5 ms·

It's important to note - the students aren't being "chipped" - instead, they are required to carry identification cards that have microchips in them. I guess t

It's important to note - the students aren't being "chipped" - instead, they are required to carry identification cards that have microchips in them. I guess the ick factor comes down to how you feel about living in a surveillance society, and what you think forcing students to accept this type of continuous monitoring will do to them. Students, in general, have fewer rights in a school, and are subject to search without due cause, so, from a legal perspective, not much leg to stand on. I guess I'm kind of nonplussed about all this as I've carried an identification card/chip in every job I've worked at in Silicon Valley since 1996. The benefit has been 24x7 access to the office and all of it's equipments, servers, routers, whenever I wanted to go do work at the cost of the company knowing when I entered the building without tailgating someone (I've never worked at a company that required chipping out). The RFID "distance" monitoring would be somewhat more annoying (if that's a function of this school system) - I'm not sure I'd be too keen on someone knowing my precise physical location on campus at all times, and being able to get a report on that - so I can see the resistance to that.

chris_mahan 14y ago
The problem is that they are required by law to go to the school, so it's not optional for them. In a job situation, you have the option of not working there.
- cracell 14y ago
  On that same note people shouldn't allow their employees to have abusive practices. Carrying a keycard to get into a building is one thing, having a RFID scanner that logs every time I enter the kitchen or bathroom is another.
  - nmridul 14y ago
    There are companies that do that, specially in tele marketing, call centers etc where they also track your time. Everytime you enter the kitchen, take a break, the time stops.. It starts when you are back at your desk.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Is that actually even legal? I think our labor laws might have a huge hole because they don't actually define what constitutes working time. Is there caselaw on the issue?
goodcanadian 14y ago
<quote>Students, in general, have fewer rights in a school, and are subject to search without due cause, so, from a legal perspective, not much leg to stand on.</quote> And I have always had extreme problems with this, particularly when it comes to things like random locker searches. If we don't allow children their rights in school, we are training them to give up their rights as adults. Cynics might say this is exactly what the goal is.
russelluresti 14y ago
It's also important to note that they're not just being asked to carry identification cards, because the students had previous identification cards without the chip that the school is saying aren't valid anymore. The difference between the old card, which doesn't work, and the new card, which does, is the chip. To me, this means that they're being chipped. There's two problems here from my perspective. One is the invasion of privacy, which is just ridiculous. There's no justifiable reason for this Giving people the ability to track the location of another person at any time is wrong. Second is that this "solution" is the wrong way to go about solving their problem. Their issue is that people aren't attending schools, and, thus, the school is losing money. If you were approached with a problem of "people aren't going to school" would your solution be "let's put RFID chips on them?" That's nowhere near an effective solution. This idea punishes both children who do attend and children who do not attend. An ideal solution wouldn't need to punish anyone, but raise attendance through positive and supportive means, such as offering incentives to attend school.

chris_mahan 14y ago

The problem is that they are required by law to go to the school, so it's not optional for them. In a job situation, you have the option of not working there.

cracell 14y ago
On that same note people shouldn't allow their employees to have abusive practices. Carrying a keycard to get into a building is one thing, having a RFID scanner that logs every time I enter the kitchen or bathroom is another.
- nmridul 14y ago
  There are companies that do that, specially in tele marketing, call centers etc where they also track your time. Everytime you enter the kitchen, take a break, the time stops.. It starts when you are back at your desk.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Is that actually even legal? I think our labor laws might have a huge hole because they don't actually define what constitutes working time. Is there caselaw on the issue?

goodcanadian 14y ago

<quote>Students, in general, have fewer rights in a school, and are subject to search without due cause, so, from a legal perspective, not much leg to stand on.</quote> And I have always had extreme problems with this, particularly when it comes to things like random locker searches. If we don't allow children their rights in school, we are training them to give up their rights as adults. Cynics might say this is exactly what the goal is.

russelluresti 14y ago

It's also important to note that they're not just being asked to carry identification cards, because the students had previous identification cards without the chip that the school is saying aren't valid anymore. The difference between the old card, which doesn't work, and the new card, which does, is the chip. To me, this means that they're being chipped. There's two problems here from my perspective. One is the invasion of privacy, which is just ridiculous. There's no justifiable reason for this Giving people the ability to track the location of another person at any time is wrong. Second is that this "solution" is the wrong way to go about solving their problem. Their issue is that people aren't attending schools, and, thus, the school is losing money. If you were approached with a problem of "people aren't going to school" would your solution be "let's put RFID chips on them?" That's nowhere near an effective solution. This idea punishes both children who do attend and children who do not attend. An ideal solution wouldn't need to punish anyone, but raise attendance through positive and supportive means, such as offering incentives to attend school.