RFID Tags and California Pre-School Students

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't know if you're aware, but kids don't really have a whole lot of rights. Parents get to make the vast majority of their decisions for them--especially when we're talking about little kids, as in this situation.

That doesn't justify treating the kids like mindless cattle. And besides, if it's so easy to dismiss them as having no rights, it'll be just that much easier to take away *our* rights later on...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't know if you're aware, but kids don't really have a whole lot of rights. Parents get to make the vast majority of their decisions for them--especially when we're talking about little kids, as in this situation.

That doesn't justify treating the kids like mindless cattle. And besides, if it's so easy to dismiss them as having no rights, it'll be just that much easier to take away *our* rights later on...

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! </Morbo>

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

"Morbo"?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Futurama reference. I should have known better.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ ... than to use an animated TV comedy as a reference on personal rights and freedoms? Yes, I think so.

My position stands, BTW.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Your position doesn't amount to much. As long as the parents are OK with this there is really nothing shady going on here. We could discuss the implications of RFID tracking in general, which are admittedly a bit spooky but have been absurdly blown out of proportion. For instance, scanning range for RFID chips is not that far. It's not like having a GPS embedded in you so someone can track your every movement. It's only relevant when you come near an RFID sensor.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As long as the parents are OK with this there is really nothing shady going on here.

Perhaps not, but when the inevitable attempts to expand RFID coverage into larger areas occur, who will stick up for us then? If a parent objects to their kid being tracked, they can presumably do something about it, but non-students don't have that luxury.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

As long as the parents are OK with this there is really nothing shady going on here.

Perhaps not, but when the inevitable attempts to expand RFID coverage into larger areas occur, who will stick up for us then? If a parent objects to their kid being tracked, they can presumably do something about it, but non-students don't have that luxury.

Please give me an example, because right now you're being so vague and hypothetical there is nothing to respond to.

 

[bigdaddy]

Stupid idea that wouldn't work.

An ignorant statement with no evidence to back it up.

How does a shirt know if you ate?

Easy: your shirt is scanned as you pass through the lunch line. While it can't guarantee you ate, it can at least be certain you showed up and got your lunch.

You can give the shirt to someone else and still get credited for attendance.

It isn't about getting credit for attendance (at least not solely), it's about safety. Even though the original article is no longer available, the snippet the OP quoted even says this!

It seems to me that the school is too lazy to actually do their job so they want shirts to do it for them.

Or they're trying to put an additional safety measure in place to better keep track of the kids and avoid things like kidnappings and kids getting lost.

I can't believe there is someone in favor of this! Even the Yankee fan sees this is wrong. What did we do 10-20- 50 years ago to look after children? Oh that's right... teachers actually looked after the children! Who needs them to do their job! Nah! Not needed!

Maybe the government can look after everyone, that way if someone is killed they can see if you were near them at the time of the murder.

It's a horrible idea and I would never let my child go to a school like that.

 

[scotpens]

I don't know if you're aware, but kids don't really have a whole lot of rights. Parents get to make the vast majority of their decisions for them--especially when we're talking about little kids, as in this situation.

No one is disputing the fact that minor children are ipso facto incompetent, or that schools and teachers act in loco parentis. But there's a difference between in loco parentis and just plain loco.

It seems to me that the school is too lazy to actually do their job so they want shirts to do it for them.

Or they're trying to put an additional safety measure in place to better keep track of the kids and avoid things like kidnappings and kids getting lost.

Considering the astronomical odds against a child being kidnapped from school or wandering off the school grounds and getting lost (and yes, despite today's paranoia about child safety, that sort of thing happens very, very rarely), I'd say this is the equivalent of setting up a tornado warning system in New York. Big Brother issues aside, it's simply a waste of money.

I can't believe there is someone in favor of this! Even the Yankee fan sees this is wrong. What did we do 10-20- 50 years ago to look after children? Oh that's right... teachers actually looked after the children! Who needs them to do their job! Nah! Not needed!

Maybe the government can look after everyone, that way if someone is killed they can see if you were near them at the time of the murder.

It's a horrible idea and I would never let my child go to a school like that.

THIS. ^^

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Mr. Laser Beam,

It sounds extremely creepy and invasive.

Tell me about it

(Do the kids even *know* they're being tracked?)

It doesn't really explicitly say whether the students are aware of their being tracked or not...

BTW, that link doesn't work.

Here are some new links which cover the same topic

- http://www.aclunc.org/issues/techno...ety_questions_loom_over_federal_program.shtml
- http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/12479/california-head-start-using-rfid-to-track-preschoolers/
- http://www.livescience.com/technology/rfid-tags-tracking-preschoolers-100903.html


Jetfire,

Thank you for visiting San Jose Mercury News. We are sorry the article that you requested is no longer available. Please search for this article in our archive search.

Sorry, here are several new links

- http://www.aclunc.org/issues/techno...ety_questions_loom_over_federal_program.shtml
- http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/12479/california-head-start-using-rfid-to-track-preschoolers/
- http://www.livescience.com/technology/rfid-tags-tracking-preschoolers-100903.html

And yes it is a horrible idea, creepy & invasive.

The cons far outweigh the pros


Mr. Laser Beam,

First the children. What next?

Well, actually livestock were tracked first, now they're graduating to humans. I find it highly disturbing that they wish to require children to wear articles of clothing that contain a tracking device within them.


Robert Maxwell,

Yeah, well, call me when people are being chipped against their will.

Wouldn't it be kind of a bit too late by that point?


Mr. Laser Beam,

No one's asking the kids, are they? So whoever comes next probably won't get a choice either.

Entirely possible, depending on who may be next. I would suspect sex offenders would be the most likely to be the next on the list. We already require them to register with the police as a condition of release; new laws could require an RFID chip to be an additional condition of release.

Being that nobody cares what their "rights" are, it would not be very difficult to accomplish.


Jetfire,

I think parents should be able to opt in(out?).

I'm not sure if parents currently have the right to opt-out. They should, though.


Mr. Laser Beam,

What's really scary is that this whole thing with the kids seems, on the surface at least, to be so logical...oh yeah, 'won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN?', obviously they need to be tagged, yadda yadda yadda.

Agreed

But like I said: slippery slope. Surveillance of the kids today, surveillance of everybody tomorrow. Where does it end?

Who knows?


Big Daddy,

I can't believe there is someone in favor of this!

Yeah, me neither. One thing I've learned in the past couple of years, is that you'll find at least one person in favor of almost anything.

Even the Yankee fan sees this is wrong.

Why? Is he normally very conservative?

It's a horrible idea and I would never let my child go to a school like that.

I'm very glad to hear that (I wouldn't send a child of mine to a school like that either)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Even the Yankee fan sees this is wrong.

Why? Is he normally very conservative?

I pretty much am, yeah, but I don't see what being a Yankee fan has to do with this...

But there's a difference between in loco parentis and just plain loco.

True dat...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Putting inexpensive tracking technology on young children in the context of a school provides a reasonable safety benefit at a low cost. No one here has suggested we start tagging adults or even older children so that their movements can be tracked. I'd be the first person to come out against that sort of thing.

But what we have here is a limited, reasonable use in a particular setting. "Slippery slope," my ass.

 

[RedShirt]

I have yet to see a cogent argument for how this system is "invasive" and violates anyone's expectations of privacy or safety during school hours while on school grounds.

Considering that school systems around the country are being told to do more & more with less & less (a situation that is only gotten worse in the recession) I can understand the desire to find any tool to help ease the burden on the staff.
These tags would not replace adult supervision but be used as a tool to take over time-consuming administrative functions so that teachers & staff can focus on more constructive time with the kids.

This is bad how, exactly?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I have yet to see a cogent argument for how this system is "invasive" and violates anyone's expectations of privacy or safety during school hours while on school grounds.

And the school stops tracking the students when they leave, does it? That would be the pickle on the giant gravel sandwich that is this issue.

No one here has suggested we start tagging adults or even older children so that their movements can be tracked. I'd be the first person to come out against that sort of thing.

Maybe no one *here* is suggesting that, but somewhere else, somebody's thinking about it. You can be sure of that.

As for older children, surely you remember the thing about the laptops being used to spy on students?

 

[MetalPants]

So anyone know the distance that RFID chips can be detected? In a retail setting, where the products you are already buying are chipped, they can be detected 8-10 feet away from the scanner. In a documentary about one low security prison, it talked about how prisoners and guards alike wore monitoring devices that showed their positions at all times. I'm just not understanding the fuss here.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ In the original example, there'd be sensors all over the school, which can in turn be monitored from a central location. So the short RFID range really doesn't matter there.

 

[MetalPants]

^ In the original example, there'd be sensors all over the school, which can in turn be monitored from a central location. So the short RFID range really doesn't matter there.

Yeah, and?

Once you're off the school grounds, the chips don't work anymore.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And like I keep saying, what's next? Would you let them do this to you in your place of work (wherever that may be)?

 

[MetalPants]

they already do

Now if they were to start putting up giant towers that scan for rfid chip everyhwere all the time, yeah, I might have a problem with it. In certain locations for certain uses, no, no problem