MaddogCT Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/10/tracking.students.ap/index.html SUTTER, California (AP) -- The only grade school in this rural town is requiring students to wear radio frequency identification badges that can track their every move. Some parents are outraged, fearing it will rob their children of privacy. The badges introduced at Brittan Elementary School on January 18 rely on the same radio frequency and scanner technology that companies use to track livestock and product inventory. While similar devices are being tested at several schools in Japan so parents can know when their children arrive and leave, Brittan appears to be the first U.S. school district to embrace such a monitoring system. Civil libertarians hope to keep it that way. "If this school doesn't stand up, then other schools might adopt it," Nicole Ozer, a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union, warned school board members at a meeting Tuesday night. "You might be a small community, but you are one of the first communities to use this technology." The system was imposed, without parental input, by the school as a way to simplify attendance-taking and potentially reduce vandalism and improve student safety. Principal Earnie Graham hopes to eventually add bar codes to the existing IDs so that students can use them to pay for cafeteria meals and check out library books. But some parents see a system that can monitor their children's movements on campus as something straight out of Orwell. "There is a way to make kids safer without making them feel like a piece of inventory," said Michael Cantrall, one of several angry parents who complained. "Are we trying to bring them up with respect and trust, or tell them that you can't trust anyone, you are always going to be monitored and someone is always going to be watching you?" Cantrall said he told his children, in the 5th and 7th grades, not to wear the badges. He also filed a protest letter with the board and alerted the ACLU. Graham, who also serves as the superintendent of the single-school district, told the parents that their children could be disciplined for boycotting the badges -- and that he doesn't understand what all their angst is about. "Sometimes when you are on the cutting edge, you get caught," Graham said, recounting the angry phone calls and notes he has received from parents. Each student is required to wear identification cards around their necks with their picture, name and grade and a wireless transmitter that beams their ID number to a teacher's handheld computer when the child passes under an antenna posted above a classroom door. Graham also asked to have a chip reader installed in locker room bathrooms to reduce vandalism, although that reader is not functional yet. And while he has ordered everyone on campus to wear the badges, he said only the 7th and 8th grade classrooms are being monitored thus far. In addition to the privacy concerns, parents are worried that the information on and inside the badges could wind up in the wrong hands and endanger their children, and that radio frequency technology might carry health risks. Graham dismisses each objection, arguing that the devices do not emit any cancer-causing radioactivity, and that for now, they merely confirm that each child is in his or her classroom, rather than track them around the school like a global-positioning device. The 15-digit ID number that confirms attendance is encrypted, he said, and not linked to other personal information such as an address or telephone number. What's more, he says that it is within his power to set rules that promote a positive school environment: If he thinks ID badges will improve things, he says, then badges there will be. "You know what it comes down to? I believe junior high students want to be stylish. This is not stylish," he said. This latest adaptation of radio frequency ID technology was developed by InCom Corp., a local company co-founded by the parent of a former Brittan student, and some parents are suspicious about the financial relationship between the school and the company. InCom plans to promote it at a national convention of school administrators next month. InCom has paid the school several thousand dollars for agreeing to the experiment, and has promised a royalty from each sale if the system takes off, said the company's co-founder, Michael Dobson, who works as a technology specialist in the town's high school. Brittan's technology aide also works part-time for InCom. Not everyone in this close-knit farming town northwest of Sacramento is against the system. Some said they welcomed the IDs as a security measure. "This is not Mayberry. This is Sutter, California. Bad things can happen here," said Tim Crabtree, an area parent. My comments: -We are all just cattle. This just proves it. -People who refer to fictonal places as if they were real, need help. - It's nice to see the tax dollars the parents paid go to someone so close to the community. - As I have stated before, we are a scociety living in fear. This is just another example of people taking advantage of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I have a real hard time seeing a problem with this. I hope we develop technology one day that allows us to always be able to find our children that we can insert at birth, so, we never have to worry about crimes against our children any more. But, I sure hope their privacy isn't violated by preventing their rape and murder. That would be AWFUL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Terrible idea, it'll be a cold day in hell before they use something to track me or any of my future kids like that or something more advanced like Art said. All I can think about when I read something like this is the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by Art I have a real hard time seeing a problem with this. I hope we develop technology one day that allows us to always be able to find our children that we can insert at birth, so, we never have to worry about crimes against our children any more. But, I sure hope their privacy isn't violated by preventing their rape and murder. That would be AWFUL. So when Art Jr is 34, the government can know where he is at all times? Do you really want the government that intimate with the public Art? That's a downright scary thought......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 That's a downright scary thought......... Indeed it is, I find parenting actually works pretty well when people use it, my parents made it a point to know where I was going at all times and i generally stayed out of trouble, nowadays people would rather have the gov't look after their kids though regardless of the potential dangers and slippery slopes involved. (Not directed at you Art so please take the finger off the banage button) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 people would rather have the gov't look after their kids though regardless of the potential dangers and slippery slopes involved. That statement is right on the mark pr11fan. Just what does that say about today's society though? Very sad indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted February 13, 2005 Author Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by Art I have a real hard time seeing a problem with this. I hope we develop technology one day that allows us to always be able to find our children that we can insert at birth, so, we never have to worry about crimes against our children any more. But, I sure hope their privacy isn't violated by preventing their rape and murder. That would be AWFUL. Contrary to what the fear mongers in the news and made for TV movies say, the majority of crimes against children are done by family members. Not a stranger. A tracking device them does no good in keeping them from being raped and murdered when the person doing the crime lives in the same house. The Principal said the device is to make the taking of attendance easier and to prevent vandalism (ie. control the kids) the "safety" part is just a smoke screen. A selling point to the parents. It's about control of the students, not safety. If a principal cannot maintain a reasonable amount of order in a school, he should look for another job. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I would fight to the death if they ever tried to tag me. Especially something inside of me. I just dont trust em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 A tracking device them does no good in keeping them from being raped and murdered when the person doing the crime lives in the same house. I fail to see how it does anything either way, sure it may stop a few people from fear of getting caught, but most people who are insane enough to hurt a child can't see the forest through the trees and don't particularly care about possible punishment if caught so it really doesn't serve much purpose other than to give the government a leash to put around our neck so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by DieselPwr44 So when Art Jr is 34, the government can know where he is at all times? Do you really want the government that intimate with the public Art? That's a downright scary thought......... We've had this discussion in other threads, and it never ceases to amaze me how so many of you seem to have a problem with the government being able to track where you've been, but, seem to have no similar issue with violent crime. If you could develop a technology that allowed the government to go into a database and identify who's been at the scene of a crime -- say a murder or a robbery or a rape -- and largely eliminate the possibility of crime for the fact that getting away with it would be nearly impossible, what exactly is the down side? Is it simply that the government could potentially know you drive to church or the store should they call up the scene of a crime and see your ID flash across in the proximity? A scary thought is people who worry about the possibility of the government being able to track you should it choose but seem disinclined to worry about actual crime. The government ALREADY can track ANY individual it wants. The difference is, with a system as we've discussed, you actually provide a benefit. But again, I'm SURE the privacy advocates will not see the benefit until THEIR wife is raped or their child is kidnapped, and then, suddenly, it'll make a whole lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by MaddogCT Contrary to what the fear mongers in the news and made for TV movies say, the majority of crimes against children are done by family members. Not a stranger. A tracking device them does no good in keeping them from being raped and murdered when the person doing the crime lives in the same house. The Principal said the device is to make the taking of attendance easier and to prevent vandalism (ie. control the kids) the "safety" part is just a smoke screen. A selling point to the parents. It's about control of the students, not safety. If a principal cannot maintain a reasonable amount of order in a school, he should look for another job. :logo: I find it terribly amusing I would be classified as a fear monger for suggesting we think about developing a system to essentially protect all people, our children included, from a terrible end, yet, you are not at all a fear mongering for worrying about the possibility the government could possibly know where you are. Who's worry do you think is actually more valid? Compare them. Mine is, I worry about people being killed or hurt. Yours is, you worry about the government knowing where you are. Who do you think has a more valid concern? A tracking device as we've previously discussed in this forum would, absolutely, help a child against the abuse of a family member. Why? Because when a child is murdered, you could identify who was with the child at the time. The government already TRIES to do that. I'm all for making sure they CAN do that without any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by pr11fan I fail to see how it does anything either way, sure it may stop a few people from fear of getting caught, but most people who are insane enough to hurt a child can't see the forest through the trees and don't particularly care about possible punishment if caught so it really doesn't serve much purpose other than to give the government a leash to put around our neck so to speak. The majority of crime in society is done by people who actually don't feel they'll be caught. You develop a system that assures the person IS caught, and you eliminate most random crime. You don't eliminate ALL crime. You will always have the types of crimes that people do when they are no longer able to control themselves. You just assure they don't get away with it. Ever. And, you assure the wrong person never gets convicted for it. Ever. Not a bad plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 A tracking device as we've previously discussed in this forum would, absolutely, help a child against the abuse of a family member. Why? Because when a child is murdered, you could identify who was with the child at the time. You're assuming that the family member is sane enough to worry about being caught but insane enough to hurt a child, that's generally not the case. Who's worry do you think is actually more valid? Both are valid, but people are going to get hurt or killed regardless of how much hand holding the gov't does unless the movie Minority Report becomes a reality. Once the government gets that power it really becomes limitless as to what they could do and once they get it, good luck taking it away even if they do abuse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by Art The majority of crime in society is done by people who actually don't feel they'll be caught. You develop a system that assures the person IS caught, and you eliminate most random crime. You don't eliminate ALL crime. You will always have the types of crimes that people do when they are no longer able to control themselves. You just assure they don't get away with it. Ever. And, you assure the wrong person never gets convicted for it. Ever. Not a bad plan. People will still get away with it, people will be going and getting these things cut out ala back alley abortions. Either way I'm not worried cause there isn't any way the gov't is putting one of those things in my body, I'll pack up my things and leave this country for a place with real freedom first. Gotta go watch nascar in hd now, I'll be back in a few hours to continue this discussion if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I may be somewhat with Art on this one. For example, I have no problem at all with a secure form of ID. (I have a problem with how some folks would use the ID, but that's not the ID's fault.) As a similar example, I'd also have no problem with the government setting up a system of cameras that would record the license numbers of cars that went past key locations. I'd favor big restrictions on how the data can be used. (For example, the database can't be accessed without a warrant, only to investigate a specified crime, and the data gets pitched after some period, like 72 hours, if no crime has been reported.) If someone were to create a all-seeing surveilance system, but with big restrictions on it's use, (only for felonies, can't go back more than 72 hours, things like that) I'm not certain I'd have a problem with it. Now, I would have a problem if, after we all get our ear tags, private corporations decide that it's be really neat if the government would give them the home phone number, bank balance, credit history, and medical records of every person who sets foot in their store, along with a record of what aisles I went to, which items I paused in front of, and every item I've even purchased in their store. Frankly, right now, big business is invading your privacy a lot more that any national ID would. At least the government, if they're investigating, say, a kidnapping, has a legitimate "need to know". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I don't have a problem with the ID cards. If they are just worn at school, so the teachers and administrators can keep better track of them. After school is over, and they are on the school bus, or picked up by parents or whatever, Of course, they can come off. I think some of you guys are worrying to much about what this could LEAD too. Personally, I can't think of a better way for the vastly outnumbered school staff to keep track of kids. I'm also for school uniforms by the way. I think school these days has become more of a social "peking order" establisher, then a place for education. Oh, the kids are getting educated alright. In, if you don't have this kind of shoe, your not cool. If you don't have this pair of pants, or this shirt, your not cool. If you don't have expensive clothes, and jewelry, your parents are poorer then mine, so I'm higher on the food chain then you are, etc. etc. Already, the poorer, disadvantaged kids are being told your here, and I'm here...so get used to it. There should be uniforms, so everybody can be on an even slate. Let their grades, and ambitions establish who they are, not the clothes on their backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Alchemist Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I'm with Larry and Art on this too. While I do understand the privacy concerns by most, I think it would do more good than harm. If everyone had some form of internal ID tag, the number of missing person cases could be easily be reduced. It could also prevent wrongful convictions of innocent people. It seems like there could be limitless possibilities for this. I'm all for it. As far as what is actually being used, not what the future could hold for this technology, I'm for it too. Seems like an easy way to keep track of kids, and make sure they are in school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller Already, the poorer, disadvantaged kids are being told your here, and I'm here...so get used to it. There should be uniforms, so everybody can be on an even slate. Let their grades, and ambitions establish who they are, not the clothes on their backs. It's OT, but: Heard somebody (Rush's stand-in?) complaining about some "liberal propaganda" that'd been handed out in a Public School. The whole piece, aparantly, was a string of sarcastic "I believe" statements. (As in "Yeah, I believe this. Right..") Aparantly, the one the host particularly objected to was the statement that: "I believe that a person who was admitted to Yale despite a C grade average in High School, was then admitted to Harvard Business School despite a C average at Yale, who then joined the National Guard and was sent to fighter pilot training despite test scores in the bottom 25% of all applicants, possesses the moral standing to declare that he's opposed to affirmative action because it takes opportunities from people who have earned them, and gives them to other people, based on their ancestry." Seemed a funny way of phrasing things, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by Larry It's OT, but: Heard somebody (Rush's stand-in?) complaining about some "liberal propaganda" that'd been handed out in a Public School. The whole piece, aparantly, was a string of sarcastic "I believe" statements. (As in "Yeah, I believe this. Right..") Actually, I think I saw the piece you describe here on extremeskins several months ago. Somebody started a thread on it. It was basically just like you describe. It ended with something about Kofi Annan and the UN. Originally posted by Larry Aparantly, the one the host particularly objected to was the statement that: "I believe that a person who was admitted to Yale despite a C grade average in High School, was then admitted to Harvard Business School despite a C average at Yale, who then joined the National Guard and was sent to fighter pilot training despite test scores in the bottom 25% of all applicants, possesses the moral standing to declare that he's opposed to affirmative action because it takes opportunities from people who have earned them, and gives them to other people, based on their ancestry." Seemed a funny way of phrasing things, to me. It is. I wonder what G.W. would think of it. I'm sure he'd have a few, choice, words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted February 13, 2005 Author Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by Art I find it terribly amusing I would be classified as a fear monger for suggesting we think about developing a system to essentially protect all people, our children included, from a terrible end, yet, you are not at all a fear mongering for worrying about the possibility the government could possibly know where you are. Who's worry do you think is actually more valid? Compare them. Mine is, I worry about people being killed or hurt. Yours is, you worry about the government knowing where you are. Who do you think has a more valid concern? A tracking device as we've previously discussed in this forum would, absolutely, help a child against the abuse of a family member. Why? Because when a child is murdered, you could identify who was with the child at the time. The government already TRIES to do that. I'm all for making sure they CAN do that without any problems. Art, First, I did not call you a fear monger. I called the news media fear mongers, which they are. Second, you have not addressed the article other than say you have no problem with it. You didn't address my points at the end. Third, My points against it, as it is in the news story, are that the principal wants to make his job easier, not make the children safer. He's using the idea of children being abducted, as a selling point. Not in actual use. That IS wrong even if you are in favor of a National ID system. Using parents fear to make your job easier and make your friend a whole bunch of money is wrong. Fourth, A family member who kills a child will have been known to have been with the child before hand. That's why the police already look at family members when murder occurs. No matter the victimless age. The argument that it will make the job easier for police, might be true, but it does nothing to make the child safer from family abuse. Fifth, You keep saying that the government already tries to track us and that you seem ok with that. You should not be happy about that. If the government is trying to track you its for their own good NOT yours. Don't be fooled by the semblance of security. They are not looking out for you or your safety. Sixth, Have you thought about the opposite might occur with children having ID tags? If the government can track children, so can people who want to do harm to children. Seventh, The end does not justify the means. You seem willing to give up your rights and freedoms to the government, so you may feel safer without actually being so, please don't be so caviler with mine. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 There should be uniforms, so everybody can be on an even slate. Let their grades, and ambitions establish who they are, not the clothes on their backs. And who is paying for these uniforms, kids are still going to get judged by things like clothes whether it's in or out of school, you want the parents to have to buy a uniform which probably isn't cheap in addition to having to buy clothes to go out after school and on the weekends. That's really going to help out families in need, I'm sure....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by pr11fan And who is paying for these uniforms, kids are still going to get judged by things like clothes whether it's in or out of school, you want the parents to have to buy a uniform which probably isn't cheap in addition to having to buy clothes to go out after school and on the weekends. That's really going to help out families in need, I'm sure....... If you were family of modest income, what would you rather buy. 5 or 6 pairs of Tommy jeans, or comparable brand that cost approx. $55 dollars a pop. 5 or 6 Nautica sweaters, or comparable brand, that costs approx. $60 dollars. A pair of tennis shoes, or "Timbalands" that cost $120 dollars. (Now keep in mind, if you don't buy these things. Your kid is going to be teased endlessley because he doesn't have them. He can't concentrate on his grades, because he's to worried about trying to impress his piers with what kind of socks he's got on.) or a school uniform of the day, that could be bought for a 1/3 of that price, and the kid could wear it all year. 5, one for each day. As long as he stays away from the donuts, it shouldn't be a problem. I think the only people who have a problem with uniforms, are those that are worried THEIR kids could lose their social status, by being put at the same level as the the poorer kids. Now, THEIR advantage is taken away. They can't assert themselves over the rest of the kids. It becomes more about what you DO, not what you wear. Of course, kids will come up with other ways to try to place themselves into a social peking order, that's natural, but the poor kid shouldn't be judged by what the parents can afford to buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I also think it's good, because the kid learns that the finer things in life, have to be earned not given. If he wants those fine clothes, he will work to get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pr11fan Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 That is all garbage, my parents managed to send me to school with clothes that didn't cost near that much and yet somehow I managed to survive my teenage years, some of the most popular kids in my school looked like the clothes they wore came out of a goodwill box. And oh yeah, you still have to buy your kids more clothes even if you have school uniforms unless you plan on making your kids wear those uniforms on nights and weekends as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by pr11fan That is all garbage, my parents managed to send me to school with clothes that didn't cost near that much and yet somehow I managed to survive my teenage years, some of the most popular kids in my school looked like the clothes they wore came out of a goodwill box. And oh yeah, you still have to buy your kids more clothes even if you have school uniforms unless you plan on making your kids wear those uniforms on nights and weekends as well. I don't know what school you went to, but that is NOT the norm. The most popular kids in school, had clothes on that looked like they came out of a good will box? Yeah right, I don't believe that for a second. and for the sake of argument. Yes, the parents still have to buy their kids clothes for when they aren't in school, but when they aren't in school. Do they have to have on all those expensive clothes? Why not a couple pairs of Levi's, instead of Hilfiger. Why not a couple of cheaper sweaters, instead of the Nautica? Who do they have to impress? Now keep in mind, we are talking about middle-schoolers here, who can't drive themselves anywhere. They only go where the parents take them. If the high-schoolers want the nice clothes, they should get a part-time job and buy them. Start learning some valuable lessons. Nothing comes free, and you have to work for what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.