Yes it is publicly funded, but the idea of the public funding is to allow people to do research to see where it goes. Commercial companies tend to be very focused on what the problem is, and how to solve it, where as research for research sake, you can find solutions or improvements without intending to. Not everything the CSIRO, (or it's equivalent bodies in other countries) research will result in a solution. Not all of the solutions will be useable or marketable. But the ones that do produce money to do more research, due to the extra money available to buy equipment, and pay money to research staff.
Think about all the things that have been found either accidently or with no practical solution in mind, including penicillin, the electron, x-rays, etc. Without applied research where would we be?
This is why I love the Australian system. I have never had to use it yet, however,
1) If you are unemployed there are already rules in place to cover small income, via an Income test , regardless of how the income was generated.
2) If you are unemployed, they continue to pay you until you find a job. They expect you to be looking for a job k, which is gauged by an Activity Test, and your payment can be stopped if you breach those conditions
Basically, the system supports those who need it until they get back on their feet, as long as they are doing the right thing.
Nobody here has said that a search of the locker/bag would have been a problem. The problem is with a strip search.
A strip search is an extremely evasive procedure, even when done perfectly correctly, and to do one on a 13 year old child could have lasting implications.
From the article there was no implication that she was taking drugs at the time, let alone contemplating suicide, so I don't know why you keep suggesting that as a justification.
As I stated previously there are so many other options for this case (especially given the source of the information), and so many ways in which it could have been handled more discreetly and appropriately. The school does have a duty of care, but that duty does not justify them breaching the rights of the student.
Kestasjk,
There were several other options available to the school, if the information about the student having drugs (prescription or illegal) on their person:
1) Question the student
2) Do a basic search (bag, locker and pockets) then stop)
3) Call the parents to have an appropriate adult present.
4) Call the police and let them do the search.
5) A combination of the above)
This is on the basis that the information was extremely reliable, which it sounds as though it was not the case.
As far as the student either disposing of evidence or taking the drugs, there is a very simple option. Have somebody (principal, vice principal, secretary, etc) supervise the student until one of the other options is available.
There were options that were more suitable, and less invasive for the student that would have been a better fit for the situation.
Actually, fraud is covered under a different set of legislation (I believe it is state law in the case of Australia).
There may or may not be a case for fraud, or obtaining property by deception. However the Trade practices Act is the tool of choice for the ACCC. The law that the ACC is using against Google states "A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive".
Note the use of the words "likely to mislead and deceive". I would suggest that because of this clause, they can get away with a lower burden of proof, which makes it more likely that they can prove cases.
If you read the press release on the ACCC website , they are also sueing the Trading Post, which traditionally was a paper you could buy advertising items for sale. As a guess, they are looking to clean up the online advertising business to discourage behaviour that would lead to people being mislead into buying from the wrong company.
Just a bit of background for the American readers. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is part of the Australian Federal Government. They normally deal with cases of large scale misbehaviour by companies (the smaller disputes between an individual and a company normally fall to the state fair trading body). Their resposibility is to ensure that the companies are providing their products to the customers in a reasonable way. Areas they look at include, price collusion, third line forcing, misleading and deceptive advertising (includes descriptions, prices and availability), anti-competitive behaviour, product saftety, etc.
Their normal preference is to obtain a court enforceable undertaking from the company in question, that will often include, changes in behaviour, corrective advertising and recompense to the customers affected. A good example of this is the case against Repco . In that case the results was that Repco agreed to a court enforcable undertaking to:
Advertise to admit they did not have enough stock for the sale in question
Recompense the people that complained with like goods or a gift voucher
Undertake a monitored program to ensure they complied with the Trade Practices act.
Note there was no financial benefit from this to the ACCC, the only recpompense went to the customers affected.
In some cases, the ACCC will take an organisation all the way through the system, and ask that the result be a fine, like in the case of Safeway, where they sucessfully fined the company $8.9 Million for price fixing, and one of the staff received a fine of $50,000. From memory all of the fines are per offence, and have provisions against the employees/officers of a company to help discourage bad behaviour. As you can see to take that kind of action takes a long time (in the Safeway case, it was 10 years because it went all the way through the court system).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is publicly funded, but the idea of the public funding is to allow people to do research to see where it goes. Commercial companies tend to be very focused on what the problem is, and how to solve it, where as research for research sake, you can find solutions or improvements without intending to. Not everything the CSIRO, (or it's equivalent bodies in other countries) research will result in a solution. Not all of the solutions will be useable or marketable. But the ones that do produce money to do more research, due to the extra money available to buy equipment, and pay money to research staff. Think about all the things that have been found either accidently or with no practical solution in mind, including penicillin, the electron, x-rays, etc. Without applied research where would we be?
This is why I love the Australian system. I have never had to use it yet, however,
1) If you are unemployed there are already rules in place to cover small income, via an Income test , regardless of how the income was generated.
2) If you are unemployed, they continue to pay you until you find a job. They expect you to be looking for a job k, which is gauged by an Activity Test, and your payment can be stopped if you breach those conditions
Basically, the system supports those who need it until they get back on their feet, as long as they are doing the right thing.
for the search they performed, yes....
Nobody here has said that a search of the locker/bag would have been a problem. The problem is with a strip search.
A strip search is an extremely evasive procedure, even when done perfectly correctly, and to do one on a 13 year old child could have lasting implications.
From the article there was no implication that she was taking drugs at the time, let alone contemplating suicide, so I don't know why you keep suggesting that as a justification.
As I stated previously there are so many other options for this case (especially given the source of the information), and so many ways in which it could have been handled more discreetly and appropriately. The school does have a duty of care, but that duty does not justify them breaching the rights of the student.
Kestasjk, There were several other options available to the school, if the information about the student having drugs (prescription or illegal) on their person: 1) Question the student 2) Do a basic search (bag, locker and pockets) then stop) 3) Call the parents to have an appropriate adult present. 4) Call the police and let them do the search. 5) A combination of the above) This is on the basis that the information was extremely reliable, which it sounds as though it was not the case. As far as the student either disposing of evidence or taking the drugs, there is a very simple option. Have somebody (principal, vice principal, secretary, etc) supervise the student until one of the other options is available. There were options that were more suitable, and less invasive for the student that would have been a better fit for the situation.
Actually, fraud is covered under a different set of legislation (I believe it is state law in the case of Australia).
There may or may not be a case for fraud, or obtaining property by deception. However the Trade practices Act is the tool of choice for the ACCC. The law that the ACC is using against Google states
"A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive".
Note the use of the words "likely to mislead and deceive". I would suggest that because of this clause, they can get away with a lower burden of proof, which makes it more likely that they can prove cases.
The piece of law that they are sueing under is a thing called the Trade Practices Act 1974. Section 52 is a very broad section of that act that prohibits Misleading and Deceptive conduct.
If you read the press release on the ACCC website , they are also sueing the Trading Post, which traditionally was a paper you could buy advertising items for sale. As a guess, they are looking to clean up the online advertising business to discourage behaviour that would lead to people being mislead into buying from the wrong company.
Just a bit of background for the American readers. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is part of the Australian Federal Government. They normally deal with cases of large scale misbehaviour by companies (the smaller disputes between an individual and a company normally fall to the state fair trading body). Their resposibility is to ensure that the companies are providing their products to the customers in a reasonable way. Areas they look at include, price collusion, third line forcing, misleading and deceptive advertising (includes descriptions, prices and availability), anti-competitive behaviour, product saftety, etc.
Their normal preference is to obtain a court enforceable undertaking from the company in question, that will often include, changes in behaviour, corrective advertising and recompense to the customers affected. A good example of this is the case against Repco . In that case the results was that Repco agreed to a court enforcable undertaking to:
Note there was no financial benefit from this to the ACCC, the only recpompense went to the customers affected.
In some cases, the ACCC will take an organisation all the way through the system, and ask that the result be a fine, like in the case of Safeway, where they sucessfully fined the company $8.9 Million for price fixing, and one of the staff received a fine of $50,000. From memory all of the fines are per offence, and have provisions against the employees/officers of a company to help discourage bad behaviour. As you can see to take that kind of action takes a long time (in the Safeway case, it was 10 years because it went all the way through the court system).