6 ms·
Student Suspended for Refusing to Wear RFID Tracker Loses Lawsuit
- drivebyacct2 14y agoPrevious discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4819832 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4819832
- pilom 14y agoThe district offered to let her wear a badge that didn't have an rfid tag but she still refused. This case had nothing to do with rfid tags. The district said she had to wear an id badge and she refused saying that the badge represented the mark of the beast. If anything this is a freedom of religion case not an rfid case.
- Osiris 14y agoThat seems the be the argument: “By declaring Andrea Hernandez’s objections to be a secular choice and not grounded in her religious beliefs, the district court is placing itself as an arbiter of what is and is not religious. This is simply not permissible under our constitutional scheme, and we plan to appeal this immediately,” the institute said in statement.
- canttestthis 14y agoWhere do you draw the line as to what can be considered to be a fair religious objection? Any thing can be interpreted to be the "Mark of the Beast".
- krichman 14y agoI guess then, assuming the appeal works, schools cannot force students to wear arbitrary things. Would that be so awful? On the contrary, a legal precedent like that would be ideal.
- illuminate 14y ago"schools cannot force students to wear arbitrary things" But schools can.
- hayksaakian 14y agoYeah what the fuck? Since when can the government qualify the religousness of my beliefs?
- alexqgb 14y agoRelax, they don't. The well-worn litmus test in these cases is whether the law was written to target religious conduct in particular (e.g. Sikhs can't wear turbans in public) versus a law that applies indiscriminately (like the speed limit) that some people try to evade "on religious grounds." Obviously, the entire edifice of the law would collapse if anyone could exempt themselves from any part of it on the authority of their own incontrovertible say-so.
- eropple 14y agoSince its inception? There is a massive amount of case law defining what is and is not protected based on religiosity (and numerous other classes). Determining what is and is not constitutionally protected is one of the primary purposes of the judicial system in America.
- rprasad 14y agoThis is what the institute said. It is not the logic the court used when tossing her case. Religious liberty has limits. The government is merely required to make reasonable accomodations for religion; it is not required to bend over for religion. Importantly, the use of id badges/bracelets was wholly secular (i.e, no religious or antireligious purposes.) The school offered, as a reasonable accomodation, for the girl to wear a normal id badge without any sort of rfid or other technology. There were no further accomodations the school could reasonably make without burdening everyone else: the teachers, administrators, her fellow students. Thus, requiring further accomodation for her religious beliefs was not reasonable. After all, the girl has the option of going to private school if she truly believes that a simple id badge is against her religion.
- Osiris 14y agoYes, I realize that was what the institute said. My point was showing that the argument they (the girl and her supporters) were making was not about RFID but about freedom of religion.
- param 14y agoPer the article, the school's motivation in adding an RFID tracker was to have more accurate reporting on daily attendance (leading to more federal funding). However, in an attempt to accommodate the student, the school district offered her the choice of wearing a non-RFID badge. I wonder how the school was going to detect her presence without the tag. If they were able to, then they shouldn't do RFID for _anyone_. If they are NOT able to(which I would think is likely), then why ask her to wear the plain badge without RFID? They should have just offered her an exception to make the the whole case go away!
- DigitalSea 14y agoThe identification would be a security measure I am guessing. I went to a public school here in Australia that required you to wear an ID card on a lanyard, there wasn't an RFID chip in it and I didn't see a problem with it. Many jobs I've had have required me to wear an ID card around my neck as well, this girl and her family are just nuts.
- caf 14y agoIt seems to me that the system enables more accurate reporting on daily attendance of ID badges.
- gizmo686 14y agoSo? If a student does not have their badge, the teacher just marks them present by hand. If a bandge does not have its student, the system marks that student present automaticly. Either way, the school gets payed.
- caf 14y agoI thought this could go unstated, but presumably the intention is to encourage the attendance of students, not badges.
- tomjen3 14y agoNo. That is undeniably the original intent behind the federal law. The school, however, institutet that requirement because they want more money; they might care about student attendence, but that is only a secondary concern.
- DigitalSea 14y agoDid it ever occur to the girl that wearing an identification lanyard is perhaps a security measure by the school to ensure only people permitted to be on the grounds are on the school grounds? I think the RFID chip is a great idea. It prevents people wagging and as mentioned prevents just anyone from walking into the school pretending to be a student. They presented a compromise of removing the chip and it wasn't good enough, there's no religious belief trespassing here just stupidity and defiance for school policy. Here in Australia the public school I attended required me to wear an ID card (no RFID though) on a lanyard for security purposes so they could identify people who weren't supposed to be there. I don't see the problem because a couple of places I've worked at have required the same thing and all Government jobs also require a lanyard with ID displayed at all times.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 14y agoI'm sort of with you. I've never really understood what the objection was to RFID badges in schools. My kids already wear ID badges in public schools. Why would I be upset by better ones? It's not like they're being tracked at all times. They're in school. They're not even allowed to go to the bathroom without asking.
- dmix 14y agoI guess some people have different expectations of freedom and privacy we allow our kids.
- DigitalSea 14y agoIn what ways does an RFID chip or ID badge on a lanyard restrict the freedom of kids whilst at school? As for privacy, I don't see how an RFID chip or ID card does that either. Passports have RFID chips in them as well as our photo and other identifying info we're forced to have when visiting another country, do passports infringe upon privacy as well? My drivers licence here in Australia has my photo on it as well as an in-built chip, is it infringing my privacy when I am asked to show it at the liquor store or anywhere requiring proof of identification?
- ck2 14y agoGet kids trained early. Next put them into all adult ID cards and make it illegal to walk around outside without one. Police can just drive through a neighborhood and see who everyone is and their drones can just tag you and watch you move through your day. Don't have a chip on? Then get a forced iris scan like the US military does in Iraq and Afghanistan. The future freaking terrifies me, especially how people just roll over and accept it.
- dreamdu5t 14y agoWhat terrifies you in this scenario? That the technology would be used by people other than the police, or that the police require identification?
- throwaway125 14y agoSeveral things: 1) Mass scale surveillance becomes trivial and you'll end up in a database of suspects even if you've never broken the law 2) Your identity can be checked without your knowledge regardless of probable cause 3) The technology might not be safe, but this is much less of an issue than #1 and #2
- ck2 14y agoYour response terrifies me even further. You don't see a problem with giving the police extreme powers? How about the police pulling up outside a neighborhood and making everyone get in a line for TSA-like gropes and clone everyone's cellphone because there were some crimes in the area recently (this actually happens now, not entire neighborhoods but select individuals at their whim). Tell me where you draw the line and how police won't immediately abuse any power they are given? Let me know how you feel after your first encounter with the police someday.
- jrockway 14y agoStop-and-frisk was struck down in court earlier today.
- 14y ago
- OGinparadise 14y ago>> "Student Suspended for Refusing to Wear RFID Tracker Loses Lawsuit" Student Suspended for Refusing to Wear Any Identification Badge Loses Lawsuit
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- andrewfelix 14y agoI think the title is misleading... "The girl’s father, Steven, wrote the school district explaining why removing the chip wasn’t good enough" The title should read "Student Suspended for Refusing to Wear ID Loses Lawsuit" This case had little to do with RFID. It had more to do with religion.
- Falling3 14y agoHow about crazy teenager misunderstands religion and loses lawsuit?
- eru 14y agoWhat do you mean by misunderstand? If that's what she believes in, than that's her religion. (Different people already interprete Christion scripture in a different way.)
- drivebyacct2 14y agoOh it's fun to write off religions that make religion look bad as "misunderstood". It's the perfect explanation for why ¬(my religion) should be ignored. It's also up the valley of "No True Scotsman", a favorite among the religious.
- malandrew 14y agoWhy does she just microwave the badge? Destroys the RFID but she is still wearing the badge. Another option is to use RFID blocking materials like several layers of aluminum foil.
- illuminate 14y agoShe's refused to wear non-RFID based badges.
- bcoates 14y agoArticle is wrong. The student didn't lose the lawsuit, she lost the motion for an injunction that would prohibit the school from expelling her for refusing to wear the badge. The lawsuit is allowed to proceed. IANAL, but the decision still looks crazy to me: It centers around Employment Division v. Smith, which is no longer good law federally or in Texas as the Federal and Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Acts were passed specifically to overturn that decision. They create a new statutory right that forbids the government from using the powers in Smith. The court interprets the new laws to not forbid anything that would be allowed by Smith, which IMHO is not a credible reading of the law and pretty disrespectful of the Texas State Legislature's right to control the Texas school system.
- pteredactyl 14y agoTechnology for technology's sake. But at least I can easily create box-shadows now or know my geo-coordinates at all times! PS - This article is on the frontpage of msn.com