[TwentyPercentCooler]

Exactly. You're essentially proposing suing the school for viewing public information. Where's logic in here?

No, my point of contention is in what the schools ultimately do with this information. When they (inevitably) try to punish a student for something that would be disallowed on school grounds but that actually isn't related to that student's conduct at school, that would be the time to raise the issue.

Here's a pretty decent paper on what I'm talking about: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2244564

[Dragon]

No, my point of contention is in what the schools ultimately do with this information. When they (inevitably) try to punish a student for something that would be disallowed on school grounds but that actually isn't related to that student's conduct at school, that would be the time to raise the issue.

Why did you say "inevitably"? Maybe it wouldn't happen. Though in reality, at some point, it probably would happen, in a display of system abuse. Then and only then there would be the time to break out the lawsuit. The lawsuit would not be against the system itself, but rather against the abuser. The system is fine, and if it gets used for what it's intended for, there's no problem and indeed, it could really help against new forms of bullying that appeared recently. No system is entirely abuse-proof, punishing the abusers is what Justice system is for.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

No, my point of contention is in what the schools ultimately do with this information. When they (inevitably) try to punish a student for something that would be disallowed on school grounds but that actually isn't related to that student's conduct at school, that would be the time to raise the issue.

Why did you say "inevitably"? Maybe it wouldn't happen. Though in reality, at some point, it probably would happen, in a display of system abuse. Then and only then there would be the time to break out the lawsuit. The lawsuit would not be against the system itself, but rather against the abuser. The system is fine, and if it gets used for what it's intended for, there's no problem and indeed, it could really help against new forms of bullying that appeared recently. No system is entirely abuse-proof, punishing the abusers is what Justice system is for.

I'd like to think it wouldn't happen, but I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the system is fine as-is. As it stands, there are no legally defined boundaries, and I think that the situation is inviting abuse. I would be happy if the boundaries were clearly defined - if I happen to disagree with where they're set, them's the breaks. But as I see it, if students are committing criminal acts outside of school, we already have authorities that deal with that kind of thing. They're called the police. If they're not committing criminal acts, then the school has no business taking any kind of action. Our justice system isn't perfect, but just monitoring everyone all the time until they inevitably break the law so we can hammer them for every mistake isn't the answer.

Please note the following is very much an opinion: my biggest problem with the whole mess is that our school system just doesn't need to be wasting time and manpower on this kind of thing. They complain about being underfunded and then turn around and spend what money they do get on useless garbage that either has nothing to do with education or just doesn't help as much as actually paying educators what their role in society is worth. Because of the incredibly low wages, public education is no longer an appealing career choice. Private and charter schools in affluent areas can offer better wages and attract all the talent, and it's causing the education gap between the wealthy and the not-wealthy to grow. How much time and money are they planning on wasting on re-enacting 1984?

[MP-Ryan]

... AND/OR government collects all of student's private-not-just-public information because it wants it for some nefarious reason (Luis).

There is a gigantic logical/evidentiary failure in and around point 3.

This is a strawman. Nowhere did I say that the intent is nefarious. Nor do I even understand what is this "government intention". People are people and they'll use and abuse any kind of system, specially one of control and surveillance.

Hmmm.

It's the reality. The society is *already* collapsing to this truth that everyone is spied upon. It's like you aren't paying attention to all the shenanigans involving the NSA and how apparently every country's government is merely jealous of the technological advantage that the US has over them, not about the ethical problems associated with it. Companies *do* wonder about your online activities and *do* pressure you to see your own facebook pages, etc. This is not some "dystopian nightmare" that some lunatic is bringing up to scaremonger you. It's reality. It's happening all over the place and it will only get worse.

Maybe you'd like to clarify your meaning?

Now I do not see how practically making sure to every student that they are on record about everything they say or write and that someone is hired specifically to watch any missted they make while they are on their own lives and so on as a "positive thing". We are basically creating the scaffold of a society that is taught that their internet lives are 100% controlled by the institution they happen to be studying in or working in.

How is this even supposed to avoid any kind of internet bullying is also pretty much beyond me. The students have too much spare time, too much ingenuity when they are really psyched into things, too much jackassery on their spirits. How will they ever control every account that any cretin will remember to create just to make a photoshop "attack" or to start rumours or to post pictures or whatever? Will they also log every IP and try to track down any kind of anonymous harrassment to their actual real life attacker?

All legitimate criticisms of the policy.

I'm getting annoyed that I have to keep repeating myself. I am not in favour of this school policy; I merely point out that a number of the earlier arguments against it (pages 1 and 2, primarily) are/were quite weak.

[Lorric]

Please note the following is very much an opinion: my biggest problem with the whole mess is that our school system just doesn't need to be wasting time and manpower on this kind of thing.

Don't underestimate the positive effect removing disruptive elements has.

[Dragon]

The paper you posted seems to imply that such boundaries already exists (though I'm not a lawyer, it's probably not so simple). I see nothing that indicates school will actually do something about anything that's not criminal action or abusive behavior. If it does overstep it's competences, then then it's off to court.

Our justice system isn't perfect, but just monitoring everyone all the time until they inevitably break the law so we can hammer them for every mistake isn't the answer.

"Inevitably" again. No, it's not inevitable that one will break the law. There are people who carry on with their lives without breaking a single law in their lifetime. In fact, most American people never ran afoul of the law. So, unless you're actually talking about an actual certainty (i.e. death and taxes), stop with the "inevitably". Most people have no business breaking the law.

While making school system responsible for this might not be the best idea, who else would you task with that? The NSA? They're not exactly made for taking care of the children (though given their overinflated funding, they could certainly afford that). A new organization? As if there weren't enough of them already. Schools do have some experience in this matter, so they seem the least problematic choice here. They're underfunded, yes, but perhaps the answer is to increase their funding. As for where to get it? I'm pretty sure NSA and TSA don't need all this money they're getting, especially the latter.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

The paper you posted seems to imply that such boundaries already exists (though I'm not a lawyer, it's probably not so simple). I see nothing that indicates school will actually do something about anything that's not criminal action or abusive behavior. If it does overstep it's competences, then then it's off to court.

Our justice system isn't perfect, but just monitoring everyone all the time until they inevitably break the law so we can hammer them for every mistake isn't the answer.

"Inevitably" again. No, it's not inevitable that one will break the law. There are people who carry on with their lives without breaking a single law in their lifetime. In fact, most American people never ran afoul of the law. So, unless you're actually talking about an actual certainty (i.e. death and taxes), stop with the "inevitably". Most people have no business breaking the law.

While making school system responsible for this might not be the best idea, who else would you task with that? The NSA? They're not exactly made for taking care of the children (though given their overinflated funding, they could certainly afford that). A new organization? As if there weren't enough of them already. Schools do have some experience in this matter, so they seem the least problematic choice here. They're underfunded, yes, but perhaps the answer is to increase their funding. As for where to get it? I'm pretty sure NSA and TSA don't need all this money they're getting, especially the latter.

Everyone has broken the law at some point. We have some really, really ridiculous, overly specific, and laughably outdated laws on the books. In fact, if you look hard enough, you could probably find examples of most people breaking some kind of law every single day. People who go through life with clean records simply either haven't been caught breaking laws or just haven't broken any that are actually enforced. I've never even been pulled over for a traffic violation, but that doesn't mean I've never done anything wrong.

As to who should be monitoring everyone all the time, the correct answer is no one, because there's a critical point where far-reaching power invites far more problems than it solves. At some level, I believe we have to accept that humanity is not perfect, society is not perfect, and no matter how hard we try, some things are going to slip through the cracks. Making everyone into a criminal because they said something unwise once on Facebook is not the answer to...well, whatever sufficiently nebulous problem this surveillance is supposed to solve. Schools becoming big brother because of some generic "think of the children" tagline is unnecessarily alarmist. If this is about bullying, the schools already have the power to cut down on it, and they have for quite some time. The problem is that they're allowing bad parents to interfere with the process. At some point bullying also can run afoul of the law, and that's where the school's authority ends and the police should be informed. And again, if it's for criminal behaviour, that's what the police are for.

If all the schools ever do is inform the proper authorities of possible criminal activity, then there's nothing wrong with that. But if you think they'll stop there, you haven't had to deal with any school administrators. There are already plenty of stories about punishments for non-criminal activity. Do you remember the story about the school laptops that had webcams that could be activated remotely, and that a student was disciplined for "improper behaviour" that took place in his own room? The FBI had to step in and investigate the school district. The really disgusting thing is that using webcams and keyloggers to spy on students wasn't found to be illegal, because it should be. I know that this thread was referring more to public Facebook posts and the like, but again, we already have a system in place for that. If you see illegal behaviour, harassment, or bullying on Facebook, report it to the moderators and the police, if necessary. Educating people about their rights, responsibilities, and obligations is the best possible solution - which, ironically, is part of what the schools are SUPPOSED to be doing, not spying on students.

EDIT: I want to clarify that I'm not trying to come across as confrontational - I don't disagree that the schools have problems, bullying is a problem, harassment is a problem, etc. And, I agree there's really nothing inherently wrong about searching public information. I just don't think turning the school district into the NSA is the right solution.

[docfu]

Everyone has broken the law at some point.

...

[karajorma]

Popular sentiment is not evidence, Luis.  Furthermore, this school policy is not a law.  Indeed, the potential for abuse of voluntarily and publicly posted information collected from public spaces is pretty much zero.  Your right to privacy for publicly-shared information is zero.

Really?

When you are out in public, anyone who knows you can see your face and recognise you. You've chosen to leave your house and therefore you have no right to assume you won't be noticed. What you are arguing is that this fact makes it perfectly acceptable for the police to track everyone in the country using facial recognition software. Or for a private company to do the same thing.

[swashmebuckle]

I will have some mixed feelings on the day the paparazzi lose their jobs to surveillance drones.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

Everyone has broken the law at some point.

...

Seriously, go check out some of the insanely dumb laws that are still in place around the world. In some states in the US, it's still illegal to have sex in any position but missionary.

These laws aren't enforced, because everyone knows that they're dumb, but they still technically COULD be enforced if one was so inclined.

[Luis Dias]

Maybe you'd like to clarify your meaning?

Well, I think I am being clear. The only one thing positive I see about this has been touched already, which is the idea that we are letting the kids know how creepy and jackassery the society at large will be against them, by giving them the living example of their own school spying on them. They will be taught that the society we are building is **** and doesn't take anything about you to be private, unless it's something you hide inside your brain to anyone else. They will learn by themselves to cope with the new reality instead of being thrown to the sharks when they get out of school.

It's not a beautiful thing. It's more a "Let's beat up the kids so they don't get such pussies when they get out" kinda of education.

I'm getting annoyed that I have to keep repeating myself. I am not in favour of this school policy; I merely point out that a number of the earlier arguments against it (pages 1 and 2, primarily) are/were quite weak.

I wasn't reading your words like that, and for that I apologize!

[docfu]

Everyone has broken the law at some point.

...

Seriously, go check out some of the insanely dumb laws that are still in place around the world. In some states in the US, it's still illegal to have sex in any position but missionary.

These laws aren't enforced, because everyone knows that they're dumb, but they still technically COULD be enforced if one was so inclined.

Naw, I was just thinking about how I was born Catholic and because I haven't reported into the church recently I'm considered AWOL by God...

Laws should really have expiration dates...

[Dragon]

Everyone has broken the law at some point.

...

Seriously, go check out some of the insanely dumb laws that are still in place around the world. In some states in the US, it's still illegal to have sex in any position but missionary.

These laws aren't enforced, because everyone knows that they're dumb, but they still technically COULD be enforced if one was so inclined.

You don't want to seriously say anyone would be willing to enforce such dumb, outdated laws, right? Aside from lawyers really well versed in the particular state law, hardly anybody even knows about their existence. There should be a system for clearing off those absurds, but since there isn't, everyone, including the law enforcement and federal government simply ignore them. An overzealous cop wanting to fine someone for having sex in a weird position would be laughed off, and if the issue went to court (as improbable as it is), the law would be swiftly removed.

In this light, you'd be technically right saying "almost everybody has broken the law at some point", but it'd be meaningless, since for most people, the law in question is forgotten anyway, and for a good reason. I haven't heard of any recent case where such a "quirk law" came up and was seriously considered.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

You don't want to seriously say anyone would be willing to enforce such dumb, outdated laws, right? Aside from lawyers really well versed in the particular state law, hardly anybody even knows about their existence. There should be a system for clearing off those absurds, but since there isn't, everyone, including the law enforcement and federal government simply ignore them. An overzealous cop wanting to fine someone for having sex in a weird position would be laughed off, and if the issue went to court (as improbable as it is), the law would be swiftly removed.

This isn't the way things work in practice.  There are many cases where certain cops have grudges against certain people and use these laws to basically harass those people.  If the charges get dropped or not is also about who you know not how stupid or archaic the law is.  Things like spitting, j-walking (not ever enforced around here and there aren't even any crosswalks), parking distance from a curb, drinking alcohol in your own yard because it is visible from a public street (although legal if it's your back yard)....  There are many examples. 

Also these things come up in court cases.   One of the more famous ones was a case where a husband was on trial and admitted to preforming oral sex on his wife while on the stand.  He won the case he was being tried for but was sentenced to something like 20 years because the oral sex was against state law and he confessed under oath.  Yes this was recent case (probably a bit longer then I think but something like in the last 10 years). 

[TwentyPercentCooler]

You don't want to seriously say anyone would be willing to enforce such dumb, outdated laws, right? Aside from lawyers really well versed in the particular state law, hardly anybody even knows about their existence. There should be a system for clearing off those absurds, but since there isn't, everyone, including the law enforcement and federal government simply ignore them. An overzealous cop wanting to fine someone for having sex in a weird position would be laughed off, and if the issue went to court (as improbable as it is), the law would be swiftly removed.

This isn't the way things work in practice.  There are many cases where certain cops have grudges against certain people and use these laws to basically harass those people.  If the charges get dropped or not is also about who you know not how stupid or archaic the law is.  Things like spitting, j-walking (not ever enforced around here and there aren't even any crosswalks), parking distance from a curb, drinking alcohol in your own yard because it is visible from a public street (although legal if it's your back yard)....  There are many examples. 

Also these things come up in court cases.   One of the more famous ones was a case where a husband was on trial and admitted to preforming oral sex on his wife while on the stand.  He won the case he was being tried for but was sentenced to something like 20 years because the oral sex was against state law and he confessed under oath.  Yes this was recent case (probably a bit longer then I think but something like in the last 10 years).

Yeah, this is the unfortunate truth. It only takes one power-mad, angry, bitter, petty, or otherwise malicious person with far too much time on their hands to destroy the integrity of...well, whatever the intention of this whole thing is. And adults can be very, VERY petty. Especially when kids are involved. What happens when someone in charge of the monitoring gets in an argument with a parent? The kid might as well drop out and check themselves into juvie, because they're done.

[MP-Ryan]

Popular sentiment is not evidence, Luis.  Furthermore, this school policy is not a law.  Indeed, the potential for abuse of voluntarily and publicly posted information collected from public spaces is pretty much zero.  Your right to privacy for publicly-shared information is zero.

Really?

When you are out in public, anyone who knows you can see your face and recognise you. You've chosen to leave your house and therefore you have no right to assume you won't be noticed. What you are arguing is that this fact makes it perfectly acceptable for the police to track everyone in the country using facial recognition software. Or for a private company to do the same thing.

There is a difference between state-run surveillance programs and publicly-available information, and the courts generally recognize this.

As I've said several times, the courts acknowledge that privacy rights fall on a continuum of privacy interest.  When you post something publicly online or shout it publicly on a street, you make that information available to anyone who wants to see it, hear it, collect it.  There is nothing preventing anyone from collecting that sort of information - but once they do collect it it does attract certain privacy requirements when collated and organized into a file or database, particularly if collected by government.

That's information.

When it comes to people's movements, the courts acknowledge that people expect a certain degree of anonymity; thus, widespread use of surveillance and facial-recognition software by a police or other government-affiliated organization is unlikely to pass muster as it rapidly becomes a means of accessing private information.  Where you are at any given moment in public is not private information - a passing police officer can record that in their notes at will.  Where it attracts privacy interest is when a series of such observations are used to form a record of a person's movements.  While you can have no expectation of privacy concerning your presence at discrete points in public, you can have a limited expectation of privacy concerning your general movements and records of them.

However - the UK has widespread CCTV already.  It doesn't run afoul of privacy law.  Police organizations routinely conduct surveillance without warrant - they can legally follow and record a person of interest in public wherever they go.  That doesn't run afoul of privacy law.  Private investigators can do the same thing.  You can take a picture of anyone you like in public too.  While people think their right to privacy is absolute, in public spaces you have virtually no privacy interest concerning anything that is readily visible or audible to anyone else around you.

Concerning widespread video surveillance and facial recognition software, the privacy interest is triggered not during collection of information, but after recording - those records in the possession of whomever monitors and reviews it is subject to certain privacy considerations (for government agencies).  This is because there is inherently private information in facial-recognition databases.  That said, any private business is free to film the street outside their entrance and install facial-recognition software, though why they'd want to I have no idea.

As in the case with school board, the best way to oppose practices like this is not dubious legal claims, but political pressure on the decision makers.  Or get your legislative body to pass a law explicitly limiting it.

[MP-Ryan]

One of the more famous ones was a case where a husband was on trial and admitted to preforming oral sex on his wife while on the stand.  He won the case he was being tried for but was sentenced to something like 20 years because the oral sex was against state law and he confessed under oath.  Yes this was recent case (probably a bit longer then I think but something like in the last 10 years).

I don't dispute that there are a number of very questionable laws still on the books, but you're going to have to provide a citation for something as hyperbolic as that.  Sex offences of that nature have never had sentences approaching anywhere near that kind of length.  Furthermore, many democracies actually don't allow testimony made under oath to be used against you in other proceedings except for perjury.

[Dragon]

Yeah, it seems very strange to me, too. Could you link to the case or something? It seems very suspicious that an ancient law prohibiting oral sex would get someone a sentence normally issued for murders. It's conceivable that such a sentence could've happened for other reasons (say, a corrupt judge), but even then, I'm convinced it wouldn't survive an appeal.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

One of the more famous ones was a case where a husband was on trial and admitted to preforming oral sex on his wife while on the stand.  He won the case he was being tried for but was sentenced to something like 20 years because the oral sex was against state law and he confessed under oath.  Yes this was recent case (probably a bit longer then I think but something like in the last 10 years).

I don't dispute that there are a number of very questionable laws still on the books, but you're going to have to provide a citation for something as hyperbolic as that.  Sex offences of that nature have never had sentences approaching anywhere near that kind of length.  Furthermore, many democracies actually don't allow testimony made under oath to be used against you in other proceedings except for perjury.

Guess it was longer ago then I thought (damn I'm getting old) but here is a link about the case:  http://www.tinadupuy.com/column/legalized-oral-sex-sodomy-and-immoral-prosecutions/