5 ms·

A judge has granted her a reprieve [1] based on freedom of speech and freedom of religion grounds. The student claimed it violated her religious beliefs. I don'

• Evbn 14y ago
  Privacy is not a legal right in general, beyond some particilar subclasses like searches and seizures.
  • charonn0 14y ago
    Perhaps it ought to be?
  • MereInterest 14y ago
    No, it's there, just not explicitly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
  • Zigurd 14y ago
    That's a general error, such as claiming there is no right to travel, or freedom of movement in general. You have the "sense" of rights backward. The reason internal passports would be unconstitutional in America would be that the restriction of freedom of movement is not a power delegated to the federal government. That's why in the BoR it has words to the effect "this is not an exhaustive list of your rights."
  • RollAHardSix 14y ago
    I respectfully disagree. Although, this only refers to the government...well schools are government too lol...but you know what I'm getting at, I would think that whether it's the school or the government would yield no major differences in the outcome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) ...Although if the device only tracks around the school and not 24-hour...that's another layer to be considered. Very complicated matter from a legal standpoint. As for my personal ethics, I'd tell my daughter to take it off.
    • clavalle 14y ago
      Why? Would you tell your daughter not to sit in her assigned seat when they take attendance?
  • alayne 14y ago
    Many people believe that privacy is a fundamental human right. The UN lists it in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  • rquantz 14y ago
    There absolutely is a right to privacy. See the earlier response about Griswold v. Connecticut. I see people frequently saying privacy or things are not rights because they are not enumerated in the Constitution. Please note, however, the Ninth Amendement: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, the people have rights other than those in the Bill of Rights. Courts have determined a number of rights that are not in the Constitution, among them the right to privacy, often based on the fact that people have reserved that right and not been denied it in the past. Some people, for instance, believe that, while the individual right to bear arms is not in the Constitution, there is a strong Ninth Amendment case for it[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#cite_note-Espohl_97-53 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms#cit...
  • pcote 14y ago
    The Row v. Wade decision inferred a constitutional right to privacy within the 14th amendment. If this right exists, then it makes no sense to limit it to specific subclasses.
    • derleth 14y ago
      > Row v. Wade I believe that's what anglers fight over. (It's Roe v. Wade, as in Richard Roe, John Doe's old friend, a classic fake name used by the courts for various purposes. In this case, it was used to protect the identity of the woman seeking the abortion.)
      • lotharbot 14y ago
        See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe It's interesting to note that "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade revealed her identity just a few days after the trial ended. She later became a high-profile pro-life activist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
• irahul 14y ago
  > I don't begrudge anyone the right to practice their religion, but I do wish it had been based on her right to privacy. As much as I dislike it, most of the times when you are on someone else's playground, you have to play by their rules. When the govt. comes at you saying "internet needs to be censored because who will think of the children", making up another "think of the children" argument has more mass appeal than talking about how free and open is good. > Like most state-financed schools, the district’s budget is tied to average daily attendance. If a student is not in his seat during morning roll call, the district doesn’t receive daily funding for that pupil because the school has no way of knowing for sure if the student is there. So if this is all there is to it, why not just have a swipe-in and swipe-out at the main gate? If a student has swiped-in, he has entered the campus. Swipe-out will be just an assurance that the student didn't swipe-in and leave immediately. And is some students are concerned that it's still a smart card and can be used for tracking, or they really don't want it on religious grounds, have a biometric system(thumbprint or retina). That will be cheaper than giving everyone an RFID card.
  • clavalle 14y ago
    A biometric system is cheaper than RFID readers? Not by a long shot. The simple reason they don't have kids swipe in and out is because they simply won't do it. You can get employees to do it because they are paid. Not only that, but it would create foot-traffic jams at exits. RFID is just a better solution that is equivalent, from a data gathering standpoint, to the solutions you put forward.
    • ZoFreX 14y ago
      Why not use the RFID tags to "swipe" in and out (e.g. just have a reader at the entrance), rather than tracking their exact location across the whole campus?
      • nodata 14y ago
        Upvoted. Readers at the entrances sounds like a good compromise.