. The school is mandated to look after the students (I believe this is called "in loco parentis") . This is left open ended and they use suitable means to ensure that mandate is met. They have the mandate to ensure students are safe and attending school, therefore they avail themselves of technology suitable to the task. In this case that is RFID tag technology. Implied powers have been a part of our government since the very beginning you can look it up if you want.

    66. Re:What's the big deal? by phorm · · Score: 1

      you cannot sign away any of your rights with a contract

      Tell that to anyone who signed (or hell, clicked) an agreement that enforces arbitration over class-action. The last case in court upheld the arbitration clause.

    67. Re:What's the big deal? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's condition our children to be treated like cattle. I'm sure that will do wonders for our free society!

      They already are. In fact if you are worried about your calfs "freedom" then RFID tracking is _better_ than a roll call because it gives your calf the freedom to be down the street while an accomplice scans in their RFID badge. Your +5 Insightful score is overrated.

    68. Re:What's the big deal? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      The particulars of the technology are irrelevant. The courts have decided for now that RFID tracking may not be imposed on the student. Yes, I understand the difference between GPS and RFID (I'm an ex-astrophysicist, so probably understand a lot better than most).

    69. Re:What's the big deal? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      The government is allowed to take reasonable actions as a means toward its ends.

      The government cannot take actions that are against existing laws. There are laws in the US that protect privacy. So far the court has an injunction that prevents the school from forcing the student to wear RFID. Meanwhile it figures out which of any laws that affect the issue should come into play. Whether or not something is 'reasonable' holds far far less weight then what the statute books say. Again, the US government is not controlled by what is reasonable, it is controlled by statutes. It appears that the court has ruled that the student does not have to submit to surveillance. The same applies to the US government. When they overstep the mark they can be prosecuted based on legal grounds whether what they have done is reasonable or not. This is one reason the US government is petrified of wikileaks and whistleblowers, they know they are doing things they should not.

      Implied powers have been a part of our government since the very beginning you can look it up if you want.

      Implied powers apply to Congress and relate to powers not explicitly stated in the US Constitution that *are necessary to exercise the powers that are* (explicitly laid out in the Constitution). Any implied powers can be traced back to the Constitution even if not explicitly listed there. I wonder which clause in the Constitution you think allows government (or schools) to conduct routine surveillance on its citizens (pupils). The implied powers do not mean what you think they do. Congress cannot simply make up powers that they want, such as tracking citizens. It has to make a law first if it wants to do that. Furthermore, branches of the government that are not Congress don't have implied power - they have zero power apart from those granted by the legislative branch (that is, they have no implied power, as you appear to claim). A school certainly has no power to compel a student to forgo privacy (as is her claim, and the has agreed with her as it does its research to consider all the relevant legislation).

    70. Re:What's the big deal? by jwdb · · Score: 1

      So sorry, be willing to pay for 3x as many teachers/TA's or drop your argument.

      Perfectly reasonable. If there are too few adults present to manage the students, there are definitely too few present to teach them, so damn right I'm willing to pay.

    71. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 1

      Well if that is the case, why haven't schools been forced to remove their camera systems from the hallways since that is also surveillance? Why then is it common practice (upheld by the courts and case law) that a student and his/her belongings may be searched without consent or suspicion while they are on school grounds? It seems to me that if this is the straw that breaks the camel's back it's been blown out of proportion. I'd much rather submit to having an RFID badge than know that whatever I bring may be searched without my knowledge.

    72. Re:What's the big deal? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Highschoolers are not children....

    73. Re:What's the big deal? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      The chip does link to the kids social security number so yeah it's basically the same thing...

    74. Re:What's the big deal? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      It's going to be real funny one day when you are driving by a house where a murder is taking place and get called in as the prime person of interest because the killer didn't have his tracking device on and you where the only person that showed up anywhere close to that house at that time...

      Data Mining... It's a bitch...

    75. Re:What's the big deal? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      "Student X is in restroom Y. Is Permitted? True/False. Do nothing/Make a note." I fail to see the issue here.

      No student X is in their class because they left their card and then went to the bathroom... That's why next year we are going to implant the chips in them...

      Dumbass...

    76. Re:What's the big deal? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Because there isn't one. Tracking student attendance is commonplace and has been for many years. Tracking student location is also commonplace. This device simply automates it. Now if she can make a case based on her religion then good on her but the right to privacy is usually suspended while on campus. In my district, this took the form of a signed agreement form by parent and student agreeing that, while on school property and/or time, the Code of Conduct superseded legal rights. You can sign away legal rights in a contract. It isn't dehumanizing and many workplaces use RFID cards to restrict access to sensitive areas and to keep track of who is coming into the building. There is a lot of FUD surrounding this kind of thing and so long as these are limited to schools and workplaces I fail to see any problem.

      This is what the end goal is people... To create more idiots like this who have no idea that you can't sign away your rights.... This is where everything is going and it's going to make a few people very rich and enslave the rest of us....

    77. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're full of conspiracy theory shit. RFID != enslavement.

    78. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 1

      I am not a troll. I don't appreciate being called stupid and attacked when I don't understand. I am a friendly person, I believe in the inherent goodness of man and trust is my default position. It's made my life mostly stress-free and rewarding. I learned that when you sign a contract, you can sign away such things as your right to free speech on a topic (NDAs), your right not to be searched (such as when working at a sensitive location), and your right to intellectual property (which was the cornerstone of the lesson being taught then in the class). I extrapolate this, based on my own relatively recent experience in public school, to mean that such rights are suspended by mutual consent of both the parent and student when they agree to the terms of the Code of Conduct. I may indeed be wrong but I'm simply putting the facts together as I see them. Furthermore, I have no problem with my location being tracked. I don't go anywhere that is unusual. I go home, to work, to college, to my girlfriend's place, to the movies, to restaurants, to church...nothing noteworthy. I don't care who knows where I am because quite frankly it isn't all that available. I don't broadcast it consciously but if it ends up happening it's really no harm as far as I can understand. I think that the likelihood of someone with nefarious intent getting a hold of that information, identifying me specifically and doing something that I really give a shit about is so remote I don't bother myself with it. It's just undue stress.

    79. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 1

      I don't take kindly to being called an idiot. I asked a simple question and I would like to understand. Treating people rudely isn't a way to foster mutual understanding.

    80. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a better one for you, the principal of my daughter's elementary school insists that the law does not apply to him. He says he only must follow district policy and refuses any complaints about violations of laws. The school board refuses to hear any complaints unless the follow the proper process, but they refuse to tell you the process and claims under things like open records laws are ignored as they claim they aren't subject to them.

      Just waiting for my current legal battle to be over to press that one in court. Its a shame I have to wait, but the custody case is more important and I can't afford both.

    81. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a free society? Since when? I thought Bush did away with that back in 2001...

    82. Re:What's the big deal? by erice · · Score: 1

      I don't get this ultimate desire for privacy.

      It is not the government's business what you do - provided you are not committing terrorism etc. This is a fundamental principle.

      It is only fundamental if you can not articulate the reasons.

      This is about power. Information is power. If the state has more information about individuals, it shifts the balance of power toward the state and away from individuals. Increased surveillance might be counter balanced by reducing the authority of the state (you can have the information but you can't do anything useful with it) or by increasing transparency.

      Unfortunately, privacy erosion tends to be paired with increased regulation and/or reduced transparency. It should be fought.

    83. Re:What's the big deal? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can call the authorities and have me arrested... I mean being offended is just like being raped and needs to be treated as a serous crime.

    84. Re:What's the big deal? by guitarMan666 · · Score: 1

      I just try to keep the tone civil. I'm not offended, it just isn't necessary.

    85. Re:What's the big deal? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Well put. The reason I called it "fundamental" is because it was one of the principles used to found the colonies. Not the word "privacy" per-se, but that by default the government has no business being in your life. The government does not make tradeoffs granting you liberty vs restrictions they want. The idea is you start free, is it not? you don't have to request your freedoms as concessions from the government, this idea is you are born with them. Now it may not work out like this in practice in the modern world, but innate freedom was part of the ideals founding the US, unless I'm badly mistaken. That is what makes it "fundamental" (for US citizens at least).

      While I like your argument to me it seems flawed. You do not actually horse-trade liberties with the government, because the US government cannot take your rights away from you (although they try, slyly). You permit the government to do certain things for the common benefit, it is a concession the people allow, not a negotiation. The government has no inherit right to demand these things from you. It is a subtle but absolutely crucial difference. If one doesn't grasp this difference then one can't make the correct argument, and we'll end up conceeding our own liberties unnecessarily. It is very very important to understand the starting point, the people do not trade liberties with a government entitled to make demands. People allow the government to take actions on their behalf - and the people can change their minds (eg. by electing new representatives that change the laws; such as a coloured president with a dovish and progressive agenda).

    86. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just made his argument valid, since what is at risk is the right to privacy and unreasonable search.

      The Supreme Court has established there is an implied "right to be left alone".

      Where are implied rights? In Amendments IX and X which say that:

      Amendment IX:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X:

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Meaning that unless there is a right to privacy, unless the Constitution specifically denies or abridges that right... which it does do by way of warrants.

      This is no different from the GPS ruling that says you need a warrant to track them. Now, arguably, the parent could assent to that tracking and a minor could not object without relief from a court, but that is not the case here. And, upon turning 18 and reaching the age of majority, you could say "fuck no" and they could not track you.

      But hey... it is "for the children" so why not abridge their rights?
       

    87. Re:What's the big deal? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The problem is that people care. They have proven that time and time again. The government and others in power are so obsessed with maintaining control that they'll use any data they have against you.

      I would have agreed with you 20 years ago but we live in a time where buying some chemicals or more than a few bags of fertiliser gets you put on a list with repercussions which can cause you massive grief next time you get on an aircraft or apply for a job.

      In the name of catching the terrorism boogeyman the government it using every bit of information to vilify the people. Oh and given the amount of laws chances are you're committing a crime right now without even knowing about it.

    88. Re:What's the big deal? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Free speech and NDAs are two completely different things. Free speech does not give you the right to saw whatever the fuck you want about what or who you want. The right to free speech protects you from criminal prosecution for asserting you're beliefs. Civil charges, such as breach of contract can still be brought against your for all manner of reasons. Case in point, slander or libel.

      Also the subject of NDAs are restricted. You'll be hard pressed finding a court able to prosecute a NDA for things not related to trade secrets. Just because you can be sued for breach of contract does not mean you will lose.

    89. Re:What's the big deal? by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Free speech and NDAs are two completely different things.

      With respect to Security Clearances are those not contracts, too? Are you claiming you're also unable to enter into an NDA with the Government?

      Just because you can be sued for breach of contract does not mean you will lose

      True. Although how about avoiding breaking your word in the first place?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    90. Re:What's the big deal? by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about tens of meters, but if you look at toll road implementations, you'll see that it can be read from at least several meters. I only mismanage assets though, so I'm not familiar with tags used in warehouses.

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    91. Re:What's the big deal? by marnues · · Score: 1

      A visibile id card is a sign of a place I'd never want to work. I've been at places that tried that. Thankfully unlike this poor girl I wasn't alone in my opposition.

    92. Re:What's the big deal? by marnues · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point. None of those things allow someone to know exactly where someone is located in real time. If a school administrator fancies one of the students, this system enables knowing exactly where a student is and if any other students are nearby. And then what happens when students start building readers. This goes downhill quickly.

    93. Re:What's the big deal? by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      None of those things allow someone to know exactly where someone is located in real time.

      You do realize that RFID has a limited range, measured in the 10s of feet, right? Are the hypothetical students with RFID readers going to know that they're at school, perhaps in the same class (or next to it?) If you're that concerned what are your thoughts on someone stealing the attendance sheet, is it no big deal since its not real time? I take it you're against children possessing a mobile phone because it broadcasts their location. This is a complete non issue. If you're worried about "criminals" locating students on campus, there are much larger issues to be addressed than the badge, such as someone wandering the halls.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    94. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there isn't one. Tracking student attendance is commonplace and has been for many years. Tracking student location is also commonplace. This device simply automates it. Now if she can make a case based on her religion then good on her but the right to privacy is usually suspended while on campus. In my district, this took the form of a signed agreement form by parent and student agreeing that, while on school property and/or time, the Code of Conduct superseded legal rights. You can sign away legal rights in a contract. It isn't dehumanizing and many workplaces use RFID cards to restrict access to sensitive areas and to keep track of who is coming into the building. There is a lot of FUD surrounding this kind of thing and so long as these are limited to schools and workplaces I fail to see any problem.

      Ok buddy, tell me , for real: Were you actually born in a barn or what? Mark my words pal: codes of conduct, school rules and so on are trumpedby local laws (as in county, or city laws), local laws are trumped by state laws, which in turn are trumped by federal stuff, which in turn is trumped by Constitution, please remember this, NOTHING TRUMPS CONSTITUTION. If anything goes against constitution, it is simply deemed "inconstitutional", and cannot be applied, it is as simple as that. If a lesser rule goes against a higher order one, it becomes de facto overruled.

      And no you just CAN'T waive rights. If a contract demands you to do so, then the document is worth nothing, either completely or just that part, but it depends on the conditions of that particular document.

    95. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't "waive" the right to sue. You say you wont do it because you recieved X usd for not doing so

    96. Re:What's the big deal? by AUX4Ever · · Score: 1

      I think sheep is a better analogy. Just follow along and don't cause a stir.

    97. Re:What's the big deal? by redlemming · · Score: 1

      Contract law is the bread-and-butter of the legal profession. Unfortunately, this means that legal professionals as a class in society are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the scope of contract law.

      In other words, the greater the extent to which contracts can be used to infringe fundamental rights, the more money legal professionals can expect to make over their careers from those organizations with lots of money and interests that require or benefit from infringing those rights.

      As a result of this conflict of interest, in recent decades, there have been all sorts of attempts by legal professionals to take contract law to places it should never have gone.

      This is very evident to those of us who actually read contracts and licenses, such as some of the absurd "shrink-wrap" licenses that come with software. If you actually read some of these, you'll see some very ugly things.

      For example, you might reasonably expect to be able to treat a software package like a used book, delete it from your computer, and sell it to somebody else. The idea that this should be allowed naturally follows from the concept of strong property rights, which naturally allows one to sell one's property. We can think of this as a "Right to Transfer". Many "shrink-wrap" contracts attempt to infringe these kinds of basic rights.

      Large numbers of people nevertheless sell used software, which demonstrates that the lawyers as a class in society and the rest of the population have very different ideas about what constitutes reasonable conduct. Ethical conflicts of interest are a bad thing for society.

    98. Re:What's the big deal? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      ...aaand you just gained another Friend. For someone outside the US, you have an excellent grasp of why never ceasing to fight this growing trend of fascism is vitally important.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    99. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it works, very well. As an example, they are used in new lift passes at ski areas to allow both low power individual badge authentication and high power long range reading (20+ ft in all weather conditions) for tracking patrons and analytics.

      Here is an example badge:
      http://www.zebra.com/content/dam/zebra/product-information/en-us/brochures-datasheets/supplies-accessories/final-uhf-carddatasheet-en-us.pdf

      The technology is Gen2 UHF RFID which is just starting to make inroads in the ID industry, as opposed to less expensive HF or UHF.

    100. Re:What's the big deal? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No my point was that the right to free speech is not an unless ticket to do whatever you want with you vocal cords and be immune from all legal action. The fundamental human right covers ideas, politics and religion. In most countries there's a hell of a lot of restrictions on free speech clauses written in law and freedom of speech does not cover the speech that NDAs are allowed to sign away.

      Again you can't sign away your rights as written in law. People just don't seem to realise how narrow their rights really are.

    101. Re:What's the big deal? by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      No my point was that the right to free speech is not an unless ticket to do whatever you want with you vocal cords and be immune from all legal action

      So Security Clearances and NDAs are not contracts? Did you read the point I was replying to? He specifically said that there is no contract which you can sign away your rights with and I provided two examples. I'll list a 3rd, what do you call it when you sign up with the Military, the document you sign? It specifically prohibits what you're allowed to say (and do while in uniform), just like a security clearance, or an NDA (especially if you're doing work for the Government). Regardless what your stance is, these are contracts which limit your ability to speak out.

      People just don't seem to realise how narrow their rights really are.

      I agree.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    102. Re:What's the big deal? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Again you're not signing away a right because you never actually had the right to say anything you want. See my earlier points on slander and libel, and I don't even need you to sign a contract for you to get in trouble in those cases.

      You could for instance try and sign a contract that bans you from speaking against a political party or about a religion, but that would be struck down by courts because that kind of speech specifically falls under the right to free speech.

    103. Re:What's the big deal? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Many thanks.

      I try my best, within the limitations of a fallible primate - which is why I like your signature quote so much :) Here's a longer-winded gem from the famous Carl Sagan, just in case you haven't come across is before:

      In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

      With regard to the rights of citizens in civilized countries. The laws in each country are starting to influence each other (politicians see ideas from elsewhere). We have to stand together to be strong (lol, this the original definition of fascism, from the symbolic 'fascia' bundle).

      Peace (but not appeasement), solidarity (but not fascism), harmony (but not oppression) :)

    104. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Just plain no.
      Never does a contract supersede the law, even when in agreement.
      You consign a contract between you and someone else to do something, or not, like being quiet as of an NDA, and it is still your right to talk, but then, that would be a breach of the contract for which the counterpart can sue, for return of coconsideration and potential damages arising from your breach, and this is where civil courts comes in.

      The law is the law, and if the contract violates the law or the intent of the law, then that part of the contract will simply be disregarded by the courts, and you can scream all you want, but it won't happen..
      A good example of this is non-competition clauses in employment contracts, that for example states you can't take on employment wit hinmyour field within say 5 years if you leave the employer. Such contracts has been declared null and void, as they breach your rights .

      If a contract violates the criminal laws, it can be seen as an offence and incitement or intent to commit criminal actions, whichmin itself is a criminal offense - see the contract about killing someone,.
      If a contract violates civil law, then those parts of the contract that does, simply unenforceable in account of law, should either party attempt to, but the enforceable parts of the contract still stands.

  4. hm? by etash · · Score: 1

    what's with the sudden outbreak of intelligent judges' decisions in the US ?

    1. Re:hm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally, because the elections are over, so it's politically more convenient to not have to be as ideological.

  5. Re:I can understand her by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You took the ball and ran the wrong way. This has nothing to do with fear of radio transmissions of any kind. It is about privacy and principle

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  6. WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS BEHAVIOUR !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would John Jay think ??

  7. There must be some faulty logic at stake. by cripkd · · Score: 1

    Had she mentioned the invasion of privacy in the first step and the "the number of the beast" maybe they would have listened and people would have given her more credit.

    The problem with religion is that people who believe in certain things will always argue that it's their right to belive in something and that the value fo truth of the said religion it's a matter of personal belief, hence it cannot be proved correct or otherwise from outisde nor do they want to listen to those arguments (granted, it's their right to do so).
    Then why is some form of authority guilty of infringing those beliefs from outside buy implementing something that one religion interprets in some way inside it's system of beliefs?
    Trying to explain, in this case, that the RFID tag is not the number of the beast is a dead-end (and I don't even care if IT IS the number of the beast) but in this way a religion could reject anything.
    Some parts of the society can decide that they cannot function unless they implement a certain mechanism and some individuals will decide unidirectionaly that those mechanisms be dropped because some scriptures can be interpreted in such a way. (The Christian church has not decided in it's totality that barcodes and rfid tags are the mark of the beast nor are they unequivocally identified as such in the Bible.)

    --
    Curiously yours, crip.
    1. Re:There must be some faulty logic at stake. by cripkd · · Score: 1

      Replying my own post here...
      TFA only presents the father's opinion which, I'm sorry to say so, seems to be very subjective. I seriously doubt that the school literally asked the girl to proudly wear the tag around her neck. Something in the way he "sais" it makes me think he's a bit ... well, subjective.
      Why isn't TFA presenting the schools reasons for implementing this systems, what are it's goals, what was the process by which this solution was chosen, how were the students informed about this etc.
      Oh, blogs are not journalism (not that journalism is real journalism this days anyway).

      --
      Curiously yours, crip.
    2. Re:There must be some faulty logic at stake. by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some parts of the society can decide that they cannot function unless they implement a certain mechanism

      The fact that our society has managed to function for ages without having already implemented such a mechanism disproves your argument entirely.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    3. Re:There must be some faulty logic at stake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the problem is that the actual PRIVACY concerns would never have been taken seriously. Its not something our society values. By framing her objections as religious ones, she turned it into a first-amendment fight, which get taken a lot more seriously.

    4. Re:There must be some faulty logic at stake. by cripkd · · Score: 1

      Yes, our "society" has "functioned" for ages without basic commodities too.
      So possibility of living without a certain comfort or rule doesn't make that rule wrong or that comfort a whim.
      Again, did anyone care to look into this school's reasons and rules to implement this program?
      I'm not from the US so I don;t know, is this a public or a private school? If it's a public school, were they notified in advance of what will the campus life involve?
      Are they free to join another school?

      --
      Curiously yours, crip.
    5. Re:There must be some faulty logic at stake. by cripkd · · Score: 1

      Does the first amendment allow you to interpret anything in your own way based on YOUR beliefs and then decide that someone else is evil because they don't follow the same interpretation? This is what I understand from what you're saying.
      I agree on the privacy concerns.

      --
      Curiously yours, crip.
    6. Re:There must be some faulty logic at stake. by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Are they free to join another school?

      Dear God, what has our nation come to?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    7. Re:There must be some faulty logic at stake. by readin · · Score: 2

      Yes, our "society" has "functioned" for ages without basic commodities too. So possibility of living without a certain comfort or rule doesn't make that rule wrong or that comfort a whim.

      One of the prices we pay for living in a society that values freedom of religion, and freedom in general, is accepting a certain amount of non-conformity and sometimes making exemptions for people. For example, during WWII many people who belonged to certain religious organizations were not required to carry a weapon and kill others because they had well-known long-standing religious beliefs. In some cases they were asked to do other things such as treating wounded, but they were not required to do the killing their religion forbade.

      If a school dress code requires people to remove their hats inside the building, Jews and Sikhs should be allowed to keep their hats on. In the case of Sikhs it might be reasonable to ask them to minimize the size of the hair covering ( so as not to block the view of students behind them in class), but the religious freedom to covering the hair should be respected if at all possible.

      In this case the student has a religious objection to the RFID. There is no indication that she is rejecting it for some nefarious reason or out of some ulterior motive (as might be suspected if someone suddenly announced that their religion requires them to smoke crack three time a day). Her objection is based on writings that have existed for 1500 years or more, so she didn't just make it up. One might question her interpretation, but it is certainly an interpretation a reasonable person might make and she doesn't appear to be making that interpretation honestly.

      Personally I think the RFID for students is a bad idea for privacy reasons, and for that reason should not be required of any student. But looking at it purely on religious grounds the school should be making an exception for her (and without making her pretend she supports the policy).

      --
      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.
  8. Re:I can understand her by zyzko · · Score: 1

    RFID passports have been demonstrated to be read from meters away, in 2004 someone I trust on this one gave a number of 20 meters.. The tag in question seems to include personal information embedded so it is not just an electronic key and given that even passport RFID security has been show to have weaknesses, even so much that US now includes built-in shielding in passports I would not automatically trust my personal info on $randomcompany's RFID implementation.

  9. Re:I can understand her by jitterman · · Score: 2

    You've either posted a successful troll comment, or have truly misunderstood the girl's points of objection.

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  10. Given how wacky my high school was by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Trying to keep tabs on us at all times, even considering it was over 20 years ago, I've got to side with the kid this time.(Especially given how much data they could get now with this tech. They'll probably abuse it.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:Given how wacky my high school was by mysidia · · Score: 2

      They'll probably abuse it.)

      Data on when the student enters and exits the classroom?

      In what manner is it even possible to abuse that; which doesn't exist with normal manual attendance taking?

    2. Re:Given how wacky my high school was by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      They'll probably abuse it.)

      Data on when the student enters and exits the classroom?

      In what manner is it even possible to abuse that; which doesn't exist with normal manual attendance taking?

      No, not that
      Data on where/how the student spends her lunch break.
      Data on when the student goes to the bathroom.
      Not to mention concerns regarding fake card swipes (oh, the student is missing? But she was regularly attending every class with her friend for the last two days. With the exact same entry/exit times, too.).

    3. Re:Given how wacky my high school was by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Data on where/how the student spends her lunch break.

      What kind of data on where the student spends his or her lunch break? In most cases, this has to be on school premises, and the student is to be in a specific area during lunch break: that they are not allowed to leave. So there should be no data to gather here in the first place....

      Data on when the student goes to the bathroom.

      And how would the school abuse that? It's not as if there is any risk or harm done by the school knowing that detail

      In most schools... students need permission to gain access to the bathroom during class, or whenever a staff member isn't present in the bathroom to monitor it, anyways, and the halls, including often, the hall where the bathroom's located, will be monitored by cameras. The bathrooms in large schools are ordinarily kept locked to prevent vandalism, and hall monitors are placed to monitor students' access to the hallways and movements, for proper authorization. The student who is granted permission for bathroom, receives a pass, and/or bathroom key, after the name, date, time, and bathroom pass/key number is recorded, with their signature, and the student gets the bathroom pass, which is essentially a card key that the student uses to access the bathroom. In other words: This can be recorded and often is recorded to provide accountability, in case, the facility is abused by the student.

    4. Re:Given how wacky my high school was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how would the school abuse that?

      How ? That easy: Just, as a teacher, talk down to the kid where the whole class is present. Fun for everybody --- except the kid itself ofcourse.

      Another way: "Leaves the room for 'bathroom-breaks' often" in its permanent record. Just imagine how that can damage its future career.

      If I'm really devious I could even imagine a school selling that kind of data to interested third parties. Just imagine how glad the kid will than be by recieving 'adult diapers' advertisements (at home and school?)

      A better question is: Why would a school need to know such details ?

      And ofcourse: why such "must be able to track" only works for a subgroup, and not all of the people in the building (including the teachers and most certainly the higher management ofcourse, with all parties having access to the data ofcourse).

      Captcha: picking - Only others but not me.

    5. Re:Given how wacky my high school was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ......
      When my son needs to go the bathrom, he has to raise his hand and ask if he can use the bathroom. If his teacher allows it, he goes. That's it. No passes, locks, camera's, nothing. This is, afaik, pretty much the norm here (netherlands).

      I thought Americans valued their freedoms so much? Or is it only the more insane 'freedoms', like owning guns 'to protect yourself', and low taxes, so you're 'free' to die because you're too stupid to make the right decision between healthcare and buying more stuff?

  11. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She shouldnt accept that! Who cares if they arent powerful enough to track long range now. They will be! And accepting it now means having it forced on all of us later. There is no reason for rfid tracking devices and don't let any institution try to force one on you. The illusion of liberty is slowly fading.

  12. Why do we even bother with schools anymore? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Let's just send the little delinquents straight to prison.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Why do we even bother with schools anymore? by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 2

      The prison industry is thriving and set to continue growing. I'd actually not be surprised to see that happen. I could think of a dozen reasons, but here's one.

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    2. Re:Why do we even bother with schools anymore? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The difference is shades of gray.

  13. Re:I can understand her by hypergreatthing · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's also extremely easy for me to point out that you didn't read the article(s) and understand why she objects to wearing it. As a fellow amateur radio "expert" I'd like to point out that the badge's transmit capability was never in question. Let alone you forget that the reader is the part that's plugged into the outlet pumping out any discernible wattage which you didn't take into consideration. Even that withstanding, it's not about radio transmissions at all. It's about privacy, the invisible man in the sky, and first amendment rights, and an overreaching school board.

  14. Simple Science by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given that the school claims to be a "Science and Engineering Academy" surely it isn't that hard for the students to figure out how to disable the RFID chips either by passive screening, hammer or quick zap in the microwave? That way the idiots in charge can go on in blissful ignorance and the students don't get tracked remotely but still have the ID card functionality.

    1. Re:Simple Science by qbast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And get expelled for destruction of school property, great idea.

    2. Re:Simple Science by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry sir, I left my ID card in my pants while trying to dry them off in the microwave oven, I was in a hurry this morning.

    3. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      They're doing the best they can do at the moment while staying legal, rather than be a complete moron like you and frying property that isn't theirs. You're just as bad as the "idiots in charge", except they seem smarter than you...

    4. Re:Simple Science by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They're doing the best they can do at the moment while staying legal...

      So exposure to certain, harmless forms of EM radiation is now illegal because it might damage the school property that you are required to wear? Not to mention the possibility of using a passive metal screen to simply block the signal as some do with passports...seems you were not smart enough to consider that possibility even when it was pointed out to you.

    5. Re:Simple Science by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And get expelled for destruction of school property, great idea.

      How does a passive EM shield destroy school property?

    6. Re:Simple Science by Sique · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is illegal, because it causes avoidable and irreparable damage to school property. And is it really harmless if it is deadly for any living being inside of the microwave?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Simple Science by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      You really are an anonymous coward. And stupid too.

    8. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting the magical term that absolves you of guilt for a crime that you have committed: "It was like that when I got here."

    9. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's OK son, we'll just bill you the full cost we're charged by our overpriced vendor.

    10. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't, but unless you fight the school in court you will still be expelled for "bypassing their security measures" regardless of if it is technically true or not.

      She have chosen to fight the problem directly instead of playing a cat and mouse game with the school first. Our society is currently built in a way that makes this preferable so I can see why she decided to do that.

    11. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you'll get issued another one when you tell them you have no idea why the original stopped working. Then what - keep nuking it?

    12. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Says the person who signs his post as "SuperTechnoNerd". You're just as anonymous as AC - unless you plan on posting your real name here.

    13. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, for a science and engineering student - they couldnt hack the RFID chip?
      its just a passive antenna - and they didnt discover how to jam it? - if they're that
      dumb, then they need to be expelled.

    14. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you dumb? I specifically mentioned that frying the device would be a bad idea. Blocking stuff in tinfoil isn't illegal, fucking duh. Either way, it's still gaming the system and it doesn't help any other students but you, whom it doesn't help much. So yes, I hold what I said, apparently the student in the article outsmarts both of you by a mile.

    15. Re:Simple Science by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      And get expelled for destruction of school property, great idea.

      yeah because no one has ever accidentally left their badge in their pocket and washed the clothes.

      but she might want to hang on to that badge, if they actually use the badges for security they could have certain rooms that might require the badge to gain access like computer labs, etc.

      it's funny to watch people fight the progression of technology though, 20 yrs from now we'll look back and think "wtf how did schools function without smart security badges?"

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    16. Re:Simple Science by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      She have chosen to fight the problem directly instead of playing a cat and mouse game with the school first. Our society is currently built in a way that makes this preferable so I can see why she decided to do that.

      Judge is probably just doing it to clear the air, so a legal ruling can come out saying "Yes, the school has the right to know where every student is at all times while they are on school property." That seems so obvious I don't know how anyone can argue against it. Who wants the school to say "We don't know where your child is. They are not in class and we called over the intercom and they didn't come. Sorry"

      Badges like these could have huge benefits: Access to computer labs or other secure areas, instant login to computers, evening and weekend access to school property, reduce theft, vandalism and bullying, etc. These badges are so full of win i wish i had them when i was in high school

      She's very fortunate to be going to a school that offers such nice stuff and her parents want to fight it on religious grounds?? What's next, sue the school for offering free wifi?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    17. Re:Simple Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still smarter than you apparently, you worthless anonymous scum. I include content in my posts, no matter what your opinion of it is.

    18. Re:Simple Science by Vlado · · Score: 2

      So what's wrong with a simple password or a PIN, that could be used for all of this as well? Without indiscriminately tracking you when you don't want to be tracked?

    19. Re:Simple Science by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'm confused how a sheath of foil causes any kind of damage?

      --
      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...
  15. Don't know who to side with by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

    Overbearing authority or religious nutjobs...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Don't know who to side with by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Overbearing authority or religious nutjobs...

      Kudos on actually reading the story (despite what my sig says).

      However I retract those kudos for being unable to see beyond broad stereotypes to see the actual issue at hand.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Don't know who to side with by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No I know where I side with the actual issue at hand. The religious nutjobs happen to be on the right side here. But handing them victory here is not clearly a good thing because it would further entrench and legitimize the special treatment of religious beliefs. Will atheists who just don't want to wear these things get to turn them down or will you have to say that Sky Dad doesn't want you to wear them?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Don't know who to side with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not strictly an atheist, but I have no recognized religion. I am essentially a pantheist. But surely even an atheist can claim a "religious" belief in human dignity.

  16. Re:I can understand her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop saying 'build and construct'. Those are both the same thing; you don't have to use them both.

  17. Why to me.... by negativeduck · · Score: 0

    In one way is this not a failing of the school system but I see it in a way as a Brat bitching. Just reading the linked article and the "note" that was scanned into it they received she's not being denied an education but being said she can "go back to" her home school. On one hand this is like an employee refusing to wear the badge of their employer or uniform. If you don't like it don't go there you have that choice and can make that decision.

      Maybe I am over simplifying this but yea to me this is pretty cut and dry people say "your school is your job" to kids all the time. I heard it, yes the system can be defeated but that's not the issue at hand. It is an issue that this helps to perpetuate and start even younger if you don't like a simple policy SUE!

    And yea really "Mark of the Beast" it's her name... so.... I hope she never gets a drivers license, a Library card, or a Passport! I simply can't see her side.

  18. Nice to know school districs really do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have a lot of money to waste.

  19. I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the student's religion requires that they not wear such articles, then I think it's a pretty clear case that the student should not be going to that school.

    Schools, even public ones, are permitted to have dress codes, and wearing a specially issued id tag on your clothes while you are on school property is really not that big a deal. There's shouldn't be concern about being tracked off of school property because because one's location through RFID can only be tracked if they are in close proximity of an RFID reader that understands what the tag is, and who it belongs to. The RFID readers which are connected to the database of RFID tags owned by the school aren't going to be anywhere but on school property, so that's the only place where one is ever going to be tracked.

    There should be no more concern that this could be used to invade somebody's privacy than an RFID card issued to an employee to get into a company building during non-office hours could reasonably represent a privacy invasion for that employee.

    1. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by avandesande · · Score: 2

      Schools, even public ones, are permitted to have dress codes, and wearing a specially issued id tag on your clothes while you are on school property is really not that big a deal.

      It isn't? How did my generation survive in high school without ID badges or cards?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Schools, even public ones, are permitted to have dress codes,

      And where I was brought up, not one parent and not one kid would put up with that bullshit.

    3. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a pretty sad individual then, if you believe everyone should be tracked an monitored. It's called conditioning and spending money that can be used productively elsewhere.

      It has nothing to do with religion, that's just a damn fine thing to throw at a backward state like TX to get what you want. After all, god knows all, why is RFID tracking of children even required? Oh yes, a company that's a friend of someone on the education bored gets to make a ton of money.

    4. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Actually, they did. You just were probably unaware of it because most public school dress codes do not differ significantly from public decency standards.

    5. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that I believe everybody should be tracked and monitored as much as it is that it's not really possible to track somebody using RFID outside of property that is under the control of the issuer of the RFID tag.

      RFID is *NOT* GPS.

      Where I work, I was given an RFID card that allows me to have 24 hour access to the building in case I ever need to go in on weekends, but it doesn't do squat to allow them to track me, other than to possibly know that I'm inside the building.

      ID badges with embedded RFID are fundamentally no different.

    6. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the Piolet, this tracking technology will also be used for the following enforcement purposes, in order:

      -Tracking bad students suspected of selling drugs.
      -Tracking bad students intent on causing property damage (such as skateboarders).
      -Tracking students who have entered an unauthorized area.
      -Tracking students suspected of inciting other students to organize politically, perhaps forming a society that lobbies the school with tuition.
      -Tracking political dissidents.
      -Tracking the location of students with poor grades to report their location, and whom they are mixing with, to their parents.

      One the investment in the tracking system is in place, the next step is investing in a database engine and from there, integrating that with a VOIP or 911 system.

      School loans are secured by the inability of students to discharge the debt in bankruptcy; that's created an environment of corrupt incentives and a seemingly infinite volume of capital. When that situation occurs the enriched group always attempts to maintain their income by securing for themselves a monopoly of force and power.

      Colleges used to be a place where teachers expected excellence because they were there to teach, not make fist-loads of money. You could pay for your tuition by shoveling manure or flipping burgers. It was community college educated men and women who put men in space and on the moon.

      We do not need multimillion dollar colleges. What we need is simplification.

    7. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      If the student's religion requires that they not wear such articles, then I think it's a pretty clear case that the student should not be going to that school.

      I'd say that the case is far from clear. After all, a school should be a secular organisation - thus allowing the free exercise of many religions. The school cannot discriminate on the basis of religion - allowing buddhists and Mormons, but not Calvinists or Atheists to attend. There is, of course, a "where practicable" type clause (which is why this relationship is never simple) - but in this case, they are excluding merely on the basis of their own convenience. The school is able to function perfectly well, without her, or any other conscientious objectors up to and including the entire student body having to wear RFID tags.

    8. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Why does everybody associate this with "tracking", like RFID is somehow some sort of magical GPS?

      It isn't.

      The *MOST* it will be able to do with regards to tracking is identify where they are while they are in the immediate vicinity of an RFID scanner that has a-priori knowledge about the specific RFID tag and can correlate the information received from the tag to determine exactly who it belongs to, which means it's under the control of the school board. That also means that it has no chance to be an effective tracking tool off of school property.

      My employer could, theoretically, identify whether or not I am at work based on the RFID card I received from him when I first got my job, which I always keep in my wallet, which I have just in case I need to go in on a weekend or holiday, and gives me direct access to my company's office without having to deal with reception first. Is my privacy so utterly compromised simply because of that? No. The RFID tag is completely meaningless outside my company's walls.

      Ditto with the RFID school ID. Completely meaningless outside of the school's jurisdiction. As a "tracking tool" it's a pretty lousy one.

    9. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The employee can quit whenever they like. It is illegal for a student to not attend school.

      You are a tool.

    10. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      As a secular organization, however, it can easily end up being incompatible with certain religious values.

      And that's what's happening here.

      Generally, a person's religion is going to be considerably more important to them than what school they can claim to have attended, so it seems that if a school is practicing something that one's religion does not allow, then the obvious choice is to just not go to that school.

      And it's a freaking name tag, for crying out loud. So what if it has an RFID tag in it? It's RFID... not freaking GPS.... RFID is not practical as a general purpose location tracking technology... and is only practical for location tracking in fully enclosed areas where RFID scanners have been deployed which already know about the tags.

    11. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The student can go to another school.

      If it was against the student's religion to wear clothes, should the school be expected to accomodate that as well?

    12. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by readin · · Score: 1

      How much burden is the refusal to wear clothes placing on everyone else? Given that our society requires people to wear clothes in pretty much every public place, it seems that the burden is pretty high. If you're going to expect the school to allow you to do something that disruptive, I think you need to meet a very high burden of proof to show that it really is your religious belief. And even then, there is the question of whether allowing you to attend the school is the best way to accommodate your belief given how disruptive it would be.

      On the other hand, this young woman is not asking for something that places a heavy burden on the school or on the other students. She is not asking for something that is very disruptive. What she is asking for is much closer to a Sikh asking to cover his hair in a school that forbids hats. The first amendment has to be interpreted with some common sense and reasonableness.

      --
      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.
    13. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by dabblah · · Score: 1

      Finally, some sanity. I was about to chime in with a lot of the content of the parent post.

      Also, this idea that RFID tags are the mark of the beast needs to be stamped out on two grounds. 1) the religious loonies are hiding behind that one way too much and it relies on a very particular (and as the link in the story points out, misguided in the mainstream view) reading of one of the most ambiguous books of the bible, itself one of the most ambiguous books ever written on the whole... 2) catering to fringe beliefs isn't the concern of the state. Educating the next generation is the concern of the state.

      To respond to another point I see above: Just because we didn't have RFID when I was going to school doesn't mean that we can't adopt advances that are useful in society. I am not convinced that this is, but I am also not convinced that it isn't and that is the idea of a pilot.

      I have a reasonable civil liberties bent in general but I can't get too excited one way or the other about this issue. As I live in Bexar (pronounced something like the word Beyer, as in asprin - spanish x) county, I have heard a fair amount of reporting on this one... My kids are in another district, however.

    14. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      How much burden is it to wear a name tag? Seriously... all the paranoia about invading privacy or tracking is coming from nothing less than complete ignorance about what RFID is, and how it actually works. At *MOST* it might be able to tell what classroom she is in while she's on school property. It can't track her off site.

      As for the burden it places on the school if she does not wear it... it places a burden of requiring that manual attendance be taken. When automated solutions exist, I see no reason to cater to the stubborn young woman's philosphies. Expelling her is extreme, however. She should be perfectly welcome to attend classes, when she is wearing her name tag,

    15. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by readin · · Score: 1

      I see no reason to cater to the stubborn young woman's philosphies.

      One reason, and a reason that is sufficient all by itself, is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

      --
      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.
    16. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by firewrought · · Score: 1

      If the student's religion requires that they not wear such articles, then I think it's a pretty clear case that the student should not be going to that school.

      The parents are legally obligated to send them there. They can change (for now, maybe not for long) that by paying lots of money or uprooting their life and moving somewhere else. That's not acceptable for a free society

      I don't really like Texan-style religious crazies, and I'm not saying that these badges are a bona fide violation of her faith, but no friend of liberty ever says "if you don't like it, don't live here".

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    17. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The first amendment says that the government shall pass no law forbidding freedom of speech.

      Explain how it is that a school requiring that its students wear special name tags contravenes that.

      Ultimately, this is about wearing a freaking school ID tag while on school property. It's a dress-code restriction, nothing more. There is absolutely nothing that prevents public schools from having (civil) dress codes and enforcing them. Students that don't comply with a dress code can reasonably be refused services, although again, by itself, it's probably not a reason to expel... she should be quite welcome to return when she complies with the policy (but should still face consequences for any classes missed).

    18. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Requiring that students wear ID tags whilo on school property is no more an infringement on their privacy that the requirement that professionals wear company ID's while they are at work is an infringement on their's.

      The fact that the ID has an RFID chip in it is immaterial... RFID's can only be read by scanners in quite close proximity, and in this case, could not ever be used to locate somebody who was not already on school property.

      It's just a friggen dress code requirement, and it's not one that is remotely uncivil or unprofessional. This sophomore is making a big deal over nothing.

    19. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by readin · · Score: 1

      Amendment I

      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.

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

      --
      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.
    20. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Your recitation of the exact wording of the amendment didn't exactly address any of what I said.

    21. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by readin · · Score: 1
      You wrote

      The first amendment says that the government shall pass no law forbidding freedom of speech.

      Explain how it is that a school requiring that its students wear special name tags contravenes that.

      But freedom of speech is only part of the First Amendment. The first amendment also includes, with no less importance, free exercise of religion.

      --
      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.
    22. Re:I'm sorry.... I don't see the problem. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Okay, but a school dress code that applies equally to everybody isn't actually discriminating against anybody because of their religion. From where I'm sitting, it looks like she's deliberately playing the "discrimination" card to get some attention, and from the looks of things, she's getting what she wanted.

      Besides, employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on religion either, but if a company policy requires that a person wear a company-issued ID tag while they are at work, and it's somehow a violation of that person's religion to wear such an ID, then it does not automatically follow that the employer is discriminating against those religions.

      And her school isn't discriminating against her religion either. The notion that they are exists nowhere except in her own deluded mind. The school hasn't wronged her here... she's only victimizing herself.

  20. Re:I can understand her by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    due to laws of physics and much more

    Remember we're talking about religious freedom. Ergo, your "laws of physics" are lies from the pit of hell.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  21. Re:I can understand her by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    The reason this student objects against wearing an id is religious, see previously linked articles.

    Interestingly, the religious aspect would apply to having an ID rather than having an RFID chip in that ID, at least that's my interpretation of how they state the objection.

    And besides, people that protest so vocally against RFID are most likely people that actually know about how it works quite well. After all it's hard arguing your point if you don't know what you're talking about.

  22. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And whether your assertion is taken as overriding is by judicial assessment of the rights of one vs the rights of another.

    However, despite this you seem to be deluded when you claim "This is what I understand from what you're saying." Because there's no way to get from what the GP was saying to what you idiotically proclaimed.

    1. Re:Yes. by cripkd · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll explain.
      Is she forbidden to exercise her religion by wearing the number of the beast? IS there a number of the Beast? What is this beast? Can you name the existing and recognized religion where it is a known and universally accepted fact that that RFID tag is the identification mark of said Beast? Reading the bible in your own way is not exercising religion. Always doing what the bible says might be exercising religion but do you want me to get into the bible telling people to kill homosexuals?
      So using the first amendment I can get out of anything by saying it's my religion?
      Is the term so vague?

      Regarding the free speech part in the first amendment... If she would have just told people that the rfid tag IS the number of the beast that would have been fine and punishing her for this would have been wrong.
      But she chose to act. And that makes her in the position to PROVE she is exercising her relgion, she would need to describe that religion.
      Can you please answer these questions before calling me an idiot?

      In my opinion having the word religion in the Constitution is tricky and these times it will lead to this. Religious and ignorant people using their imaginary system of beliefs as leverage to bend the socitety around them except the other way around.
      You should be free to exercise any religion. But once YOU decide you NEED and WANT to be part of a multicultural and diverse society it's your responsibility to obey those rules, because no one forces you to be a part of it.
      If you want in don't force us to bend the already existing rules for your own personal reasons and most of all it should be mandatory that you're not supposed to feel offended in your religious beliefs because of a
      NON-RELIGIOUS act!
      You cannot decide by your self what is a religious act. I really don't see how this is discrimination.
      The school making you wear RFID tags is not a religious act so you shouldn't be able to bring up that argument. The modern state shouldn't care about people's religion. It's their right, but that shouldn't make the state responsible to tip-toe around 200 million religious views when they decide what colour should roads be, for example. Freedom of speech doesn't mean the other party you're criticizing has ANY obligation to obey what you say.

      --
      Curiously yours, crip.
    2. Re:Yes. by cripkd · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#School_speech
      This is what I mean. Free speech is one thing ( expressing an opinion using speech, clothes, drawings etc). But if a system is put in place by a school for whatever reasons (and I'm sure they can easily prove increased eficiency of various administrative activities by using these tags) and you choose to not follow it I could call that undue interruption.

      --
      Curiously yours, crip.
    3. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IS there a number of the Beast?

      I'm sure you can do better than that. Is there actually a beast and/or "god" we allow others to base there fantasies (read: religion) on ? Proof please.

      Funny enough, We have allowed (groups of) people to exercise their view of the world for literally ages. Why should we not allow other people with their "lets track *everyone*" (as long as its not *them* ofcourse) because their money-god demands it ? After all, theirs is also a 'religion' of sorts. :-)

      Captcha: investor - high-priests to the money-god ... :-p

    4. Re:Yes. by readin · · Score: 1

      You cannot decide by your self what is a religious act.

      If you can't decide by yourself what is a religious act, then you have no freedom of religion.

      You're right the freedom of religion in the first amendment is vague, but it is there. It does at times require some accommodation such as during wars when members of some religious groups aren't required to kill people during wars.

      The burden of proof you speak of should be proportional to the accommodation required and the potential for abuse. In the case I mention of allowing people to avoid killing during a war, the burden was pretty high because so many people would likely try to avoid the draft by claiming religious exemption if the burden weren't set high. People were required to show that their religion had long-standing prohibitions on all killing, and that they had been a well-established member of the religion (i.e. that they didn't 'convert' when war broke out). However if all you want to do is avoid a school dress code that forbids wearing a hat so that you can were a yarmulke, the burden shouldn't be nearly so high.

      In this case there is no reason to suspect that the young woman is attempting to abuse the first amendment by claiming a religious belief she doesn't really hold. The accommodation of the teacher simply noting whether she is in class, or having her sign an attendance book, is not overly burdensome.

      --
      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.
  23. Re:I can understand her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even so, this RFID signal is read and transmitted several inches if not less, of no use to any sniffers or spies nearby.

    They still transmit in all directions with a given power. Yes that's low, but the signal's still there. It also *must* be stronger than the reader can detect, as if it was at the threshold you'd have lots of problems with the reader failing to detect the card half the time or in a noisy environment.

    From a greater distance all you need is a sensitive enough receiver and the ability to filter out background noise. That's the limit far before laws of physics. 100m away has been demonstrated. A km is beyond today's technology but perhaps not in 1-2 years. The laws of physics probably don't prevent reading from 100km away, given a good enough receiver.

  24. Microwave it by lophophore · · Score: 1

    RFIDs don't react well to the microwave oven. I'm just sayin'.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  25. Re:I can understand her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, well, good points, but all that is required is to put readers all over the place, and that's coming. They already have cameras scanning licence plates in many cities, a complete picture of ones movements can be made easily.

    They are NOT doing this for our own good.

  26. Then is there never a time to say "enough?" by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it always a good idea then to stay at the back of the bus? Just because it happens ubiquitously throughout society, then we should never make a stand?

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
  27. Don't be too sure by ugen · · Score: 2

    It's only a pilot program. As all things of the kind, their purpose is not only to test the process, but to acclimatize people to the new reality. In a little while new reality becomes "it's always been that way", and then they can move for wider application. And what better way to do so than to begin with school students. Why, you could then combine RFID databases between schools "for improved information sharing", then perhaps offer local malls, movie theaters etc. data for them to better gauge their audience or, better yet, "better protect children from inappropriate material" (oh, now we are talking). Then, as they grow up and graduate - why not join forces with a local college or university, public transportation, sports venues - you name it :) It's just a matter of time.

    This type of tracking needs to be nipped in the bud, before it becomes the "new normal".

    And btw, there is nothing reasonable about employees being tracked en-masse at office either. Technically, though, employees are there voluntarily and can leave at will. There is no such choice at school.

    1. Re:Don't be too sure by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You forgot the major ones: since all students have RFID, it could be provided to insurance agencies and healthcare providers... "to care for the children". Goodbye student discount cards; we've got state-issued RFID now.

      Hey; your RFID could even stay with you when you leave school! Who needs a SSN or even a driver's license, when every child already has an ID?

      Sounds improbable, but then so do invisibility cloaks.

  28. And they expel you for damage to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And they expel you for damage to their property.

    As to "they won't abuse this", remember the School who gave laptops to kids and turned on the laptop webcam to spy on the children? And one child had it in her bedroom.

    Webcam.

    Being accessed by a school employee.

    When in a girl's bedroom.

    Remember that?

  29. Outside Agencies by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't forget that if each kid is required to carry their RFID card whenever they are in school they will also carry that card the vast majority of the time. Now I own a store and want to know when a certain student enters my store what prevents me from installing RFID readers in my store and reading the cards and developing a database from there.

    For example: when ever card number NNNNN is in the store I have more shoplifting so I ban the student carrying that card from my store with no proof they stole anything.

    We could go on from there.

    1. Re:Outside Agencies by dissy · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt a kid intending to shoplift would willingly swipe his badge by your reader before proceeding to steal stuff :P

      These RFID tags are rated at 3-5cm, but my own experence with the badges issued at work, the damn things can fail to read through my wallet and needs the card to almost physically touch the reader, let alone be within a cm or two.

      You imply a ring of material around the door way would be capable of reading such cards in the first place. I'm not sure what you expect the other readers installed in your store to be doing.

      It's just like the existing "customer loyalty" cards in stores today. They only use barcodes over RFID due to the existing barcode readers already installed at the registers that the clerks know how to operate.
      Just because the card is on your keychain, perhaps even visible, they still ask you to present it to be scanned because the range is very very limited.

      Not only would you require the students cooperation to scan their RFID cards, but would need to purchase extra hardware to be integrated into your system to do so. While possible to do of course, it would be cheaper to issue new cards to scan with existing hardware. The level of cooperation required will remain the same.

    2. Re:Outside Agencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      And also, think of the children.

    3. Re:Outside Agencies by mkremer · · Score: 2

      The RFID tags you are thinking of are passive with no batteries.

      This RFID tag has a battery. From this I conclude that it is active and therefore almost certainly has a much greater range.

      Makes me wonder how long the batteries last and if they are rechargeable/replaceable or if new badges need to be issued when they wear out.

  30. I go to this high school... by w4rbl3r · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a senior in the same Science and Engineering program that Andrea is a member of. Some points: 1. Microwaving the cards causes visible burn marks. 2. The school has also blocked student led petitions against the ID cards, circulated during passing and free periods, on the grounds that they "disrupt the learning environment". 3. Thus far, the only students who have gotten in trouble for not wearing the ID cards are the vocal ones, like Andrea, or those who get in trouble for something else. However, the administration is starting to enforce the ID rules more heavily. I sincerely hope Andrea succeeds, and that this doesn't set an alarming precedent for the removal of student rights. Please let me know if you have any questions about the IDs or the program.

    1. Re:I go to this high school... by osssmkatz · · Score: 2

      Is this a public institution? They are making the claim that it disrupts the learning environment because that is the standard required under Tinker vs. Des Moine School District, but they are wrong. "A student's rights do not end at the schoolhouse gates". --Sam

    2. Re:I go to this high school... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Here's hoping someone with mod points sees this. Reminds me of the early slashdot, when people with first-hand information on the topic would take part in discussions.

      Of course, the schoo won't make a point of enforcing it the first year beyond those who are vocal about it - everyone needs to accept that "the badges are required, the badges have always been required, that's just the way it is" before they crack down.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:I go to this high school... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The school is liable for your well-being during the significant portion of the day that you are in their care, and it's their job to know if you're on school grounds during that time. The idea that the privacy of the students is being violated by the school or that they are being treated like cattle is nonsense. However, the IDs are still a bad idea because they're less reliable than standard roll calls, and kids will find ways to abuse the system or cause trouble for other kids.

    4. Re:I go to this high school... by w4rbl3r · · Score: 4, Informative

      SEA is a magnet school. It functions as a public school in many ways (no tuition, sports/extracurriculars are shared with Jay), but has its own admissions system separate from John Jay.

    5. Re:I go to this high school... by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      What are they going to do if you all just stop wearing them?  Put everyone in detention all the time?

      I think it's a fair point to make that you are human beings, and not animals.

      just mho.

    6. Re:I go to this high school... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If schools are so responsible for these kids, why don't they do something effective about bullying?

      Beyond that, for a hundred years or more, teachers were able to keep track of students without these badges. Why is it just now that we're finding we need these badges? Why can't teachers do their jobs? Should teachers be required to even bother learning the names of their students?

    7. Re:I go to this high school... by Captain.Abrecan · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone needs to waltz into the admin area and start beating the fucking shit out of those people.

  31. easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    place this student's picture and name on a wall mounted picture in every building. should solve the ID problem

  32. John Jay - Oh, the Irony by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the things John Jay (US Supreme Court Justice) is known for is telling jurors that they are responsible for judging the law (the rules as handed down).

    It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

    I suspect he'd be proud of the student for deciding that this particular school rule is unjust and standing up for herself.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:John Jay - Oh, the Irony by Captain.Abrecan · · Score: 1

      Yeah it sounds that way. They suspended the girl, and the judge is all 'fuck you school' and issued the RO so she can keep studying. Good judge, have a cookie.

  33. A good point by Owlyn · · Score: 2

    I thought the attorney made a good point ...

    "Regimes in the past have always started with the schools, where they develop a compliant citizenry," Whitehead continued. "These 'Student Locator' programs are ultimately aimed at getting students used to living in a total surveillance state where there will be no privacy, and wherever you go and whatever you text or email will be watched by the government."

    Poor girl. She just wants to live in freedom. I wonder where she got that idea?

  34. There's a simple solution to this problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The school should simply make wearing the tags optional for all students. However from the school's perspective, to encourage majority of the students to wear the tag, they can offer an incentive like say a bonus 10% grade for policy compliance or something. It's a win-win situation.

  35. DNT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She just needs to wear a note that says "do not track". Problem solved.

  36. Who need slippery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you are steadfastly marching down the slope.

  37. I hate it when I support crazy people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was looking at the article, hoping that there might be a link to support her legal defense or something, and stumbled upon this bit:

    “I feel it’s an invasion of my religious beliefs,” she told Infowars. “I feel it’s the implementation of the Mark of the Beast."

    Oh dear lord. Why does THIS have to be the test case on the topic?

  38. can we please implant these where they are needed? by 3seas · · Score: 1

    .... in Politicians and other public servants

  39. Why does she not want to wear the badge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does she have to hide??

  40. Re:I can understand her by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    I think I misread it. Too much work, too much beer. Beer + commenting on slashdot doesnt mix well, lesson learned ;)

    (I hope)...

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  41. Re:I can understand her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha, too much work - how can you have too much beer? :)

  42. Re:I can understand her by jitterman · · Score: 1

    Sorry that was my AC - forgot to log in. Cheers!

    --
    For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
  43. Re:I can understand her by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    Cheers,

    Well...I guess when you start misreading slashdot and ends up a bunch of people calling you troll, then it's a pretty good sign you had enough to drink, eh? ;)
    It's kind of like at the bar, when you're rambling tin foil theories and your friends have long left the table...

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  44. If it were my child by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    If it were my child i would demand she not ware it and i would demand that the school board,teachers janitors be forced to wear them. I want to know what they do and where they go after school as well. I want to know what church they go to if any or at all? do they frequent strip bars? Do they visit the local drug corners parts of town. I also say they have mandatory web cams turned on as well i don't want a cam whore teaching my kids or a cam whore dude cheating on his wife at paltalk.lol Ya that's a great idea much better then students i think. I wonder how many idiots will give me a troll rating? lol i think they need one as well.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:If it were my child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would support your being jailed for requiring everyone in the school except for your child to wear an RFID badge. What makes you and your child merit special exemption anyway?

    2. Re:If it were my child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were my child i would demand she not ware it and i would demand that the school board,teachers janitors be forced to wear them. I want to know what they do and where they go after school as well. I want to know what church they go to if any or at all? do they frequent strip bars? Do they visit the local drug corners parts of town. I also say they have mandatory web cams turned on as well i don't want a cam whore teaching my kids or a cam whore dude cheating on his wife at paltalk.lol Ya that's a great idea much better then students i think. I wonder how many idiots will give me a troll rating? lol i think they need one as well.

      ...that was painful to read.

  45. Re:I can understand her by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    After all it's hard arguing your point if you don't know what you're talking about.

    You're new here, aren't you?

  46. Re:What's the big deal? - Uninformed by choice ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck, finding one that works from a fixed-reader that's more than a meter away is tough.

    I'm not a full 100% sure, but isn't passive RFID not used for payment for pay-for roads (in America) ? And that means that the distance is *at least* a full metere, if not more (to be able to read the RFID even in rainy weather).

    As for a link ? You could easily googeled one yourself. Here is one for *at least* 90 feet (27 meters) and upto 135 feet (40 meters) :

    http://www.omni-id.com/pdfs/RFID_Tag_Long_Range_Benchmarks_Report.pdf

    By the way: A simple passive RFID reader may *limit itself* to just a few feet (for the obvious reasons), but there is no problem in using just a bit more sending-power and a bit more sensitive receiver to get a *lot* more range (a yagi antenna will do the trick) -- as the link I supplied shows.

  47. Christians are stupid. by Nyder · · Score: 1

    If this point doesn't drive it home, let me give ya a true story.

    Back in the day, I did stupid shit and got put in jail. This is county jail, not prison. I was down waiting to see the judge and other people were there waiting also. One of the guys was going before the judge because he keeps destroying the wrist tag they give you. Now the wrist tag has your picture and info about you, so they know who you are, and that they are releasing the right person, transferring the right person, etc. So we asked the guy why he keeps destroying the wrist tag and he says, "It's the Mart of the Beast, and as a christian, i can not wear it." Most of us spent the next 5 mins laughing. Ends up this guy, who would of been out that night, is spending extra days in jail because he thinks something is the mark of the beast.

    Stupid people don't understand stupid shit. Her understanding of her religion is going to lose her a good education.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Christians are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you think people standing up for something in which they believe is a bad thing? Gotcha. Yer in the wrong country, sport. Historically, we Americans tell authority to "Fuck off!" since we're free men, not slaves. If you compromise your integrity for expediency, that says all I need to know about you. All the best.

    2. Re:Christians are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Historically, we Americans tell authority to "Fuck off!" since we're free men, not slaves

      Hahahaha.. OK, so explain Bush and Wall Street to me then. Or the RIAA and MPAA. Or extrajudicial rendering and Guantanamo Bay. Or ..

  48. Kids will wear and swap those tags voluntarily.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    .. once they work out that they can open the loos of the opposite sex.

    You'll never see a more popular game of swap-the-tag then, that is, if they are the normal kind of teenager I know.

    A tag can have benefits, but this is plain vanilla tracking. Expect the sales of foil packed crisps to go through the roof there, because I'd wrap the tag as soon as I was past a door. (and fire regulations say you cannot bar an exit).

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  49. Anti-security by mattr · · Score: 1

    It should be noted that if the student carries the student ID at all times, they can be secretly read in other locations.
    For example it would be easy to find out which students are at a bar, a location where a suspicious group hangs out, in a bathroom, at a game, in church, at another school, etc. Anywhere there is electrical power, or even anywhere someone carries a mobile reader.
    However it is not going to help someone if they are kidnapped. It isn't about security. Small children are sometimes given phones that can be tracked in case of kidnapping and that is far different.
    This on the contrary could be aimed at a bus or school gate to see when a target leaves. It is a vulnerability.

  50. For schoolkids to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good idea! Start here (and buy the book after downloading and reading it, it's worth it):
    Little Brother (Cory Doctorow novel)

  51. More than Microwaves by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is illegal, because it causes avoidable and irreparable damage to school property. And is it really harmless if it is deadly for any living being inside of the microwave?

    Why are you limited to microwaves? There is a bike path near where I live that passes underneath some high voltage power lines. The induced EMF across the gap in a small, insulated metal ring wrapped around one of my handlebars is enough to generate a mild electric shock. This is very likely enough to damage an RFID device and is only one example where any member of the public can encounter what are normally harmless EM fields.

  52. Add a little entropy by hicksw · · Score: 1

    Swap cards, often.

    Tracked, yes. Identified, no.
    --
    Peace is relatively easy to achieve -- liberty is harder.